Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[Mister CIA]

Analogies and metaphors... you should avoid these things steelerfan1.

oddly enough, i may agree with the "bad guys" here, only because trying any kind of logic or reason with this argument of the evilness of a breed of a dog, will probably not get us anywhere

It's not about evilness. It's about dead children.

We should ban everything that kills children, no?

No.

Why not?

Isn't otis's argument that pit bulls should be banned because they can kill children?

Yes, but we are going to make an exception for alcohol.

imagine a drunk pit bull ? ...yikes

There would be lots of self-loathing in this thread.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Analogies and metaphors... you should avoid these things steelerfan1.

I told him to lead with a wry smile and be the kind the kind of guy who hangs out in night clubs that cater to drunk drivers rather than lounge around on the couch with a nanny dog.

You are very sad.

Emotional much?

No. I'm not the one with the same old tired dig. Its been like 3 years. Its grown and now I do the two best niteclubs in town and a Hilton. Its great.

Hope you don't kill any buzzes as your patrons walk out the door.

Exactly the opposite. Good times.

 

[AAABatteries]

This is a good thread to identify the mouth breathers.

 

[Otis]

Analogies and metaphors... you should avoid these things steelerfan1.

oddly enough, i may agree with the "bad guys" here, only because trying any kind of logic or reason with this argument of the evilness of a breed of a dog, will probably not get us anywhere

It's not about evilness. It's about dead children.

We should ban everything that kills children, no?

No -- we should ban everything that frequently kills children and has no incremental value.

 

[Otis]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

 

[Chaka]

so this is officially the worst thread in the FFA right?

Worst in the sense of filled with some of the most obtuse people in the forum, then yes. But it's not really a random sampling--given the subject matter, we're drawing a, um, certain type of crowd in here.

It's sort of like handing out a survey at the neck tattoo parlor.

id say its filled with some of the most judgmental people in this forum as well

Maybe. And maybe some people and some behaviors ought be judged.

so you must be above being judged

Nope. I'm not perfect. Have at it. I drink too much and eat too much garbage and as a result I'm in crappy shape and probably shaving years off my life. That said, I'm not making incredibly stupid choices for no good reason that endanger my family and, even worse, other peoples' families. That kind of behavior justifies a whole different level of judgment.

You are definitely willing to take a thread punch Otis and I respect that. And I like you personally but I gotta be honest with you; from the outside those two behaviors seem the same. I find those who endanger others and those who endanger the well being of their family to be pretty similar. So unless you think your early death would be a benefit to your family you fall into the latter category.

So grab a blue stripe and have a seat on the lawn couch right next to the pit bull owners.

 

[Chaka]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

Yeah that's a pretty weird hypothetical in light of the thousands of drunk driving fatalities we have every year on plain, old normal alcohol. I think a good old fashioned hit-and-run, which happens all the time, is pretty much the same as your whole backing up to finish the job scenario.

 

[jomar]

Analogies and metaphors... you should avoid these things steelerfan1.

oddly enough, i may agree with the "bad guys" here, only because trying any kind of logic or reason with this argument of the evilness of a breed of a dog, will probably not get us anywhere

It's not about evilness. It's about dead children.

We should ban everything that kills children, no?

No -- we should ban everything that frequently kills children and has no incremental value.

How would you define 'frequently'?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

Like the bans on absinthe? (Analogy ammo here for both sides, potentially.)

 

[Card Trader]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

Yeah that's a pretty weird hypothetical in light of the thousands of drunk driving fatalities we have every year on plain, old normal alcohol. I think a good old fashioned hit-and-run, which happens all the time, is pretty much the same as your whole backing up to finish the job scenario.

Drinking and driving IS illegal. It is banned.

The alcohol argument is stupid at best.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

Yeah that's a pretty weird hypothetical in light of the thousands of drunk driving fatalities we have every year on plain, old normal alcohol. I think a good old fashioned hit-and-run, which happens all the time, is pretty much the same as your whole backing up to finish the job scenario.

