Banning Pit bulls

[Squidgy]

This happened awhile ago but I just wanted to bring it back.
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/st...8-c2e72ef94e9f

I think this is complete bullshit. My uncle has two Pit bulls and they have been neglected, fought, or beaten by previous owners. Both dogs were vicious, But when given a good home they became extremely friendly dogs. It's all about how you raise them. Want a mean dog? Abuse it.
What do you guys think?

[Ibanez]

They're definitely not inherently violent. I think Pit Bulls have been more subject to abuse, and therefore more vicious, due to their major role as an illegal fighting and guard dog. It's no surprise that the most commonly abused dog is the most violent.

My friends Pit Bull was put down by the city because it bit someone. Despite the fact that a grown man was throwing rocks at, and pulling the tail of a dog, it was the animal who was to blame when she naturally reacted. Whatever to increase my misanthropy I guess.

[TigerTank77]

It's the same chain of thought that presses people to attempt to ban guns.

Stupidity and fear of something you know nothing about.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think it's right. Pitbulls can be perfectly sweet animals. I think it's what they are capable of that scares people more than the dog itself.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

People bred Pitbulls based upon their ability to fight other dogs originally, which has lead to a genetic disposition to aggression.
However, that disposition can be altered via training methods. More often than not, you'll find that many owners have bred aggression out of their Pitbull(s) sufficiently. Many of the dogs are also not inherently violent.
I'm at a "meeting half-way" position regarding this issue at the moment, perhaps leaning toward favouring the owners' and animals' rights. If there was legislation put in place that did not outrightly ban the breeding and ownership of Pitbull terriers, but rather made it mandatory for assessment and further training (if required) before Pitbulls were allowed to sold or given to their respective owners.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

It's the same chain of thought that presses people to attempt to ban guns.

Stupidity and fear of something you know nothing about.

Let's not get into that one again, shall we?

But anyway, I agree with what's already been said - the breed of dog is no more inherently violent (as far as I know, anyway) than other dogs. They have certain physical attributes in terms of strength and the terrier mentality which makes them more dangerous should they turn violent, but actually making them turn violent is down to handler/owner behaviour. As Matt says, assessment and training of owners is the better response to the situation, not blaming the dog for how we've selectively bred it in generations past.

[JKmadu619]

I owned a bitbull a few years back that was really a nice dog. However they are large, potentially agressive and are often trained to be more violent (And therefore better protectors) than other breeds. So I'm torn.

At the same time, I can assume this would be carried out by promoting a genocide of all pitbulls and their cross breeds, and I cannot support an unfair genocide of any type of human, animal, fish or insect.

- Justin

[Nostalgia]

There is one breed of pitbulls that I do believe are illegal in some parts of the world there-fore the illegal ones should be banned. But it does depend on the owner aswell some people breed pitbulls to fight other dogs, same with rotwilers people have bread them to fight aswell.

That being said if the owners instinct is to raise and train the dog to fight and protect and kill the owner will do so no matter how many laws there are. Other owners will raise their dog no matter what the breed to behave and to act in a friendly and a non viscous way to other dogs and people. In all honesty I think it depends on the owners intentions rather than the breed of the dog. Though pitbulls do seem to be the favourite dog to breed and to raise to fight, Banning them does not seem right, banning dog fighting yes. Some pitbull breeds are illegal but that does not mean all pitbulls should be banned.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

It's like with anything else. The people who are doing it for the wrong reasons for fighting them and other such purposes will ALWAYS find a way, even if they have to bring dogs in from other areas to fight and THEN breed.

[kadyCHAOS]

this is so arrogant. its not the breed of dog, its how their being raised and trained to fight. =/
so sad, its racism of friggin dogs.

[Pale]

I have a Pitbull, she's the sweetest thing ever. Some people just scared because of the media hype.

[Aletheia*]

It's not the breed of the dog, it's the owner who raises and trains them to be aggressive.

[Marguerite]

So I guess I'm way in the minority here but I'm all for banning them. We're not talking about a mass culling of all pitbulls here. We're just talking about preventing the breeding of pitbulls and gradually phasing them out. I also don't think that pitbulls are inherently violent or that they're out on the street killing everybody, but as we can see every time another pitbull tear up a child's face or even kill someone, they do pose a threat. Whether that's a minor threat or major threat in my opinion doesn't matter considering, as I've said, killing pitbulls is not on the table. So basically if we have the opportunity to get rid of them without any harm coming to them, and if that means that even just a couple of kids across the country are going to be safer, why wouldn't we take it?

