Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[eoMMan]

See, this is what we should be focused on....

Murder charges for OWNER of pitbulll that killed a 4 year old:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/murder-charge-filed-against-detroit-dog-owner-in-boys-death/ar-AAg7zF9?li=BBnbfcL

It's all about responsibility. Banning this breed won't solve anything. As it's been mentioned a million times in this thread, you'll just have another breed that will become popular some irresponsible owners and then we'll be talking about banning THAT breed.

I know the gun comparison has been mentioned several times but really, it's a fair one. When a person commits a violent crime with a gun, we don't ban that type of gun. We punish the person responsible for owning and using that dog. The same should be said for all dogs....whether it's a 70 pound pitbull full of sharp teeth, a 15 whiny beagle, or a 140 gentle sheepdog....they all have a owner that should held fully responsible for their actions.

It is unclear to me from reading that article what actions the owner took for which he should be held responsible. Do you know by chance? Or do you think that anyone who owns a pit (or a dog generally) that kills someone should be charged with murder?

I don't know all of the details of the case but he had multiple, dangerous pitbulls that were loose....which resulted in the death of a kid.

Regarding your other question, I think that like most murder cases, it should vary based on different factors (what actions did or didn't the owner take to prevent this? was he proactive in training his dog? was the dog registered with the county? how was the dog contained? did the dog see a vet regularly? etc.) and the punishment should range as well (manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree, etc).

 

[SWC]

everyone who owns a pitbull should have to have a great white shark that lives in there bathtub and then be required to take a bath every day take that to the bank brohans

 

[bigbottom]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

 

[comfortably numb]

See, this is what we should be focused on....

Murder charges for OWNER of pitbulll that killed a 4 year old:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/murder-charge-filed-against-detroit-dog-owner-in-boys-death/ar-AAg7zF9?li=BBnbfcL

It's all about responsibility. Banning this breed won't solve anything. As it's been mentioned a million times in this thread, you'll just have another breed that will become popular some irresponsible owners and then we'll be talking about banning THAT breed.

I know the gun comparison has been mentioned several times but really, it's a fair one. When a person commits a violent crime with a gun, we don't ban that type of gun. We punish the person responsible for owning and using that dog. The same should be said for all dogs....whether it's a 70 pound pitbull full of sharp teeth, a 15 whiny beagle, or a 140 gentle sheepdog....they all have a owner that should held fully responsible for their actions.

It is unclear to me from reading that article what actions the owner took for which he should be held responsible. Do you know by chance? Or do you think that anyone who owns a pit (or a dog generally) that kills someone should be charged with murder?

I don't know all of the details of the case but he had multiple, dangerous pitbulls that were loose....which resulted in the death of a kid.

Regarding your other question, I think that like most murder cases, it should vary based on different factors (what actions did or didn't the owner take to prevent this? was he proactive in training his dog? was the dog registered with the county? how was the dog contained? did the dog see a vet regularly? etc.) and the punishment should range as well (manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree, etc).

it's a pain in the ### to clean up dog crap at times....why would people want a dog that will also require you to have a good defense attorney a quick phone call away.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.

And this should apply to all breeds.

 

[NutterButter]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.

And this should apply to all breeds.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Does the same apply if my kid's friend drown's in my pool?

 

[steelerfan1]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.

And this should apply to all breeds.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Does the same apply if my kid's friend drown's in my pool?

was going to post something along your lines too NB

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.

And this should apply to all breeds.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Does the same apply if my kid's friend drown's in my pool?

Another way to look at it is to ask should parents be charged with a crime if their minor children commit violent crime?

 

[IC FBGCav]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Does the same apply if my kid's friend drown's in my pool?

Another way to look at it is to ask should parents be charged with a crime if their minor children commit violent crime?

If they knew their child was prone to commit violent crime, yes.

 

[Max Power]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Does the same apply if my kid's friend drown's in my pool?

Another way to look at it is to ask should parents be charged with a crime if their minor children commit violent crime?

If they knew their child was prone to commit violent crime, yes.

This is blowing my mind. If a gun store sells to a muslim... should it have known better?

 

[Thorn]

Can't remember the last time I read a thread where people talked past each other more than this one.

 

[Otis]

so what % of this breed would you classify as unstable vicious killers?

