Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

peteway · 24-02-2014 11:26AM

In the US over a 3-year period from January 2006 to March 30, 2009, a total of 98 dog bite fatalities

Try road deaths:
2006 42,708
2007 41,259
2008 37,423
2009 33,883

98 V 140,000+

Ban motor vehicles!

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 11:26AM

foggy_lad wrote: »

How many were killed or maimed by being attacked by a jack Russell or king Charles spaniel?

yea, jack russells never kill...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/09/baby-died-bitten-jack-russell

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 12:20PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

let me correct a few more 'ill informed' statements you've just made.

firstly im no breed apologist, im 100% aware of what these dogs can do to each other, i posted this if you'd read further down "ive been around them a lot and while ive seen plenty that have dog aggression"

ive also made no bones about them in a previous AH thread when i said that these dogs were bred to do damage to each other. not all will but certain ones are born wanting to kill other animals. ive seen it first hand on a few occasions when crap owners let them run free and they turn on another dog. they are not fluffy pet lap dogs.

they're working dogs that need to be kept by reponsible owners. they need an amount of exercise that goes above and beyond what most other breeds need. they need a firm hand and a routine. they need to be kept securely at home and need to be on a lead in public. if you cant offer them what they need then you shouldnt keep one as a pet.

the ill informed part of your post was referring to owners as wannabe hardmen. as a member of 'Ireland's pit bull terrier association' with a championshoip winning dog i'm going to disagree with you, as i can guarantee im around more of these dogs and owners than you will ever be. if you still want to argue the point, fine but its a fact that for every scumbag i see with one, i know another 10 responsible owners.

So what do you suggest then oh wise one?

More of the "self regulation" which has served this country so well in recent years ?

My suggestion is a total ban on pitbull type dogs to be enforced by dog wardens with powers
to enter private property, confiscate and destroy any dogs which in their opinion are of this type.

What's yours? Some fluffy aspirations that owners behave responsibly ? To be enforced by exclusion from some anorak kennel club that most of these scumbags don't give a crap about anyway?
The amount of dog sh1t on every pavement and green area in this country should tell you that dog owners dont care about children's safety, and cant be expected to behave responsibly.

Should society's safety be compromised on the altar of your peevish wish to have this one particular vicious breed when there are plenty of other safer breeds to choose from?

The hell it should.

Dyr · 24-02-2014 12:21PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

So what do you suggest then oh wise one?

More of the "self regulation" which has served this country so well in recent years ?

My suggestion is a total ban on pitbull type dogs to be enforced by dog wardens with powers
to enter private property, confiscate and destroy any dogs which in their opinion are of this type.

What's yours? Some fluffy aspirations that owners behave responsibly ? To be enforced by exclusion from some anorak kennel club that most of these scumbags don't give a crap about anyway?

Should society's safety be compromised on the altar of your peevish wish to have this one particular vicious breed when there are plenty of other safer breeds to choose from?

The hell it should.

It's like you know what you were posting was nonsense that had already been debunked but just went ahead anyway

fair play

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 12:23PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

So what do you suggest then oh wise one?

More of the "self regulation" which has served this country so well in recent years ?

My suggestion is a total ban on pitbull type dogs to be enforced by dog wardens with powers
to enter private property, confiscate and destroy any dogs which in their opinion are of this type.

What's yours? Some fluffy aspirations that owners behave responsibly ? To be enforced by exclusion from some anorak kennel club that most of these scumbags don't give a crap about anyway?

Should society's safety be compromised on the altar of your peevish wish to have this one particular vicious breed when there are plenty of other safer breeds to choose from?

The hell it should.

i suggest that people like yourself keep their noses out of others business.

the dogs are legal to own, your argument is invalid.

Dravokivich · 24-02-2014 12:28PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

So what do you suggest then oh wise one?

More of the "self regulation" which has served this country so well in recent years ?

My suggestion is a total ban on pitbull type dogs to be enforced by dog wardens with powers
to enter private property, confiscate and destroy any dogs which in their opinion are of this type.

