Hardly a month goes by without some story about a child or elderly person being mauled by a pitbull. If it were alligators or ostriches, there's be laws passed banning them and everything would be done to exclude them from contact with people.
It wouldn't be "It's not the alligator (or ostrich) that's the problem, it's the owner."
But when a pitbull kills someone's toddler, dog lovers will say "It's not the pitbull, it's the owner that is the problem."
Well gee, that mental bumpersticker sounds great but it's something you say after a dog has done something horrific.
The dog owners who say that never really follow the platitude up with a proposed solution. Why? Because none of the obvious solutions are possible as long as people will blindly defend a breed that has the instincts and hair trigger reactions this breed has.
What would be the negative consequence of this breed disappearing from the face of the earth? And, please, let's remember it's only a breed—a very recent and artificial one—not a species. If every pitbull were replaced with an Irish Setter or Yorkie, even if they bit, a lot less damage would be done.
Another problem is that all too often, the worst elements of society seem attracted to this and some of the other large, aggressive breeds.
If you're willing to admit that we have a problem here, what is your solution?
I will accept the extermination, or even the end of breeding for any breed of dog when, and only when, you can produce documentation giving you the right to control what I, or anyone else, is allowed to own. If I had a pitbull, which I don't, and it attacked someone, it would be my responsibility to A. take appropriate medical and compensatory action, and B. to make sure that the dog in question was not a threat any longer. it is not your responsibility to tell me that I am not allowed to own a specific dog because some other dog of the same breed once killed someone, or has the potential to harm someone.
Its a basic fact of life that it is dangerous. Yes, pitbulls can attack, so can practically any pet, even cats. You want a pet that can't attack you, get a goldfish. You can't just say though, that because you have a dislike for a breed, or the history of a breed, or that it kills or mames what you deem to be an overly high number, that every single one of them should be exterminated, or some draconian law should be passed to put your opinion into permanent action.
Judging by all the statistics I've seen on here, they don't injure that many people. They kill only slightly more than elevators do; (that happens to be an average of five per year for those who care). so if your going to point fingers at dangerous things we don't need to own, I think you could find a more appropriate target.
There is only one way in life to make sure you are completely safe from everything, and that is to never live. Even if you put yourself in a tiny little bubble and never get exposed to anything, you still die. Why don't we focus our indignation and efforts on something that actually effects us in a massive way; you might try drugs, illegal guns or starvation. they kill several million a year, as opposed to thirty. Seventeen children die of starvation every minute, and your posting about thirty people killed every year.
A. take appropriate medical and compensatory action
Your pitbull just killed my 3 year old daughter....what possible medical and compensatory action can make up for that?
Dangerous dogs? This site is supposedly Think Atheist, not some wanky social media site for intellectually shallow attention seekers to post trivial crap on. If you want to ask this sort of garbage try facebook or youtube. (or the last bastion of the desperate, Twitter).
It was posted in the small talk forum....an area of the forum specifically reserved for trivial crap posted by intellectually shallow attention seekers. If you don't want to engage in discussion on trivial crap, don't.
Let me just say this:
Yes, it's the darn owner's fault, not the dog's. It's not the weapon's fault, it's not the car's fault, it's not the dog's fault. I had two pits in my lifetime, both unfortunately poisoned by ignorant neighbors (reason which I'll never own a "dangerous" breed anymore), and they were the most peaceful things I ever had. Hell, my Labrador is more aggressive than they were, and he at most growls at cats...
In Portugal, we have a law that requires that every single dog that belongs to a dangerous breed or is a hybrid of a dangerous breed to have a special license and never, ever go outside without a mouth protection. Whenever an attack done by a pit or any other dangerous breed appears on the news, you see that the beast was owned by a poor, ignorant idiot that chained that dog in his backyard and that never used the mouth protection.
A dog attack can be easily prevented, no matter what breed. It takes almost no effort to make a dog non-aggressive. If the dog becomes aggressive, it's the owners fault, the dog should be removed from the owner and then retrained (difficult but possible) or, should it not work, only then killed.
Pit bulls are a fascinating breed.
They're not terribly huge dogs, but they're capable of bringing down an angry bull. They were bred for this purpose - specifically to go for the throat of the bull, bite down, lock their jaws, and twist themselves around until they rip the bull's throat out. If they didn't the bull would simply gore them and they would die.
After bull-baiting fell out of fashion, people began pitting the dogs against each other. Now, instead of having to defend themselves against an angry bull, they have to be the aggressor against a dog who might even be a member of their own pack. So not only do they retain their pack mentality, which tells them to attack a common enemy in force, they have an individual aggression that often overrides the decorum of the "pack", namely to determine the alpha.
On top of all that, irresponsible breeders today (not just fighters, but pet store suppliers as well) inbreed these dogs to the point that their mental faculties are compromised. An otherwise healthy, happy, personable purebred pit bull can go Cujo on the person who bottlefed them from the litter, just because he feels like being the alpha male now.
Sure, a Yorkie might bite more often, Yorkies don't have the "rip out their motherfucking throat" instinct that pit bulls do.
Yes, there are really good dogs and really bad owners, but sometimes it's not the owner - it's the breeding. I'd love to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya with all the pits and pit owners on the planet, but frankly, I've cleaned up too much blood to do so.
Now, I certainly will not support making owning a dog illegal, but I do support the right of neighborhoods to decide whether they want certain breeds around. I mean, if they can decide against residents owning roosters that crow at dawn, they can choose not to have aggressive breeds around as well.
Don't count on that sort of control. Dogs have succeeded over the ages in fooling us into thinking they are basically people. If you talk about banning or eliminating a particular breed, they get very confused and basically view it as a form of genocide or as endangering a species, ignoring the fact that a dog breed is simply a bunch of traits some breeders bred for.
Unseen you have convinced me. but why stop at dogs. lets go commit genocide on the somalians, and the people from the congo, and some of those pesky arab countries while we are at is. I mean following your logic it is obviously something wrong with them geneticaly that makes them alot more likely to shoot you or blow people up and not their upbringing at all. and when you come down to it being shot or blown up causes alot more damage than being bit by a dog. and once that is done i am sure we can find other races of people to commit genocide on because a smallish percentage of them are extremely violent. and then when that is all done we can take a look at our own countries, go into the poorest erea's and just kill pr atlleast forcefuly sterillize any one living there as they have a high chance of joining a gang and being involved in gang violence and robberies
As I said in another comment, some people can't seem to distinguish between dogs and people. You appear to be one. Dogs are just another animal like pigs, squirrels, and lampreys.
In Norway Pitbulls (along with Amstaff and a few other) are banned, and any dogs of this breed that are found are put down. I'm sure these breeds can be made quite safe, but they are also a huge draw for the criminal element which both will train them to fight and have a lower threshold for releasing them onto people. In addition, many, if not most, dog owners do not train their pets properly.
I think they absolutely should be banned. There is no rational reason to allow dogs which have such a proven reputation for brutality to continue to exist.
I agree. and once we are done with the dogs we should go put the somalians, congolese and iraqi's down There is no rational reason to allow these people which have such a proven reputation for brutality to continue to exist.