Does it matter? If it's a breed that has proven to have a proclivity towards killing children, and which presents a greater risk than other breeds, oh, hey, here's an idea, get another stupid pet instead. It's not like this is a special magic breed that you need because they also do your taxes or something. It's a freaking dog. It doesn't matter.

a great dane has been known to kill a person. a pit bull has been known to kill a person. quite a few breeds have been known to kill a person. if you say a % doesn't matter, using that, we need to destroy pit bulls, great danes and other breeds who have shown they can kill people.

if you eliminate the pit bull breed there will then become another breed of dog that represents a bigger risk than other breeds, and so on, and so on...

So what you're saying is if we can eliminate this unnecessary murder risk from society, it then gives us nothing better to do than try and eliminate the next most unnecessary murder risk?

Ok.

what I'm saying is lets be consistent. if a every life matters we need to rid the world of all that have been guilty of taking a life. lets kill off 95% of the good for 5% of the bad. makes perfect sense.

What don't you understand? One has been engineered through selective breeding for over 200 years to be an efficient and relentless KILLING machine.

I have been around this breed and owned this breed for 23 years. I do not deal drugs, live in a trailer, have face tats and have good credit. my dogs have never harmed a person, a dog, or a cat for that matter. they live sleep and eat with cocker spaniels and spent the holiday with 2 5 pound papillions who they have never met before.

have a just been dodging bullets for going on 25 years now or could some of these dogs actually be ok?

It just takes once. And usually then it's too late.

 

[Otis]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.

And this should apply to all breeds.

No such thing IMO.

 

[bigbottom]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

 

[IC FBGCav]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Does the same apply if my kid's friend drown's in my pool?

Another way to look at it is to ask should parents be charged with a crime if their minor children commit violent crime?

If they knew their child was prone to commit violent crime, yes.

This is blowing my mind. If a gun store sells to a muslim... should it have known better?

There was a case on 48 hours where parents pulled a 13 year old out of mental health care even when told by a doctor that he was a danger to himself and others. Never got him any other care. This was after he posioned milk in the family fridge. The boy went on to kill a family friend and her husband. The parents should fry.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/road-to-redemption/

 

[Otis]

Ultimately, we need to do more to disincentivize stupidity in this society.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Oh here's another one: you know those idiots who drive aggressively and right up the rear of the person in front of them and who weave in and out of lanes without signaling? Would not stun me to see s higher incidence of this kind of driving from pit bull owners.

People have alarmingly bad risk management skills.

you come off like Trump does when he talks about Muslims

 

[Doctor Detroit]

See, this is what we should be focused on....

Murder charges for OWNER of pitbulll that killed a 4 year old:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/murder-charge-filed-against-detroit-dog-owner-in-boys-death/ar-AAg7zF9?li=BBnbfcL

It's all about responsibility. Banning this breed won't solve anything. As it's been mentioned a million times in this thread, you'll just have another breed that will become popular some irresponsible owners and then we'll be talking about banning THAT breed.

I know the gun comparison has been mentioned several times but really, it's a fair one. When a person commits a violent crime with a gun, we don't ban that type of gun. We punish the person responsible for owning and using that dog. The same should be said for all dogs....whether it's a 70 pound pitbull full of sharp teeth, a 15 whiny beagle, or a 140 gentle sheepdog....they all have a owner that should held fully responsible for their actions.

One dog snatched the kid and drug some 30 feet across the yard to the fence where another dog took the boy into the owner's back yard. Then they tore him apart.

This is absolutely the owner's fault, he had four ####### pitbulls and the damn dogs would escape and terrorize the neighborhood.

I've known plenty of pits, most of them loving and terrific pets. But Terriers were bred to kill, they are the only subset of Canines that are natural killers. Even small terriers will kill squirrels, rodents, cats, whatever. I own terriers, love them. But if you have a bull terrier, an Airedale, or even a Fox Terrier you have to understand the prey drive of these dogs. They were bred to kill small prey, and they still like to do that.

You make it bigger, more powerful, and add 20 to 25 additional generations of breeding for fighting, and you have a very dangerous dog. If trained, spayed and neutered, and properly managed they are a great dog. But they aren't meant to be in packs, they absolutely need to be monitored/secured 24 hours a day, and letting them run free in a ghetto always ends badly.