I don't think 'well they're nice and I like them' is a good enough reason to keep them around because you're taking the liberty of putting everyone else at risk and I don't see why people should have that choice. When I hear stories like that little girl who died earlier this year in Australia after a pitbull attack, it really blows my mind that so many people blatently refuse to do anything about it for no other reason than they think pitbulls are sweet or nice. How selfish can you be?

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

So I guess I'm way in the minority here but I'm all for banning them. We're not talking about a mass culling of all pitbulls here. We're just talking about preventing the breeding of pitbulls and gradually phasing them out. I also don't think that pitbulls are inherently violent or that they're out on the street killing everybody, but as we can see every time another pitbull tear up a child's face or even kill someone, they do pose a threat. Whether that's a minor threat or major threat in my opinion doesn't matter considering, as I've said, killing pitbulls is not on the table. So basically if we have the opportunity to get rid of them without any harm coming to them, and if that means that even just a couple of kids across the country are going to be safer, why wouldn't we take it?

I don't think 'well they're nice and I like them' is a good enough reason to keep them around because you're taking the liberty of putting everyone else at risk and I don't see why people should have that choice. When I hear stories like that little girl who died earlier this year in Australia after a pitbull attack, it really blows my mind that so many people blatently refuse to do anything about it for no other reason than they think pitbulls are sweet or nice. How selfish can you be?

However, it is the OWNERS a lab could kill someone if it was raised to be an attack dog same way a pit bull can be sweet if THEY are raised and bred that way. By bred I mean if you do have a dog that is slightly mean do NOT breed that animal.

[Revolution]

I don't think it's right. It's the way you raise it. Yes, breeding makes a difference, but at the same time, I know plenty of pitbulls who are completely sweet dogs.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

I don't think it's right. It's the way you raise it. Yes, breeding makes a difference, but at the same time, I know plenty of pitbulls who are completely sweet dogs.

Well and it goes both ways if you breed two dogs with a good tempment then the odds of the offspring being nice sweet dogs are greater than if the dogs were not nice.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

So I guess I'm way in the minority here but I'm all for banning them. We're not talking about a mass culling of all pitbulls here. We're just talking about preventing the breeding of pitbulls and gradually phasing them out. I also don't think that pitbulls are inherently violent or that they're out on the street killing everybody, but as we can see every time another pitbull tear up a child's face or even kill someone, they do pose a threat. Whether that's a minor threat or major threat in my opinion doesn't matter considering, as I've said, killing pitbulls is not on the table. So basically if we have the opportunity to get rid of them without any harm coming to them, and if that means that even just a couple of kids across the country are going to be safer, why wouldn't we take it?

I don't think 'well they're nice and I like them' is a good enough reason to keep them around because you're taking the liberty of putting everyone else at risk and I don't see why people should have that choice. When I hear stories like that little girl who died earlier this year in Australia after a pitbull attack, it really blows my mind that so many people blatently refuse to do anything about it for no other reason than they think pitbulls are sweet or nice. How selfish can you be?

How selfish can you be to warrant the genocide of an entire subset of species because you're in favor of zero-tolerance policy?

The extinction of an entire sub-species of animals is not worth the lives of one or two children, especially when the entire issue with the breed of dogs is ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE THROUGH PROPER TRAINING AND NURTURING.

If you want to blame someone, blame the fucking owner, not the dog.

People have been training all kinds of dogs to kill for centuries, and you want to single this one out because of a stereotype?

I'm not attacking you personally, but I don't understand this type of logic. I just don't. It baffles me how anyone can have this train of thought in regards to anything, let alone a LIVING CREATURE WITH FUCKING EMOTIONS, and attempt to present it as a rational and sane thought.

"Hmm, educating the populace and teaching responsibility and proper upbringing of an otherwise peaceful animal? Nah, too hard, lets just ban em and slaughter em. That'll make them instantly not exist and will appear as if we've actually done something about it."

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

How selfish can you be to warrant the genocide of an entire subset of species because you're in favor of zero-tolerance policy?