Drinking and driving IS illegal. It is banned.The alcohol argument is stupid at best.

No, it is not.

 

[steelerfan1]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

legend to follow along- alcohol = pit bull = SCHLOTTSKY

vodka= potato product and pit bull

whiskey= corn product and pit bull

beer= wheat product and pit bull

wine= grape product and pit bull

this is not good people. all of our beloved potato, corn, wheat and grape breeds have been corrupted by the pit bull and now we have a whole species of pit bull mixes. nightmare scenario here.

now, i don't go out to a lot of clubs and bars frequently because being around large groups of people isn't my thing. spending 14 plus years working in a prison probably has something to do with that, but i digress...the wife likes to go out sometimes and I can suck it up every now and again. (happy wife = happy life. am i right...) so inevitably, the high amount of times i do head on out to these places i see people trying to wrestle keys away from folks who are clearly impaired and almost incapable of standing on their own, but yet are still fighting to get into their car and drive, screaming to the helping party that they are perfectly fine to operate a vehicle.

with over 1 million arrests a year for driving under the influence of alcohol and 350,000 of those being repeat offenders i will argue that ALL alcohol = SCHLOTTSKY.

now granted, i would also guess that probably over 95% of the population are responsible people with alcohol, but there are still over 10000 deaths yearly with 200 of those being young children.

therefore, although this is an extreme measure, the only real solution here is to eliminate alcohol, isn't it?

 

[steelerfan1]

Drinking and driving IS illegal. It is banned.


The alcohol argument is stupid at best.

fair point card. driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal.

alcohol, however is legal. even though it is responsible for 370 X more fatalities than pit bulls each year.

if you are a % guy, that is 37,000% more fatalities. THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND PERCENT.

if you are a gambling guy, that makes alcohol a -37000 favorite to be responsible for a fatality, making the pit bull a +37000 underdog.

that is equivalent to ronda rousey vs. my 7 year old niece. lets be honest now, I may throw a couple dollars on my niece, but you know where most of my money is going, right?

so, what we have is something that has shown to be responsible for a huge amount of fatalities every year, but most people feel it should still be legal as long as there are guidelines set in place that hold people accountable for their actions when they are irresponsible and harm others.

I like beer...I mean I really like beer. if there ever comes a day when I can't go and get me a good stout I will be very sad. I don't want to see a ban on alcohol. I feel I am a responsible drinker, but if I ever was irresponsible and drove while intoxicated, I would expect to be held accountable for my actions.

so, again what we have is a product that time and time again has shown to have a small % of overall people abusing and causing harm to others, but we have determined punishing those people for their actions is the rational thing to do while letting the other folk like you and i sit at home on their couch and enjoy a nice beer in peace.

I am only asking that the same type of courtesy be applied to me for being an APBT owner.

 

[Chaka]

Is letting your dog eat children legal?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Is letting your dog eat children legal?

define '' let ''

 

[Chaka]

Is letting your dog eat children legal?

define '' let ''

I dunno. Not control your murderous hell beast well enough so that it goes out and eats every man woman and child within a 500 mile radius...then takes a nap and starts over. Is that legal?

 

[steelerfan1]

Is letting your dog eat children legal?

define '' let ''

I dunno. Not control your murderous hell beast well enough so that it goes out and eats every man woman and child within a 500 mile radius...then takes a nap and starts over. Is that legal?

I would classify that in the "not" category.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Is letting your dog eat children legal?

define '' let ''

I dunno. Not control your murderous hell beast well enough so that it goes out and eats every man woman and child within a 500 mile radius...then takes a nap and starts over. Is that legal?

the hyperbole in this thread is off the charts

 

[modogg]

reading this thread, i honestly want to erase all training i have done with my dogs and have them attack half the people in this thread.

 

[Otis]

reading this thread, i honestly want to erase all training i have done with my dogs and have them attack half the people in this thread.