What's yours? Some fluffy aspirations that owners behave responsibly ? To be enforced by exclusion from some anorak kennel club that most of these scumbags don't give a crap about anyway?
The amount of dog sh1t on every pavement and green area in this country should tell you that dog owners dont care about children's safety, and cant be expected to behave responsibly.

Should society's safety be compromised on the altar of your peevish wish to have this one particular vicious breed when there are plenty of other safer breeds to choose from?

The hell it should.

This is the problem I alluded to in my first response to this thread. It shouldn't come down to an opinion. It can be very hard to identify an actual Pit Bull.

conorhal · 24-02-2014 12:45PM

mistress_gi wrote: »

I own a large bull breed dog and can honestly say I have no issues with him whatsoever. So he is a big chicken and is scared of the wind and is allergic to mice, he does look vicious though! Why did I get a bull breed, because he is a bullbreed, black and massive and he spent close to 6 months in kennels before we adopted him, before them he was surrendered to the pound before then , I don't know.
Every dog deserves a good life, We decided to give this a guy a chance. I do not regret adopting him but I also get very discriminated against. People discriminate against me because we decided to adopt this vicious machine and against him because he is a bullbreed, big and black.
The reality is that I have no issue leaving my dog with children, he would run before doing anything at all. However, I would never do this because I am a responsible owner.
Deed before breed is what I believe in!
Just so you know what I am talking about, here is my dog:

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/gblhskfc17kinkg/ah9GfG-1xe

You are ironically describing the most dangerous kind of dog. There's nothing more dangerous then a skittish easilly frightened animal, what if he's startled and feels that he has nowhere to run?
That's when an ear tug by a four year old turns into a mauling.

As has already been pointed out, it's not the frequency of attack that matters its the damage a breed can do when it occurs. If an angry chihuahua come barrelling at me with a murderous look in it's eyes, I laugh and convert it for three points. If a pit bull does the same I drop a load in my pants.

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 12:50PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i suggest that people like yourself keep their noses out of others business.

the dogs are legal to own, your argument is invalid.

So thats your best answer? No solutions, -just "I like my dog so fcuk the rest of you and ypur kids, pets etc" ?

Tell me, do you also support any moron being allowed to own tigers, wolves, bears etc?

Your refusal to answer any of the questions raised in my last post says enough tbh ie you have no answer.

The state needs to legislate for people who put their hands over their ears like you.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 12:52PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

So thats your best answer? No solutions, -just "I like my dog so fcuk the rest of you and ypur kids, pets etc" ?

Tell me, do you also support any moron being allowed to own tigers, wolves, bears etc?

Your refusal to answer any of the questions raised in my last post says enough tbh ie you have no answer.

The state needs to legislate for people who put their hands over their ears like you.

actually, given a reasonable debate ill sit here all day talking about why i believe that breed bans dont work.

but you sir are far from reasonable, so my interest in debate with you has declined.

Mrs Garth Brooks · 24-02-2014 12:56PM

Not pit bulls but this is about Staffordshire Bull terriers where uneducated people think they're vicious. I mean, uneducated about the breed.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=deLBEM8Xp3w

There's no better household dog than a staffie and statisically more people are hospitalised in Britain for Labrador bites than Staffie bites.

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 01:00PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

actually, given a reasonable debate ill sit here all day talking about why i believe that breed bans dont work.

but you sir are far from reasonable, so my interest in debate with you has declined.

Haha, thank you. You have just reinforced my opinion of the people who insist on owning vicious breeds. That didn't take too long now did it.

seamus · 24-02-2014 01:01PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Should society's safety be compromised on the altar of your peevish wish to have this one particular vicious breed when there are plenty of other safer breeds to choose from?

"Plenty of other safer breeds to choose from."

The fact that you would use the word "safe" in a discussion about dog ownership belies your claim of experience.

The simple fact is, as is shown in the statistics, there is no dog bite problem here, or in the UK, or in the US. Banning any breed is a solution looking for a problem which doesn't exist.