Remind me, how in any way, shape or form could this be genocide? Yes, I understand that officially preventing certain races from reproducing is considered genocide (as was done in Australia) but dogs are not humans and the same baggage is not attached to it. Pitbull's across the nation are not going to be weeping because they wanted to have kids, or because they're afraid their culture is dying. Calling it genocide is just making it unnecessarily emotional when in fact just putting a fine on owners who choose to breed pitbulls is actually doing the pitbulls themselves no harm whatsoever.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

The extinction of an entire sub-species of animals is not worth the lives of one or two children,

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that. I would go out with a shot gun and kill every single pitbull in the country if it meant preventing the unnecessarily death of one child. Fortunately we can achieve that without killing them.

People trump dogs.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If you want to blame someone, blame the fucking owner, not the dog.

I do blame the owners. I'm not daft enough to think dogs actually go out maliciously and seek children to kill. But the fact is that if I'm an asshole and I abuse my chiwawa you don't have to worry that it's going to come and tear your toddler's face apart. Besides, it's easier to regulate the dogs themselves than people because you're not generally going to know if the guy who takes the pitbull home is going to be a loving owner who looks after his dog or just an SOB who treats it like crap.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm not attacking you personally, but I don't understand this type of logic. I just don't. It baffles me how anyone can have this train of thought in regards to anything, let alone a LIVING CREATURE WITH FUCKING EMOTIONS, and attempt to present it as a rational and sane thought.

I don't understand your logic either. You keep acting like banning pitbulls means harming them in some way. Really, that they are LIVING CREATURES WITH FUCKING EMOTIONS seems irrelevent, unless you think they're going to be upset against being discriminated against or something outrageous like that.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"Hmm, educating the populace and teaching responsibility and proper upbringing of an otherwise peaceful animal? Nah, too hard, lets just ban em and slaughter em. That'll make them instantly not exist and will appear as if we've actually done something about it."

1) Nobody said anything about slaughter for the 1000000th time.

2) If we could successfully educate people then I'd say go with that, but the fact is we can't. For starters, someone who abuses there dog is not going to watch a PSA and think "wow, I better change my behaviour before this gets dangerous" and of course, not every pitbull who has ever attacked someone has been abused.

3) They will not 'instantly not exist', phasing them out would take several years unless they all decide to keel over at once.

4) whether or not you agree with the method, I don't understand how you could call banning pitbulls 'not doing anything about pitbull attacks', considering it's the most drastic action there is and will have results.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

Remind me, how in any way, shape or form could this be genocide? Yes, I understand that officially preventing certain races from reproducing is considered genocide (as was done in Australia) but dogs are not humans and the same baggage is not attached to it. Pitbull's across the nation are not going to be weeping because they wanted to have kids, or because they're afraid their culture is dying. Calling it genocide is just making it unnecessarily emotional when in fact just putting a fine on owners who choose to breed pitbulls is actually doing the pitbulls themselves no harm whatsoever.

So, by that logic, hunting species like tigers and whales to extinction is perfectly fine because they pose a potential threat to humans? I'm hoping you can see the flaw in that argument.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that. I would go out with a shot gun and kill every single pitbull in the country if it meant preventing the unnecessarily death of one child. Fortunately we can achieve that without killing them.

People trump dogs.

See above.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I do blame the owners. I'm not daft enough to think dogs actually go out maliciously and seek children to kill. But the fact is that if I'm an asshole and I abuse my chiwawa you don't have to worry that it's going to come and tear your toddler's face apart. Besides, it's easier to regulate the dogs themselves than people because you're not generally going to know if the guy who takes the pitbull home is going to be a loving owner who looks after his dog or just an SOB who treats it like crap.

If you genuinely believe smaller dogs are incapable of inflicting serious harm on people, I'd advise doing a bit more research. They're all carnivores at the end of the day, and a chihuahua is just as capable of inflicting serious injury to a young child as any other. Indeed, they are viewed as unsuitable for homes with small children for that reason. On the regulating the dog rather than the owner point, that really is the slippery slope in action - I can think of a lot of breeds of dog which would fall foul of that (Labrador, Alsatian, all breeds of terrier to name but a few) and which, by your argument, would face phased extinction. Eventually, you'd end up with no dogs at all and humans who will simply carry over their violent tendencies to another species.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I don't understand your logic either. You keep acting like banning pitbulls means harming them in some way. Really, that they are LIVING CREATURES WITH FUCKING EMOTIONS seems irrelevent, unless you think they're going to be upset against being discriminated against or something outrageous like that.