This case was particularly sickening to me, the poor mother had to watch the whole thing unable to fight off four 80+ pound dogs.

 

[parasaurolophus]

LOL at pits being bred to keep a bull "busy".

They were bred to grab on and not let go while an enraged bull that had hot pepper shoved in its nose tried to kill it. Basically got bonus points the longer it could latch onto the snout and not let go. These traits were then refined once bear and bull baiting became illegal and it became harder to do this in secret, so they had to turn to the dogs fighting each other.

Busy. That's one way to describe it.

 

[Otis]

LOL at pits being bred to keep a bull "busy".

They were bred to grab on and not let go while an enraged bull that had hot pepper shoved in its nose tried to kill it. Basically got bonus points the longer it could latch onto the snout and not let go. These traits were then refined once bear and bull baiting became illegal and it became harder to do this in secret, so they had to turn to the dogs fighting each other.

Busy. That's one way to describe it.

Neat pets.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

No such thing IMO.

Did you read my other post about how I would classify a "good" owner?

Or are you here just to make snarky comments that add nothing to this discussion?

 

[NutterButter]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

Do the same charges apply if someone drowns in your swimming pool?

 

[El Floppo]

To kill.

Its why my old black lab used to point at things. It was bred that way.

Here is just a random link/article... http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/

Im sure you can see a wiki link if you want more basic info.

"Boy, three, left with horrific facial injuries as Labrador savages him while his mother strokes puppy"

"Labrador shot and killed after attacking toddler in Maine"

"Tulsa infant killed by lab"

maybe these were bred different than yours? can you explain their behavior?

I'm kinda sorta on your side... except that when you look at the previously linked list of deaths by dog- most of them are pit bulls. that's where I jump ship.

hi floppo. I could then asked to compare when these numbers started jumping but it really is not worth opening up as if 2 sides are unwilling to have the views changed I guess there is really no point at discussing, but this thread is like the bad car wreck you can't help but looking at...

Interesting- just checked Wiki and the first recorded Pit death is 1981. 70s looked the time of the German Shepard- and I remember that one being the dog to be afraid of when I was growing up in the 70s, even though I never had a run-in. looks like the 80s and 90s and even the early Aughts are dominated by the Rott (another dog I remember being on the be-scared-of list). Pits took over in the last 10 years... but definitely #1 with a bullet since then.

So- either the breed wasn't as popular, or people weren't recording these deaths, or (more likely) Pits have been cultivated to kill over the last 10 years. Unless somebody proposes a different response to that data, that goes more towards owner responsibility to me than breeding.

but damn skippy- there have been enough of the "my Pit/Rot was the sweetest dog in the world until it ripped apart my young child" that I wouldn't want to have one in my household (and do my best to limit my kids' exposure to them elsewhere).

eta: Pits, Rotts, and weinerdogs.

eta: link to wiki

 

[El Floppo]

so what % of this breed would you classify as unstable vicious killers?

Does it matter? If it's a breed that has proven to have a proclivity towards killing children, and which presents a greater risk than other breeds, oh, hey, here's an idea, get another stupid pet instead. It's not like this is a special magic breed that you need because they also do your taxes or something. It's a freaking dog. It doesn't matter.

a great dane has been known to kill a person. a pit bull has been known to kill a person. quite a few breeds have been known to kill a person. if you say a % doesn't matter, using that, we need to destroy pit bulls, great danes and other breeds who have shown they can kill people.

if you eliminate the pit bull breed there will then become another breed of dog that represents a bigger risk than other breeds, and so on, and so on...

A weiner dog has never been known to kill a person. Just sayin'.

Fatalities reported in 1979[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE] October 30 Dachshund Christopher Johnson 2 weeks The boy died after the 6-year-old dog chewed off his legs while the mother slept in a nearby room. The dog was described as well-behaved by neighbors and friends.[72]

 

[AAABatteries]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

Huh? Why should there be a difference?

If your dog kills someone, regardless of breed type, you as the owner should be held accountable.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

Do the same charges apply if someone drowns in your swimming pool?

I don't know the laws regarding swimming pools but I think a homeowner is indeed liable if a kid drowns in their pool IF no fence is present. Not sure what the law is if it's a fenced in pool.

 

[bigbottom]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

Understood. That's why I included the parenthetical.

 

[NutterButter]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

Do the same charges apply if someone drowns in your swimming pool?