What we do know however, is that there is a massive animal welfare problem in this country and the UK and the US. If we enforced stricter controls aimed at animal welfare - i.e. mandatory chipping of all dogs, requiring a licence to breed or face a €10k fine, actual jail time for those involved in substandard farming, animal fighting etc - then lo and behold this will also have the effect of improving public safety around animals.

But no, the problem is clearly the fact that a dog has a particular appearance. That's what makes them dangerous.

Bulls kill a countable number of Irish people every year. Nobody has died from a dog bite in Ireland in at least 20 years. Where is the talk of banning bulls?

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 01:03PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Haha, thank you. You have just reinforced my opinion of the people who insist on owning vicious breeds. That didn't take too long now did it.

just as you have reinforced my opinion of people who clearly havent a clue about the breed but like to think they're experts on it.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 01:05PM

seamus wrote: »

"Plenty of other safer breeds to choose from."

The fact that you would use the word "safe" in a discussion about dog ownership belies your claim of experience.

The simple fact is, as is shown in the statistics, there is no dog bite problem here, or in the UK, or in the US. Banning any breed is a solution looking for a problem which doesn't exist.

What we do know however, is that there is a massive animal welfare problem in this country and the UK and the US. If we enforced stricter controls aimed at animal welfare - i.e. mandatory chipping of all dogs, requiring a licence to breed or face a €10k fine, actual jail time for those involved in substandard farming, animal fighting etc - then lo and behold this will also have the effect of improving public safety around animals.

But no, the problem is clearly the fact that a dog has a particular appearance. That's what makes them dangerous...

agree 100%

we live in a country where to be found guilty of dog fighting you have to be caught standing in the actual ring with the dogs as they are fighting. if you're a spectator you're basically in the clear.

im not sure i understand the logic in that at all

suicide_circus · 24-02-2014 01:09PM

you need a special license and lengthy background check etc to own a gun...a gun cant suddenly "snap" and kill a child, it can only do harm in the hands of a person.

another issue is perception. I walk a lot, the only time I see one of these types of dogs is in the company of an absolute scrote. they are a fashion accessory for hard men. not saying that regular people dont own them, you just dont see it.

as stated earlier in the thread, collies herd sheep, terriers hunt rats, hounds follow a scent...what were these dogs bred for? tearing lumps out of things - this is why the hard men scrotes are attracted to them.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 01:17PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

you need a special license and lengthy background check etc to own a gun...a gun cant suddenly "snap" and kill a child, it can only do harm in the hands of a person.

another issue is perception. I walk a lot, the only time I see one of these types of dogs is in the company of an absolute scrote. they are a fashion accessory for hard men. not saying that regular people dont own them, you just dont see it.

as stated earlier in the thread, collies herd sheep, terriers hunt rats, hounds follow a scent...what were these dogs bred for? tearing lumps out of things - this is why the hard men scrotes are attracted to them.

many of us that own them would be 100% in favour of a special license to own them. i'd be over the moon tomorrow if it was announced that owners needed to pass a dog handling test before owning them. the last thing i want to see is a bull breed in the hands of some scumbag who lets it at other dogs (or worse) but what good would it do? you think Whacker or his mates will give a crap if a dog gets taken off them? they'll just get another the next day.

the reason you dont really see them with 'normal' people (whats normal eh?

) is that we keep them under control so they dont stand out. we bring them up with love so they dont prowl the streets constantly on edge because all they've known is fear.

and yes they were bred to work in the pit but we've managed to substitute that work with other tasks. weight pulling, k9 athletics etc.

Dyr · 24-02-2014 01:18PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

you need a special license and lengthy background check etc to own a gun...

Then how come so many crims own guns?

oh yeah, scummers don't pay attention to laws, only law abiding citizens do

bear that in mind when you're banning everything

suicide_circus · 24-02-2014 01:25PM

Bambi wrote: »

Then how come so many crims own guns?

oh yeah, scummers don't pay attention to laws, only law abiding citizens do

bear that in mind when you're banning everything

I never said anything about banning. I am just questioning why people choose to own dogs that were bred for fighting/attacking out of the hundreds of breeds available.

