I guess you don't think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I'm not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations
nooo they just look scary they’re so cuddly noooo you don’t understand
breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations
absolute bullshit, unless they're being bred by chuds for dogfights (despicable) this is not a thing
The term "pit bull" literally refers to a type of dog that has a history of fighting in pits. It's in their name. They are a despicable breed that people should stop breeding. You're so close to understanding...
You’re so close to understanding…
you're so close to being human.
They are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.
IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
Your humble opinion notwithstanding, Bully dogs are demonstrably more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. It's not some irrational fear, these dogs make up 66% of all fatal dog attacks. Pick any deceased dog attack victim, and it was a Bully or a Rottweiler that killed them.
Training is important and can make a difference in outcomes, but the data overwhelmingly points to aggression and lethality between different dog breeds being a matter of nature more than nurture, and that Bully dogs are on the far end of both spectrums leading to the worst outcomes.
This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don't work.
The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people's pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.
If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won't feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.
And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.
By that logic, then ban humans, we kill more humans than any other animal.
How on earth does anything I said logically conclude to "ban humans"?
It's like you don't even take your own position seriously making arguments like this.
It's your shitty logic mate, just pointing it out.
I'm curious why you feel so strongly on this situation. Like genuinely, I want to know your side. Your reasoning.
if Todd really cared about people, he'd reduce harm in a way that would actually help; persecuting a particular breed of dogs because their owners don't spay/neuter and train them is asinine.
OK, but you can't train a dog to not attack a person correct?
OK, but you can’t train a dog to not attack a person correct?
uh, I can't parse this word salad, it's double negative pie
???
My dogs have never attacked anyone. I have a staffy/pit mix. live in the US. it's one of the most gentle and kindhearted dogs I've ever had; she's a meat-missile but is more gentle with the kids than my dalmation (passed) or hound dog.
Most dogs don't attack people. The owners should be held accountable for their shitty stewardship of their animal. And anyone who trains animals to fight should be stoned in public, but that's just my opinion.
People, overwhelmingly, kill way more people than pit bulls.
Most dogs don't attack people but what happens when they do? What would happen if your dog attacked you or someone else at random? Would you feel responsible? You can't say that it will never happen because you can't know that and also it's what everybody says until it does.
I'm not sure where you're going with your last statement but it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about people here.
What would happen if your dog attacked you or someone else at random?
I'd be held accountable for controlling my animals.
What would happen if you attacked someone at random? same logic, you can't say that it will never happen.
Not sure where you're silly logic is going but it's not productive. Talk to your sock puppets I guess.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death,
where is this indicated?
My brother/sister in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn't developed anecdotally, it's a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog's life that humans need to learn. Most training isn't for the dog, it's for the family members.
I'd recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who's food is who's etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I've had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog's faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.
Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn't trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man/ma'am...
apply some sense to it all.
where is this indicated?
In the fact that this keeps on happening even with experienced owners.
it's putting words into my mouth, I never indicated any such thing.
want to make a point? don't use me as your sock puppet to do it, be adult enough to make your own assertions sport.
My brother in buddy, they weren't putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.
Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.
I wouldn't waste my time talking down to you, sport.
Preciate you sweetheart. 😘
The bullshit excuses part was rhetorical I think. You didn't actually have to answer that part.
any animal can snap.
I guess you don't think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I'm not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
absolute bullshit, unless they're being bred by chuds for dogfights (despicable) this is not a thing
The term "pit bull" literally refers to a type of dog that has a history of fighting in pits. It's in their name. They are a despicable breed that people should stop breeding. You're so close to understanding...
you're so close to being human.
They are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.
Your humble opinion notwithstanding, Bully dogs are demonstrably more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. It's not some irrational fear, these dogs make up 66% of all fatal dog attacks. Pick any deceased dog attack victim, and it was a Bully or a Rottweiler that killed them.
Training is important and can make a difference in outcomes, but the data overwhelmingly points to aggression and lethality between different dog breeds being a matter of nature more than nurture, and that Bully dogs are on the far end of both spectrums leading to the worst outcomes.
https://www.aspcapro.org/resource/are-breed-specific-laws-effective#:~:text=84%20percent%20were%20maintained%20by,to%20interact%20with%20children%20unsupervised.
This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don't work.
The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people's pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.
If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won't feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.
And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.
By that logic, then ban humans, we kill more humans than any other animal.
How on earth does anything I said logically conclude to "ban humans"?
It's like you don't even take your own position seriously making arguments like this.
It's your shitty logic mate, just pointing it out.
I'm curious why you feel so strongly on this situation. Like genuinely, I want to know your side. Your reasoning.
if Todd really cared about people, he'd reduce harm in a way that would actually help; persecuting a particular breed of dogs because their owners don't spay/neuter and train them is asinine.
OK, but you can't train a dog to not attack a person correct?
uh, I can't parse this word salad, it's double negative pie
???
My dogs have never attacked anyone. I have a staffy/pit mix. live in the US. it's one of the most gentle and kindhearted dogs I've ever had; she's a meat-missile but is more gentle with the kids than my dalmation (passed) or hound dog.
Most dogs don't attack people. The owners should be held accountable for their shitty stewardship of their animal. And anyone who trains animals to fight should be stoned in public, but that's just my opinion.
People, overwhelmingly, kill way more people than pit bulls.
Most dogs don't attack people but what happens when they do? What would happen if your dog attacked you or someone else at random? Would you feel responsible? You can't say that it will never happen because you can't know that and also it's what everybody says until it does.
I'm not sure where you're going with your last statement but it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about people here.
I'd be held accountable for controlling my animals.
What would happen if you attacked someone at random? same logic, you can't say that it will never happen.
Not sure where you're silly logic is going but it's not productive. Talk to your sock puppets I guess.
"persecuting" 🤣
too many syllables for you?
You keep coming back to this thread like you're going to get anything but downvotes.
With how unhinged you are and your apparent love of bulldogs I'm guessing we're going to see a story about you being murdered by one before long.
whole 'nother breed than what's being discussed here sparky. so uh, whatever. Thanks for wishing me dead, you have a good fuckin night lol.
what an asshole...
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.
where is this indicated?
My brother/sister in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn't developed anecdotally, it's a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog's life that humans need to learn. Most training isn't for the dog, it's for the family members.
I'd recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who's food is who's etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I've had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog's faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.
Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn't trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man/ma'am...
apply some sense to it all.
In the fact that this keeps on happening even with experienced owners.
it's putting words into my mouth, I never indicated any such thing.
want to make a point? don't use me as your sock puppet to do it, be adult enough to make your own assertions sport.
My brother in buddy, they weren't putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.
Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.
I wouldn't waste my time talking down to you, sport.
Preciate you sweetheart. 😘
The bullshit excuses part was rhetorical I think. You didn't actually have to answer that part.