You realize they're just animals, right? Like cats. Or squirrels.

Animal people...

 

[BustedKnuckles]

reading this thread, i honestly want to erase all training i have done with my dogs and have them attack half the people in this thread.

You realize they're just animals, right? Like cats. Or squirrels.

Animal people...

animals are better than people ...they dont lie and cheat ...and they love unconditionally ...i dont know one person who doesnt lie

 

[joffer]

reading this thread, i honestly want to erase all training i have done with my dogs and have them attack half the people in this thread.

You realize they're just animals, right? Like cats. Or squirrels.

Animal people...

youre an animal too Oat

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

Yeah that's a pretty weird hypothetical in light of the thousands of drunk driving fatalities we have every year on plain, old normal alcohol. I think a good old fashioned hit-and-run, which happens all the time, is pretty much the same as your whole backing up to finish the job scenario.

Could have maybe used Absinthe in the analogy instead of making it weird.

 

[Chaka]

Is letting your dog eat children legal?

define '' let ''

I dunno. Not control your murderous hell beast well enough so that it goes out and eats every man woman and child within a 500 mile radius...then takes a nap and starts over. Is that legal?

the hyperbole in this thread is off the charts

Are you serious? I was intentionally over the top but if the point went over your head; the question is if when your dog kills (or maims) someone is it legal? Because that seems to be the counter argument to the drunk driving argument. People say that DUI is illegal but isn't it illegal for your dog to attack someone?

Personally I think that the law is too soft on dog owners however I don't think that the owner of a Labrador that hurts or kills someone should be punished any less than the owner of a Pit Bull that does the same. But both are not punished nearly enough when their dog attacks someone.

If we want to talk about rational solutions then the law should start holding dog owners, all dog owners, responsible for the actions of their dogs rather then the nonsense of exterminating an entire breed. Why not suggest that we ban alcohol or guns? Because, y'know, we all know that will work.

 

[steelerfan1]

Here's a better analogy of the pit bull nerds who keep raising the "OH FINE OTIS THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN ALCOHOL SINCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE."

Imagine a world in which we introduce a new alcoholic beverage. Let's call it Schlottsky. Schlottsky is a whole lot like scotch, or gin, or vodka, in that people enjoy drinking it after a long, hard day in the office. As with all other liquors, there is a risk -- albeit a small risk -- that every time someone has a little too much of it, they may get into a car and accidentally run down and kill someone. There's sort of a "cool" image that comes with drinking Schlottsky; it's like a tough guy's drink, a MANLY drink. Rawr.

Except there's one unfortunate side effect of Schlottsky: it has been reported that it causes a chemical reaction in the human brain that causes the drinker to experience an unrelenting urge to get behind the wheel, and target small children to run down and kill. In multiple of the reports, not only does the perpetrator hit a small child, but, to make sure they've gotten the job done properly, they have then put the car in reverse and backed over the child's lifeless body.

Irresponsible to drink it?

OK to ban it?

OMG BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BAN SCHLOTTSKY WHY NOT BAN ALL ALCOHOL, SEE HOW CRAZY THAT IS?!?

No, we're not banning all alcohol. We're banning one type of alcohol, out of the hundreds you could choose to drink, which one particular type just turns out to be particularly dangerous.

FINE BUT GUYS WHEN I DRINK SCHLOTTSKY I AM THE NIIIICEST AND SWEETEST GUY YOU'VE EVER MET, THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME.

Funny, because all of the other people who became child murdering maniacs before their episodes had reported the same thing previously, as did all their friends. People were really surprised.

Again, irresponsible to drink it, when you could instead drink vodka, or scotch, or beer, or something else?

I'll hang up, not endanger my neighbor's children, and listen.

Yeah that's a pretty weird hypothetical in light of the thousands of drunk driving fatalities we have every year on plain, old normal alcohol. I think a good old fashioned hit-and-run, which happens all the time, is pretty much the same as your whole backing up to finish the job scenario.