Given that this will involve at least some level of compulsory sterilisation and euthanasia (as already happens in some countries with pitbull bans), I think it's fair to say it will most likely involve "harming them in some way" - leaving aside the wider point of enforced extinction which is a pretty major form of harm.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

2) If we could successfully educate people then I'd say go with that, but the fact is we can't. For starters, someone who abuses there dog is not going to watch a PSA and think "wow, I better change my behaviour before this gets dangerous" and of course, not every pitbull who has ever attacked someone has been abused.

On what grounds do you deem education to be impossible?

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by dr2005

So, by that logic, hunting species like tigers and whales to extinction is perfectly fine because they pose a potential threat to humans? I'm hoping you can see the flaw in that argument.

There is a difference between killing something/hunting something to extiction and simply preventing reproduction. I hope you can you that flaw in your argument.

Originally Posted by dr2005

If you genuinely believe smaller dogs are incapable of inflicting serious harm on people, I'd advise doing a bit more research. They're all carnivores at the end of the day, and a chihuahua is just as capable of inflicting serious injury to a young child as any other. Indeed, they are viewed as unsuitable for homes with small children for that reason. On the regulating the dog rather than the owner point, that really is the slippery slope in action - I can think of a lot of breeds of dog which would fall foul of that (Labrador, Alsatian, all breeds of terrier to name but a few) and which, by your argument, would face phased extinction. Eventually, you'd end up with no dogs at all and humans who will simply carry over their violent tendencies to another species.

I hate dogs (and all animals) and I would never have one in my home if I had kids so it doesn't suprise me that they're dangeous. But the point is that you have to look at the capability of an animal to commit damage and the frequency of attacks by the animal and then judge by that. I think that applies to both things you mentioned (the slippery slope argument and the one about small dogs).

Originally Posted by dr2005

Given that this will involve at least some level of compulsory sterilisation and euthanasia (as already happens in some countries with pitbull bans), I think it's fair to say it will most likely involve "harming them in some way" - leaving aside the wider point of enforced extinction which is a pretty major form of harm.

What do you mean compulsory sterilisation and euthanasia? Why would it invole that? Just because some countries do it doesn't mean we would have too. I think it's fair to say that in this enviroment we would not get away with doing that and I think it would be unnecessary anyway.

I need you to elaborate on your last sentence because I don't agree.

Originally Posted by dr2005

On what grounds do you deem education to be impossible?

On the grounds I already said in the quote you replied too.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

There is a difference between killing something/hunting something to extiction and simply preventing reproduction. I hope you can you that flaw in your argument.

If the justification (threat to human life) and end result (extinction) are the same, frankly I think the difference becomes one of semantics. The species ends up just as extinct and for the same reason, and so I feel you are stretching that somewhat.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I hate dogs (and all animals) and I would never have one in my home if I had kids so it doesn't suprise me that they're dangeous. But the point is that you have to look at the capability of an animal to commit damage and the frequency of attacks by the animal and then judge by that. I think that applies to both things you mentioned (the slippery slope argument and the one about small dogs).

The vast majority of fatal attacks by dogs are not carried out by pitbull terriers, as shown by the fact that a 2008 study found them responsible for only 1 in 28 fatalities from 1990 to 2007. On that basis, singling out pitbulls over other breeds is not a rational response. In terms of the capability to commit damage, all dogs have the same ancestry (wolf) and so while some dogs may be smaller than others their capability to cause harm on some level is the same. Basically, you could take the attack statistics and conclude from them that all species of dog should be banned for one reason or another, hence my comment that this is a slippery slope argument.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

What do you mean compulsory sterilisation and euthanasia? Why would it invole that? Just because some countries do it doesn't mean we would have too. I think it's fair to say that in this enviroment we would not get away with doing that and I think it would be unnecessary anyway.

Because dogs, like most species, tend to try to reproduce when they feel like it and if you want to ban breeding the species outright then more permanent means of doing so would be required. Sterilisation is already undertaken on a lot of dogs to stop them breeding, so it stands to reason similar practice would be used in the event of an outright ban on pitbull breeding. Indeed, your own country already employs sterilisation for certain breeds on such grounds. As for euthanasia, that is also already commonplace in instances where dangerous dogs are unable to be rehabilitated, or where a ban on breeding is flouted, so it stands to reason it would most likely be implemented in order to enforce a ban. That has certainly been the case in the UK and other jurisdictions I am aware of. Simply relying on people's goodwill and honesty doesn't tend to work in these scenarios.