I don't know the laws regarding swimming pools but I think a homeowner is indeed liable if a kid drowns in their pool IF no fence is present. Not sure what the law is if it's a fenced in pool.

I'm talking with the fence so the owner are fully in compliance with the law just as a dog owner would be in full compliance with the law.

 

[AAABatteries]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

Huh? Why should there be a difference?

If your dog kills someone, regardless of breed type, you as the owner should be held accountable.

Sounds great but who gets to determine whether you should be at fault? My dog trips you and you break your neck - is that my fault? Almost nobody wants to ban other dogs, just these. I'm happy to start with this breed and then move on to the next one if/when there is an outcry for it. There's no need to make it an absolute that everyone is held responsible for any possible accident and most reasonable people understand this.

 

[AAABatteries]

What have the criminal charges been in cases where a young child shot themselves or someone else with a loaded gun that a parent left lying around?

These people almost always get charged with something as they should. It's also a somewhat silly comparison and I'm in favor of a ban on the breed.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

Huh? Why should there be a difference?If your dog kills someone, regardless of breed type, you as the owner should be held accountable.

Sounds great but who gets to determine whether you should be at fault? My dog trips you and you break your neck - is that my fault? Almost nobody wants to ban other dogs, just these. I'm happy to start with this breed and then move on to the next one if/when there is an outcry for it. There's no need to make it an absolute that everyone is held responsible for any possible accident and most reasonable people understand this.

The judicial system would determine if the owner was at fault (not public outcry).

 

[bigbottom]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

Huh? Why should there be a difference?If your dog kills someone, regardless of breed type, you as the owner should be held accountable.

Sounds great but who gets to determine whether you should be at fault? My dog trips you and you break your neck - is that my fault? Almost nobody wants to ban other dogs, just these. I'm happy to start with this breed and then move on to the next one if/when there is an outcry for it. There's no need to make it an absolute that everyone is held responsible for any possible accident and most reasonable people understand this.

The judicial system would determine if the owner was at fault (not public outcry).

I thought your position was that "fault" is irrelevant. If your dog kills someone, you are held responsible (with the caveat that "fault" could result in harsher penalties).

 

[AAABatteries]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

Huh? Why should there be a difference?If your dog kills someone, regardless of breed type, you as the owner should be held accountable.

Sounds great but who gets to determine whether you should be at fault? My dog trips you and you break your neck - is that my fault? Almost nobody wants to ban other dogs, just these. I'm happy to start with this breed and then move on to the next one if/when there is an outcry for it. There's no need to make it an absolute that everyone is held responsible for any possible accident and most reasonable people understand this.

The judicial system would determine if the owner was at fault (not public outcry).

I don't want either determining who is at fault - I want them banned (at least where I live). But, I'll play along - let's assume we do that and we continue to see pitbulls killing kids and we put those owners in jail for murder. Then what? You'll still have stupid people who will own them and it won't matter to them that they could go to jail. We are then back to the point we are now with people wanting the breed banned.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Simply requiring sterilization of all Pit or mixes would effectively eliminate the breed without all the "good" owners losing their family pet before the natural time.

Pit bulls were bred as a cross between Bull dogs and Terriers. Terriers are hunting dogs with an instinct to kill. Bulldogs were originally bred for Bull-baiting. Hence the large powerful neck and shoulders and shortened muzzle, which allowed for greater biting force, but more-so allowed the dogs to hold "lock jaws" onto the bulls nose. It is believed that the bulldog and unspecified Terrier breed were crossed to increase the aggressiveness and add height to the animal allowing it to have better agility and speed when bull-baiting or bear-baiting. The animal wasn't just supposed to latch onto the nose of the bull until the bull quit. The dog was to latch onto the bull and hold on until the bull collapsed with exhaustion and then kill the bull by tearing out the throat. Most people seem to know the former but few seem to accept the latter.

They were bred to be dangerous, vicious, resilient, and courageous. Bulldogs have been selectively bred for the last century to be more docile and unaggressive. They look nothing like the 1835 version of the bulldog. The pit bull breeds have not been actively and selectively bred for docility as two of the breeds are not even recognized by the American Kennel Club. The modern pit bull hasn't had a housecleaning of the breed like Rotts, and German Shepherds have in the last 30 years where the aggressive tendencies have been deselected and the work ethic and attentiveness selected.