Could have maybe used Absinthe in the analogy instead of making it weird.

i was gonna go the alcohol is a beverage route, same as water, milk, juice, soda, tea and coffee. except alcohol has a 100% kill rate over all the other beverages making it the deadly SCHLOTTSKY.

i did however want to match the weirdness level in the response....

 

[dgreen]

If ANY dog never attacks a person, I would say you got lucky.

Can you unpack this a bit? How are you defining an "attack" here?

 

[dgreen]

reading this thread, i honestly want to erase all training i have done with my dogs and have them attack half the people in this thread.

You realize they're just animals, right? Like cats. Or squirrels.

Animal people...

youre an animal too Oat

An animal who is a member of a group that is probably much more of a threat to humans - and their innocent children - than pit bulls.

 

[El Floppo]

ok- good. just bickering... glad all the chatter isn't because of another Pit death.

 

[NutterButter]

This thread has inspired me to get a pitbull and name it Schlottsky

 

[DrrDetroit]

I like piranhas. I have trained them not to bite people. I am going to have a swim pay and let the kids swim with the piranhas. Swim with dolphins same as piranhas right?

 

[modogg]

I like piranhas. I have trained them not to bite people. I am going to have a swim pay and let the kids swim with the piranhas. Swim with dolphins same as piranhas right?

well... enjoy the swim pay?

I think i am going to try to teach my dog to attack people who have no ability to articulate the English language, or use proper English.

 

[Ladsud]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article53003700.html

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article53003700.html

Reap & Sow. Reap & Sow. Reap & Sow.

 

[bigbottom]

That was one of the most depressing articles I've ever read.

 

[Otis]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article53003700.html

Reap & Sow. Reap & Sow. Reap & Sow.

About right. Once again you've got everyone standing slack jawed and wondering how such nice dogs could do something like his.

If she had any hint at all that these dogs had any propensity for violence, she would never have left her brother with them, he said. She raised them and cannot fathom what could have happened that caused them to attack a little boy.

Said pretty much everyone about every one of these monsters every time something like this happens.

Griffin-Headys dogs appear to be a huge part of her life. Badeker said her niece has an affinity for pit bulls, believing they have been unfairly stigmatized. She has posted dozens of videos of her dogs on YouTube, mostly under the title My Wolf Pack. Many show her interacting with the animals in bed as they lick her face and playfully romp with her.

Ugh.

But you read it and it's hard to blame her. She was not equipped to handle any one of the circumstances she was facing in life, let alone all.

Oh and

"Florida."

 

[AAABatteries]

That was one of the most depressing articles I've ever read.

Yep. Horrible.

 

[Slinger]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article53003700.html

The title of the article might as well read, '9-year Old Fatally Victimized to Political Correctness'.
All dogs don't kill people. But those that do are pitbulls. Act accordingly. Pass laws accordingly.

Still waiting on that death-by-chihuahua article. That coroner report from the deadly pug attack. The support group for Collie victims. Have they found that seriel killer Labrador Retriever yet?

 

[ROCKET]

I'm sure the dogs were mistreated as you know " it's all in how they are raised".

 

[beavers]

The world needs more of Michael Vick ...

 

[bigbottom]

This is not meant to come off as judgmental, but I wonder whether any of the pit bull owners who say their dogs are loving and completely non-violent are starting to question their decision to have them in the home, particularly if there are young children. The sweet photos of their dogs they post seem a lot like the videos posted by the sister in this story.

 

[beavers]

This is not meant to come off as judgmental, but I wonder whether any of the pit bull owners who say their dogs are loving and completely non-violent are starting to question their decision to have them in the home, particularly if there are young children. The sweet photos of their dogs they post seem a lot like the videos posted by the sister in this story.

I would never let my daughter visit a house with a pit bull. It's judgmental. It's stereotyping. But, it is what it is. These dogs are genetically aggressive. And, it's exhausting to watch pit bull advocates. No sweet, innocent-looking picture will change my mind.