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I need you to elaborate on your last sentence because I don't agree.

You don't agree that consigning an entire species to extinction isn't a form of harm? I'd say that's probably the biggest form of harm you can cause - granted, it may not be painful for individual members of the species, but for the pitbull populace as a whole it's hardly benign. Perhaps you would care to explain why it isn't causing harm?

Originally Posted by Marguerite

On the grounds I already said in the quote you replied too.

The reason I posed the question is because your examples don't justify your statement. You focus solely on a very low-level form of education and an assertion which, while probably true to some extent, is irrelevant as to why education wouldn't work. Your statement was one that education will not solve the problem whatsoever, and I am challenging you to justify that because to me it sounds somewhat odd.

[JKmadu619]

Marguerite: You reazile more humans hurt and kill each other (And themselves) yearly than pitbulls do. Does that warrant our desctruction?

No, because obviously there are some great people out there, coupled with a couple of assholes. It's the same with pitbulls, and just like in human news stories they tend to focus on the psychotic killers. Just as serial killers represent a small piece of humanity, killer dogs represent a small population of pitbulls.

- Justin

[Squidgy]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Marguerite: You reazile more humans hurt and kill each other (And themselves) yearly than pitbulls do. Does that warrant our desctruction?

No, because obviously there are some great people out there, coupled with a couple of assholes. It's the same with pitbulls, and just like in human news stories they tend to focus on the psychotic killers. Just as serial killers represent a small piece of humanity, killer dogs represent a small population of pitbulls.

- Justin

Exactly. If a few humans do bad things that doesn't mean all humans are bad. It's the same with Pit bulls, or any animal.

[crazychick10793]

My grandma has had a pitbull for nearly 13 years. She is the sweetest, gentlest animal I know. I think any dog that bites is put on the vicious dog list

[thebigmole]

I guess I may be a bit biased in this. My teacher was walking his dog one day, I believe it's a beagle, a very sweet dog. A pit bull ran up and started attacking the dog, and when my teacher picked his dog up to protect it the pit bull continued to attack him and the dog. Luckily both were ok. I hate to say punish the many for the mistakes of the few, but I feel like enough owners mistreat or misraise these dogs resulting in attacks, not just on people but on other animals, that banning them might not be such a horrible suggestion. Or at least make it so that a person has to go through a very rigorous screening process before they can adopt a pit bull. I mean to adopt a pure blood Airedale there's a very intense process involving home visits. It should be that way for pit bulls too, it might help some at least.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that. I would go out with a shot gun and kill every single pitbull in the country if it meant preventing the unnecessarily death of one child. Fortunately we can achieve that without killing them.

People trump dogs.

I'm sorry, I almost always agree with you on most issues (Bar feminism etc.) but I think it's exactly this attitude that has put humanity in the terrible position we are in now. For hundreds of years we've considered ourselves apart from nature. Not only apart, but also above. We see a human life as more valuable than the life of any other kind of animal. By considering ourself above nature, we've allowed ourselves to abuse it with no feelings of guilt or regret. Your attitude is one that many people share and which will cost humanity greatly.


Unfortunately your argument also falls prey to the 'slippery slope' idea. You support the idea of the gradual phasing out of pit bulls on the basis that they are a very valid threat to human people, on its face a reasonable opinion although one I disagree with. However where do we end it? Do we ban Alsations? German Shepherds? Labradors? The idea that we should remove all species that could be a threat to humans is ridiculous, impractical and, above all, arrogant and immoral.


Personally I would meet half-way. As these dogs were bred with the expressed purpose of becoming efficient killing machines, there's an innate danger. Their sheer strength and size is a threat as well, but the real problem is the owners. I believe that for pit bulls, possibly a few other breeds, there should be more regulation on who is allowed to own one so as to make sure that the owners are responsible enough to raise them properly and not allow them to become a threat to people.


(Also I feel a little guilty for respond to your post. You're getting bombarded with disagreements and I know from experience it doesn't feel too nice. Don't take it personally)

[Marguerite]

Okay so I'm not going to reply to every single person because you know my tendency to go on and on and on (what I'm saying here is I'd be here for hours), but I have read everything you've all said and I do think you make good points and that this isn't something I feel as strongly about as most other things I've replied too on this board. I'm not really fussed either way but I have said what I have said because I do not see a downside to banning them (despite what you've all said). I don't see any harm that could come from it, so I say, why not?