That is the problem with the breed today. I'd put the blame on unfettered poor breeding selection more than poor owners. Though the latter cannot be discounted. There is less of a respected breeders club with pit bulls than with most other "hunting" breeds. When the breed went from "America's symbol" in the 20's and 30's to out of style in the late 50's, the breed lost a great deal of its stability. The only solution now would be strict regulations on breeding to remove aggressiveness or mass sterilization. Until then the dogs should not be in a household with children, and should not be owned in multiples by any one person or family. More of them tends to equal an increase in risk, because if one becomes aggressive and attacks the others seem to follow and attack the same target. Pack hunting mentality kicks in. Refute any of this that you want but this is all information readily available to anyone who cares to look.

 

[eoMMan]

If a pit just snaps and kills someone, and previously was a sweet dog that was loveable and wouldn't hurt a fly, and there was no reason to think it was dangerous (other than it being a pit), what then? Murder charges for the owner? What if the owner did nothing wrong (other than owning a pit)? Who gets held responsible? Anyone? What do you tell the parents of the dead child?

See my other post but I think it is still on the owner. If he/she was shown to be a "good" owner, I think a lesser charge is appropriate....manslaughter?...but they should still be charged with something for sure.And this should apply to all breeds.

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting position. This would be a form of strict liability where the owner is held responsible regardless of whether or not the owner acted negligently. Under such a scheme, there is even less reason to own a pit (or any other animal that has the propensity and/or the ability to kill). Now, even if you are a kind and conscientious owner, you are not only risking the safety of yourself, your family and others, you are also risking incarceration.

But please kind in mind that this would apply to all dogs, not just pitbulls. There shouldn't be a difference (or lesser charge) if your sweet and loving German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Sheepdog, Chow Chow, etc. kills a kid.

This is what pitbull owners like to think but based on this thread and listening to other opinions elsewhere it's obvious that the majority of people disagree with this.

Huh? Why should there be a difference?If your dog kills someone, regardless of breed type, you as the owner should be held accountable.

Sounds great but who gets to determine whether you should be at fault? My dog trips you and you break your neck - is that my fault? Almost nobody wants to ban other dogs, just these. I'm happy to start with this breed and then move on to the next one if/when there is an outcry for it. There's no need to make it an absolute that everyone is held responsible for any possible accident and most reasonable people understand this.

The judicial system would determine if the owner was at fault (not public outcry).

I thought your position was that "fault" is irrelevant. If your dog kills someone, you are held responsible (with the caveat that "fault" could result in harsher penalties).

Yes, your dog killing someone would result in "fault" but at what level (manslaughter, murder charge, etc.)? It would still all go through the judicial system.

 

[eoMMan]

Simply requiring sterilization of all Pit or mixes would effectively eliminate the breed without all the "good" owners losing their family pet before the natural time.

Pit bulls were bred as a cross between Bull dogs and Terriers. Terriers are hunting dogs with an instinct to kill. Bulldogs were originally bred for Bull-baiting. Hence the large powerful neck and shoulders and shortened muzzle, which allowed for greater biting force, but more-so allowed the dogs to hold "lock jaws" onto the bulls nose. It is believed that the bulldog and unspecified Terrier breed were crossed to increase the aggressiveness and add height to the animal allowing it to have better agility and speed when bull-baiting or bear-baiting. The animal wasn't just supposed to latch onto the nose of the bull until the bull quit. The dog was to latch onto the bull and hold on until the bull collapsed with exhaustion and then kill the bull by tearing out the throat. Most people seem to know the former but few seem to accept the latter.

They were bred to be dangerous, vicious, resilient, and courageous. Bulldogs have been selectively bred for the last century to be more docile and unaggressive. They look nothing like the 1835 version of the bulldog. The pit bull breeds have not been actively and selectively bred for docility as two of the breeds are not even recognized by the American Kennel Club. The modern pit bull hasn't had a housecleaning of the breed like Rotts, and German Shepherds have in the last 30 years where the aggressive tendencies have been deselected and the work ethic and attentiveness selected.

