Posted on 04/27/2007 10:12:52 AM PDT by Omega Man II
Toddler dies after pit bull attack
From Live5 News
Authorities say a toddler was mauled to death when the family pit bull got loose from inside a laundry room and attacked the young boy.
Brian Palmer died Tuesday morning from his injuries. He would have turned two-years-old in August.
The 2-year-old dog was euthanized, and its head was sent to Columbia for testing.
Authorities say the dog had killed a family cat and fought with another dog within the last month. There were --no-- adults in the house when the attack occurred and the oldest of four children at the home was 16-years-old.
Story Created: Apr 25, 2007 at 8:54 AM EDT
Story Updated: Apr 26, 2007 at 1:21 PM EDT
As one can see from the above near-incoherent passage you DID compare inanimate objects and pitbulls.
As for your last analogy, you seem to say vicious pit bulls are to pit bulls as child rapists are to citizens. But a better analogy is pit bulls are to dogs as child rapists are to citizens. And since you are for "culling" child rapists, you should also be for culling pitbulls.
But that certainly kids will encounter more tragedy bad people then than pitbulls.
My response to that last sentence is STOP TAKING THOSE PILLS AND STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER
"you should also be for culling pitbulls."
I do. Any animal (not breed) that doesn't exhibits socialized temperament to breed standards should be killed.
Sad......those dogs are just nutZ...
Touche’
Nah, it’s not a breed problem. *rolls eyes*
Ask any veterinarian.
“Hence you have people who think that attempts to stifle dog breeds of demonstrated vicious tendencies, are akin to racial profiling — yet they defend their “right” to own dog breeds that can and have physically overpowered and maimed or killed adult humans — on the same premise as gun rights, that they are objects and not subject to oversight. *sigh*”
I don’t fall into that catagory.
Ask your vet if there is a ‘vicious breed’.
Or don’t. I did, twice with different vets, got the same answer.
Well, that settles it. The national debate is over. “Badeye” says two vets said there are no vicious breeds.
I suggest you ask your vet, and you post this to me, huh?
Whatever. Obviously, you have somethign on your mind beyond the topic.
Hope its also obvious I’m not interested in whatever it is.....
I’m not a fan of ‘pure breeds’ because the inbreeding for centuries causes some very odd behavior in my experience.
“This the reasoning you’re using and it is invalid.”
I get the feeling that the poster has a personal issue with my ‘screen name’ more than anything related to the topic.
“The dog was the sweetest thing. But, its fate was sealed by the ass of an owner.”
Yep.
“In other words, he was stating that some breeds are more naturally vicious ...”
Odd you feel the need to reinterpret what your vet told you, which is basically the same thing I’ve been told twice by vets.
There is no such thing as a ‘vicious breed of dog’.
Period.
I was curious how you would try to weasel out of this. I suspected it would be some Clintonsque dancing around the meaning of words. Now I have confirmation.
Although the vet didn't use the precise word "vicious", the concept was clearly stated by the vet and artibuted to certain breeds. A "it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is-is" argument doesn't change the fact that the vet was disagreeing with your position.
“I was curious how you would try to weasel out of this. I suspected it would be some Clintonsque dancing around the meaning of words. Now I have confirmation.”
Odd, I didn’t give you a second thought at all.
Sorry.
No weaseling here, your vet will tell you what I’ve been posting since last Friday. There is no such thing as a ‘vicious breed of dog’.
Period.
And a piece of advice....let the Clinton stuff go. Its so last century.
Apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I DID ASK A VET. HE DISAGREES WITH YOU.
“Apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I DID ASK A VET. HE DISAGREES WITH YOU.”
Actually, you paraphrase what your vet might have said, as the thread shows clearly.
And since you are apparently losing emotional control, FROH is my advice.
Not excusing the dog but 2 year olds can really be rough on a dog. If the dog in question is a high risk dog anyway, kids can and do provoke attacks. Hitting pinching or biting the animal happens often. My sons 5 year old German Shorthair Pointer attacked their 2 year old but the child had grabbed the dogs privates. My Manchester Terrior has snapped at my husbands 2 year old grandson and also the same child who was bit by the GSP, but he would get in her face and squeeze her jaws or ears. Her snapping at him was a defensive gesture. I'm not excusing the dogs. Just saying children shouldn't be left alone with any dog. Children like to test their agression and a dog is the wrong place to try that.
They may have a reason. Children often are aggressive with dogs. People should not leave children alone with dogs. No one knows what provoked the dogs who have killed children. Some dogs will let kids manhandle them. Some won't.
Good post.
the 16 yo was old enough to baby sit but why in the hell would you leave a dog, a pit bull of all things, with a history of violence in a home with kids..
My wife and I just got rid of cats (we each had one for 9 years) because our infant is showing signs of allergy.
Im sure they would if raised very, very poorly. The problem with pitbulls is you can raise one fine and it likely still attack a kid if it gets spooked or upset.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.