However, you have made me think about some of my points and on reconsideration I do think banning pitbull's might be an overreaction as deaths due to pitbull attacks are not high at all compared to a lot of other things. But I do not feel there are any benefits to keeping pitbull's around. Perhaps I am biased because unlike most other people here I am not an animal lover. I just don't see why regular people should be able to have access to dangerous dogs like pitbulls. If you could assure me that pitbulls would all be taken care of with safe and loving owners who would make sure they were not roaming free or putting anyone in danger that would be fine. And I'm not just talking about pitbulls but any large dogs with the capability to inflict a lot of hurt. I just don't feel safe that dogs who have could potentially cause a lot of damage can be taken home by any idiot.

As for this whole animals/humans things (and yes I realise humans are animals so don't even go there) I have to say I disagree completely with you Cosmo. I think it's funny that every time a pitbull or other large dog attacks a child and their a calls for it to be put down, people become outraged. "It's not it's fault! We can't blame dogs for their owners mistakes!". Yet these are the same people who have no problem with millions of cows being slaughtered so they can enjoy a nice Big Mac (I don't know your stance on this Matthew so this isn't a direct comment at you). If you showed the majority of the population two news clips, one of an abused dog and another of 200 people dying in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, most people are going to be more upset and angered by the abuse of the dog. Remember that story about the lady who put the cat in a wheely bin? Now, I am certainly not condoning her behaviour, but I find it ridiculous that she copped more abuse than most pedophiles or murderers get.

I admire people who stick to their convictions, and, I only have respect for people who dedicate their lives to helping animals and are vegan, don't use animal products etc but I find it completely hypocritical that people will weep over an abused dog while biting into a sausage roll.

I am not saying we should go and rape the enviroment, club baby seals and show no consideration for animal welfare, but I 100% believe that humans need to have first priority over animals. I guess we disagree on that (and that's okay, because we disagree on a lot of things, hah) but that's just how I feel. In the end it comes down to how I feel about pitbulls and the fact is that even if just one person in the world per decade was killed by a pitbull and banning them meant that person would be safe, I would be 100% for it. Maybe that makes me short sighted but I just have a really hard time putting animals before people's safety.

[TheBabyEater]

As someone who gets paid to work with dogs, including pit bulls, I can tell you that pits were some of the best dogs we had. Mostly because the owner knew the bad reputation around pitbulls, and were extra careful to train it. Where as I've had anything from Chihuahuas who never shut up, to Great Danes that jump on you. Pits were always some of the sweetest.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

But I do not feel there are any benefits to keeping pitbull's around. Perhaps I am biased because unlike most other people here I am not an animal lover. I just don't see why regular people should be able to have access to dangerous dogs like pitbulls. If you could assure me that pitbulls would all be taken care of with safe and loving owners who would make sure they were not roaming free or putting anyone in danger that would be fine. And I'm not just talking about pitbulls but any large dogs with the capability to inflict a lot of hurt. I just don't feel safe that dogs who have could potentially cause a lot of damage can be taken home by any idiot.

I do see where you're coming from with this. At the same time, you could easily take that sentiment, apply it to cars and argue that on the same grounds we should ban all cars. After all, cars and other such vehicles are one of the highest causes of fatalities and serious injuries in the world, are often sold to people with somewhat dubious records and are not essential for daily life. Yet that argument would be considered knee-jerk, extreme or irrational by many because it's a blanket response based on the actions of a minority. That's why others such as myself have been talking about the need for more comprehensive training and stricter regulations on ownership with regard to such dogs, as that would actually make a difference to the ownership problems which are at the heart of this. Getting rid of pitbulls, or dogs altogether, would merely transfer the problem to another species of domesticated animal.

[zombiehunterforhire]

I've had a lot more pit bulls than a lot of people would have in a lifetime, and i can honestly say pit bulls, if you train them to be good dogs and not Sierra Leone warlord death machines, can be great dogs, the reason why pit bulls are a touchy subject nowadays is because owners train the dogs to attack almost anything that moves because of dogfights. but like i said. if they're trained right they are very good dogs.

[ChangingTides]

I had a pit bull and he was the sweetest dog you'd ever see. We were forced to get him put down when he (defending me) bit someone. These laws are crap, Pit bulls are amazing with kids. I would have trusted my dog with my life. -_-

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

I would also like to say, that I have heard pit bulls are also some of the most forgiving dogs( when it comes to abuse).