 

[Spin]

They will be euthanized if they are determined to be dangerous animals, Yuba County Undersheriff Jerry Read said.

Um.. what? They just mauled a 9 year old to death... What else do they have to do in order to be determined dangerous?

 

[Otis]

This is not meant to come off as judgmental, but I wonder whether any of the pit bull owners who say their dogs are loving and completely non-violent are starting to question their decision to have them in the home, particularly if there are young children. The sweet photos of their dogs they post seem a lot like the videos posted by the sister in this story.

And this has been the case for years. It doesn't change their view. Their dogs are wonderful and of course incapable of something like this.

It's sad really. I guess if they expose their own kids to that risk, it's sad, but not really my problem. What tortures me about all this is that these people let these animals out of the house; or friends and neighbors have them; or even family members. And I don't want anything happening to my children ever, but in particular I don't want something tragic unnecessary happening to my children because someone else is an #######. And that's what owning one of these things amounts to at this point.

 

[parasaurolophus]

They seem harmless. I am still trying to find the "Pitbull" in them. They are clearly mixed breeds.

The people that defends these little devil monsters are unreal. This is from the youtube comment section. 20 hours ago.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Too all pit haters, or people who dislike the bread due to being violent., here is a fun fact. Anybody know what they were originally bread for? Anybody? The nanny... to look over and protect the babies."

This is allegedly something this psycho older sister posted online.

 

[sbonomo]

They seem harmless. I am still trying to find the "Pitbull" in them. They are clearly mixed breeds.

The people that defends these little devil monsters are unreal. This is from the youtube comment section. 20 hours ago.

Did you watch the Youtube video to determine if they were pitbull or mix (I cannot view from work computer)?

 

[ScottNorwood]

Where can I get some of this sweet child murdering beverage?

 

[modogg]

This is not meant to come off as judgmental, but I wonder whether any of the pit bull owners who say their dogs are loving and completely non-violent are starting to question their decision to have them in the home, particularly if there are young children. The sweet photos of their dogs they post seem a lot like the videos posted by the sister in this story.

nope, not even a little. not too sound out of touch, but my pit mix is around 8 years old. i honestly can't think of many times the dog is not around in eye sight or off doing something on her own. I know many think owning a dog equals locking outside it for 10 hours a day and feeding it, but i have had plenty of experiences with my dog and people, including many little one's, and at no point have i ever witnessed anything that resembled anything dangerous. Not to say these things don't happen or all of these owners are bad owners, but to answer the question asked.. nope

 

[modogg]

This is not meant to come off as judgmental, but I wonder whether any of the pit bull owners who say their dogs are loving and completely non-violent are starting to question their decision to have them in the home, particularly if there are young children. The sweet photos of their dogs they post seem a lot like the videos posted by the sister in this story.

And this has been the case for years. It doesn't change their view. Their dogs are wonderful and of course incapable of something like this.

It's sad really. I guess if they expose their own kids to that risk, it's sad, but not really my problem. What tortures me about all this is that these people let these animals out of the house; or friends and neighbors have them; or even family members. And I don't want anything happening to my children ever, but in particular I don't want something tragic unnecessary happening to my children because someone else is an #######. And that's what owning one of these things amounts to at this point.

sorry, but for the life of me i can't think of any reason to let my dogs out to simply wonder the neighborhood, or why i would have random people watch them. we have on occasion if we are gone for the day and i guess we are lucky no one has ever got mauled by my dogs (though i swear my pit bull knows exactly how high to extend her one paw to nail my one buddy in the nuts, probably 60-70% of the time)

 

[Otis]

My wife grew up with two pit mixes her older brother brought home one day. I hated visiting my in laws with my little girls because I didn't trust those dogs. The dogs have in more recent years passed, and I'll say I am relieved to not have to be helicoptering over those dogs and the babies every time we visit now.