Replies

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Pit bull attack leaves Texas grandmother hospitalized with over 100 stitches, srmanuel wrote:

You’re right about what guns don’t do, but what they are capable of doing when in the hands of irresponsible owners who leave them laying around, they kill children that play with them.

I mentioned a mother and daughter on opposites sides of the door, with the family dog maiming and eat flesh from mom's leg. They attack their own family members who had them indoors. If you're saying they should be caged outdoors for safety, I agree with you. Let those willing to take the risks enter the cage. Let other family members live in the house safe from the family 'dog'.

Ask yourself, if Pit Bulls were gone tomorrow, what would the people who own them do, live without owning a dog or get some other aggressive breed like a Rottweiler, Malinois, etc....in the hands of irresponsible owners, each of those breeds would be just as big of a problem, do we get rid of them next.

Pit bulls are dangerous in both the hands of a loving family with good discipline, and thugs who like them for 'show'.

Then consider, if we just banned the AR-15 it wouldn’t hurt anyone, they could still own any other rifle or shotgun.

Pit bulls are not a gun, any kind of gun. They are animals too often trusted to live indoors or assumed to have signed the pet-owner contract until some of them start mauling and killing. Thugs always have big agressive dogs. Pit bulls are off the charts on aggression, damage, death and expense.

If you look at the history of banning things that become unpopular if often times accomplished nothing and makes the matter worse.

It's not just 'unpopularity'; pit bulls do too much damage for no reason. We don't allow people to own lions and tigers without the needed permits for a reason. Zoos have requirements for a reason. 'Caging' lions is safer then letting them roam the neighborhood.