That is the problem with the breed today. I'd put the blame on unfettered poor breeding selection more than poor owners. Though the latter cannot be discounted. There is less of a respected breeders club with pit bulls than with most other "hunting" breeds. When the breed went from "America's symbol" in the 20's and 30's to out of style in the late 50's, the breed lost a great deal of its stability. The only solution now would be strict regulations on breeding to remove aggressiveness or mass sterilization. Until then the dogs should not be in a household with children, and should not be owned in multiples by any one person or family. More of them tends to equal an increase in risk, because if one becomes aggressive and attacks the others seem to follow and attack the same target. Pack hunting mentality kicks in. Refute any of this that you want but this is all information readily available to anyone who cares to look.

I bet the Nazis were all in favor of sterilizing the Jews.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Simply requiring sterilization of all Pit or mixes would effectively eliminate the breed without all the "good" owners losing their family pet before the natural time.

Pit bulls were bred as a cross between Bull dogs and Terriers. Terriers are hunting dogs with an instinct to kill. Bulldogs were originally bred for Bull-baiting. Hence the large powerful neck and shoulders and shortened muzzle, which allowed for greater biting force, but more-so allowed the dogs to hold "lock jaws" onto the bulls nose. It is believed that the bulldog and unspecified Terrier breed were crossed to increase the aggressiveness and add height to the animal allowing it to have better agility and speed when bull-baiting or bear-baiting. The animal wasn't just supposed to latch onto the nose of the bull until the bull quit. The dog was to latch onto the bull and hold on until the bull collapsed with exhaustion and then kill the bull by tearing out the throat. Most people seem to know the former but few seem to accept the latter.

They were bred to be dangerous, vicious, resilient, and courageous. Bulldogs have been selectively bred for the last century to be more docile and unaggressive. They look nothing like the 1835 version of the bulldog. The pit bull breeds have not been actively and selectively bred for docility as two of the breeds are not even recognized by the American Kennel Club. The modern pit bull hasn't had a housecleaning of the breed like Rotts, and German Shepherds have in the last 30 years where the aggressive tendencies have been deselected and the work ethic and attentiveness selected.

That is the problem with the breed today. I'd put the blame on unfettered poor breeding selection more than poor owners. Though the latter cannot be discounted. There is less of a respected breeders club with pit bulls than with most other "hunting" breeds. When the breed went from "America's symbol" in the 20's and 30's to out of style in the late 50's, the breed lost a great deal of its stability. The only solution now would be strict regulations on breeding to remove aggressiveness or mass sterilization. Until then the dogs should not be in a household with children, and should not be owned in multiples by any one person or family. More of them tends to equal an increase in risk, because if one becomes aggressive and attacks the others seem to follow and attack the same target. Pack hunting mentality kicks in. Refute any of this that you want but this is all information readily available to anyone who cares to look.

I bet the Nazis were all in favor of sterilizing the Jews.

Sure they were. And that example of sterilizing people is exactly the same as my suggestion to sterilize a breed of dog. Good lord you are a dunce.

 

[eoMMan]

You aren't a nice person, CDH. I haven't attacked you personally (just your idiotic stance on this topic).

I think your posting privileges should be sterilized.

Take care.

 

[Card Trader]

Simply requiring sterilization of all Pit or mixes would effectively eliminate the breed without all the "good" owners losing their family pet before the natural time.

Pit bulls were bred as a cross between Bull dogs and Terriers. Terriers are hunting dogs with an instinct to kill. Bulldogs were originally bred for Bull-baiting. Hence the large powerful neck and shoulders and shortened muzzle, which allowed for greater biting force, but more-so allowed the dogs to hold "lock jaws" onto the bulls nose. It is believed that the bulldog and unspecified Terrier breed were crossed to increase the aggressiveness and add height to the animal allowing it to have better agility and speed when bull-baiting or bear-baiting. The animal wasn't just supposed to latch onto the nose of the bull until the bull quit. The dog was to latch onto the bull and hold on until the bull collapsed with exhaustion and then kill the bull by tearing out the throat. Most people seem to know the former but few seem to accept the latter.

They were bred to be dangerous, vicious, resilient, and courageous. Bulldogs have been selectively bred for the last century to be more docile and unaggressive. They look nothing like the 1835 version of the bulldog. The pit bull breeds have not been actively and selectively bred for docility as two of the breeds are not even recognized by the American Kennel Club. The modern pit bull hasn't had a housecleaning of the breed like Rotts, and German Shepherds have in the last 30 years where the aggressive tendencies have been deselected and the work ethic and attentiveness selected.

That is the problem with the breed today. I'd put the blame on unfettered poor breeding selection more than poor owners. Though the latter cannot be discounted. There is less of a respected breeders club with pit bulls than with most other "hunting" breeds. When the breed went from "America's symbol" in the 20's and 30's to out of style in the late 50's, the breed lost a great deal of its stability. The only solution now would be strict regulations on breeding to remove aggressiveness or mass sterilization. Until then the dogs should not be in a household with children, and should not be owned in multiples by any one person or family. More of them tends to equal an increase in risk, because if one becomes aggressive and attacks the others seem to follow and attack the same target. Pack hunting mentality kicks in. Refute any of this that you want but this is all information readily available to anyone who cares to look.

I bet the Nazis were all in favor of sterilizing the Jews.

Sure they were. And that example of sterilizing people is exactly the same as my suggestion to sterilize a breed of dog. Good lord you are a dunce.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

You aren't a nice person, CDH. I haven't attacked you personally (just your idiotic stance on this topic).

I think your posting privileges should be sterilized.

Take care.

Technically I was attacking your hyperbole, but sure, take it as a personal attack. I will stand by my opinion that if you equate sterilization of a dog breed to the holocaust, then you are of inferior intellect.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I know this. If all of the pit bull owners, or even all owners of bully breeds not essential as service dogs, were to magically have their dogs converted to peekapoos there would be less dog bite deaths and severe injuries while at the same time still allowing all dog lovers a dog, of a sort. Can a pit bull be a fine companion animal when well breed and trained and cared for, sure. Can a pit inflict death or injury in circumstances where three peekappos and a ####zu or three ganging up could not, absolutely. The potentiality for danger from pits is qualitatively different than many other breeds. That is true also of some other bully breeds or large dogs. Pit lovers say the risk is worth the reward. Fine, who am I to argue otherwise. The thing is pits have a way of getting beyond the owner's control and affecting unwitting minors in the owners families, as well as neighbors and society at large. It is one thing to take risk upon oneself for the perceived reward, it is another to impose it on others.

 

[eoMMan]

You aren't a nice person, CDH. I haven't attacked you personally (just your idiotic stance on this topic).

I think your posting privileges should be sterilized.

Take care.

Technically I was attacking your hyperbole, but sure, take it as a personal attack. I will stand by my opinion that if you equate sterilization of a dog breed to the holocaust, then you are of inferior intellect.

Okay, cupcake.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

You aren't a nice person, CDH. I haven't attacked you personally (just your idiotic stance on this topic).

I think your posting privileges should be sterilized.

Take care.

Technically I was attacking your hyperbole, but sure, take it as a personal attack. I will stand by my opinion that if you equate sterilization of a dog breed to the holocaust, then you are of inferior intellect.

Okay, cupcake.

To be fair, you only read the first sentence of my post before you whipped out the holocaust reference, didn't you sweet'ums?

 

[Lutherman2112]

so what % of this breed would you classify as unstable vicious killers?

Does it matter? If it's a breed that has proven to have a proclivity towards killing children, and which presents a greater risk than other breeds, oh, hey, here's an idea, get another stupid pet instead. It's not like this is a special magic breed that you need because they also do your taxes or something. It's a freaking dog. It doesn't matter.

a great dane has been known to kill a person. a pit bull has been known to kill a person. quite a few breeds have been known to kill a person. if you say a % doesn't matter, using that, we need to destroy pit bulls, great danes and other breeds who have shown they can kill people.if you eliminate the pit bull breed there will then become another breed of dog that represents a bigger risk than other breeds, and so on, and so on...

I didn't know the Great Dane was also bred for the sole purpose of fighting and killing other dogs? Guess you learn something new everyday.

Pits were literally bred to kill Bulls (2000 lb) and Bears. Or have themselves killed if they did not finish the job..

They were NOT bred to kill bulls and bears. They were bred to bite the bull on the nose (bull baiting) and keep it busy....not kill the bull by itself.

You guys are ridiculous.

Look up bull-baiting and Queen Anne.

 

[eoMMan]

You aren't a nice person, CDH. I haven't attacked you personally (just your idiotic stance on this topic).

I think your posting privileges should be sterilized.

Take care.

Technically I was attacking your hyperbole, but sure, take it as a personal attack. I will stand by my opinion that if you equate sterilization of a dog breed to the holocaust, then you are of inferior intellect.

Okay, cupcake.

To be fair, you only read the first sentence of my post before you whipped out the holocaust reference, didn't you sweet'ums?

Of course I did, sweet cheeks.

It's a bunch of the same information you will find when research the breed and more specifically, the breed being used for bull baiting.

 

[eoMMan]

so what % of this breed would you classify as unstable vicious killers?

Does it matter? If it's a breed that has proven to have a proclivity towards killing children, and which presents a greater risk than other breeds, oh, hey, here's an idea, get another stupid pet instead. It's not like this is a special magic breed that you need because they also do your taxes or something. It's a freaking dog. It doesn't matter.

a great dane has been known to kill a person. a pit bull has been known to kill a person. quite a few breeds have been known to kill a person. if you say a % doesn't matter, using that, we need to destroy pit bulls, great danes and other breeds who have shown they can kill people.if you eliminate the pit bull breed there will then become another breed of dog that represents a bigger risk than other breeds, and so on, and so on...

I didn't know the Great Dane was also bred for the sole purpose of fighting and killing other dogs? Guess you learn something new everyday.

Pits were literally bred to kill Bulls (2000 lb) and Bears. Or have themselves killed if they did not finish the job..

They were NOT bred to kill bulls and bears. They were bred to bite the bull on the nose (bull baiting) and keep it busy....not kill the bull by itself.You guys are ridiculous.

Look up bull-baiting and Queen Anne.

Read the thread....we discussed this already. Biting and immobilizing a bull (or a bear) isn't the same as killing it. That's what I was disputing.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

so what % of this breed would you classify as unstable vicious killers?

Does it matter? If it's a breed that has proven to have a proclivity towards killing children, and which presents a greater risk than other breeds, oh, hey, here's an idea, get another stupid pet instead. It's not like this is a special magic breed that you need because they also do your taxes or something. It's a freaking dog. It doesn't matter.

a great dane has been known to kill a person. a pit bull has been known to kill a person. quite a few breeds have been known to kill a person. if you say a % doesn't matter, using that, we need to destroy pit bulls, great danes and other breeds who have shown they can kill people.if you eliminate the pit bull breed there will then become another breed of dog that represents a bigger risk than other breeds, and so on, and so on...

I didn't know the Great Dane was also bred for the sole purpose of fighting and killing other dogs? Guess you learn something new everyday.

Pits were literally bred to kill Bulls (2000 lb) and Bears. Or have themselves killed if they did not finish the job..

They were NOT bred to kill bulls and bears. They were bred to bite the bull on the nose (bull baiting) and keep it busy....not kill the bull by itself.You guys are ridiculous.

Look up bull-baiting and Queen Anne.

Read the thread....we discussed this already. Biting and immobilizing a bull (or a bear) isn't the same as killing it. That's what I was disputing.

And again, you are incorrect on the outcome of Bull and bear baiting.

 

[Lutherman2112]

so what % of this breed would you classify as unstable vicious killers?

Does it matter? If it's a breed that has proven to have a proclivity towards killing children, and which presents a greater risk than other breeds, oh, hey, here's an idea, get another stupid pet instead. It's not like this is a special magic breed that you need because they also do your taxes or something. It's a freaking dog. It doesn't matter.

a great dane has been known to kill a person. a pit bull has been known to kill a person. quite a few breeds have been known to kill a person. if you say a % doesn't matter, using that, we need to destroy pit bulls, great danes and other breeds who have shown they can kill people.if you eliminate the pit bull breed there will then become another breed of dog that represents a bigger risk than other breeds, and so on, and so on...

I didn't know the Great Dane was also bred for the sole purpose of fighting and killing other dogs? Guess you learn something new everyday.

Pits were literally bred to kill Bulls (2000 lb) and Bears. Or have themselves killed if they did not finish the job..

They were NOT bred to kill bulls and bears. They were bred to bite the bull on the nose (bull baiting) and keep it busy....not kill the bull by itself.You guys are ridiculous.

Look up bull-baiting and Queen Anne.

Read the thread....we discussed this already. Biting and immobilizing a bull (or a bear) isn't the same as killing it. That's what I was disputing.

typical apologist's response.