JJayoo · 24-02-2014 01:28PM

Maybe owners of all large powerful dogs should be required to have an extra dog licence. Something which would involve proof, through training, that they understand the breed and are able to accommodate and control it. If a person doesn't have adequate space or ability to meet the needs of the dog then they shouldn't be allowed to own the animal.

The "proof" I mentioned could be issued by the local dog rescue center as these are dotted around the place.

My opinion on pitbulls in regards to "are they dangerous" is much the same as my opinion on whether or not guns are dangerous. Both can be perfectly safe if used correctly and both can be very dangerous if in the wrong hands but the pitbull like a high powered weapon can inflict "more" damage if it goes off, so the owner must be very confident in his/her ability to remain in control at all times.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 01:32PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

I never said anything about banning. I am just questioning why people choose to own dogs that were bred for fighting/attacking out of the hundreds of breeds available.

because what they were bred for is not what most of the are now.

many pit bull types would be useless in a fight. the amount of dogs that fighters destroy/sell compared to what they keep is huge. the bloodlines are watered down to the point were it is rare to see one that shows anything more than hightened dog aggression (by hightened i mean what you would expect within any breed).
i was out walking the canal here a few weeks back and had to stop a fight between a pit bull and some large lab type thing. the poor pit bull was taking a mauling and crying in pain, the lab was just too powerful for it and the young fella that owned the pit didnt know how to break up a fight. like i said, very few are bred stone cold killers.

whats happening in the UK at the moment is horrible and im at odds to understand it. my gut is that when pit bull types were banned a lot of them were put to staffordshires and other bull breeds so that BY breeders wouldnt lose stock/money. as with any cross bred dog, you just have no frame of reference to know what you're getting.

we dont ban pit bull types so BY breeders never had to outcross stock which would explain why we havent had any fatalities here in a very long time.

just my own theory.

Muise... · 24-02-2014 01:33PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

I never said anything about banning. I am just questioning why people choose to own dogs that were bred for fighting/attacking out of the hundreds of breeds available.

hundreds of breeds and thousands of mongrels - who are far less likely to be inbred crocks. Also thousands of rescue dogs. If people really loved dogs, they'd give a home to these instead of getting a canine mini-me.

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 01:46PM

seamus wrote: »

"Plenty of other safer breeds to choose from."

The fact that you would use the word "safe" in a discussion about dog ownership belies your claim of experience.

The simple fact is, as is shown in the statistics, there is no dog bite problem here, or in the UK, or in the US. Banning any breed is a solution looking for a problem which doesn't exist.

What we do know however, is that there is a massive animal welfare problem in this country and the UK and the US. If we enforced stricter controls aimed at animal welfare - i.e. mandatory chipping of all dogs, requiring a licence to breed or face a €10k fine, actual jail time for those involved in substandard farming, animal fighting etc - then lo and behold this will also have the effect of improving public safety around animals.

But no, the problem is clearly the fact that a dog has a particular appearance. That's what makes them dangerous.

Bulls kill a countable number of Irish people every year. Nobody has died from a dog bite in Ireland in at least 20 years. Where is the talk of banning bulls?

You'd think with the length of time you've been here that you'd be able to understand the difference between safe and safer, which is what I deliberately said to avoid the predictable answer you just posted.

Nothing in life is "safe"

Some things however are safer. This is why insurance companies wont insure a young driver on a Ferrari for instance.

Similarly, some breeds of dogs are capable of doing many times more damage to a child or even an adult in a shorter time.

Do you see the difference now?

ShaShaBear · 24-02-2014 01:48PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

you need a special license and lengthy background check etc to own a gun...a gun cant suddenly "snap" and kill a child, it can only do harm in the hands of a person.

Yet I am sure that if you left a child alone in a room with a loaded gun and they accidentally jumped on it, or tugged at it, or dragged it across the room, there would be a good chance they could get shot.

ALL dogs have the potential to be dangerous, in that they are generally more powerful than our un-armed selves. I have been bitten three times from childhood to adulthood, once quite recently by my own dog. A collie

You wanna know why he bit me? Because a firework went off, he clamoured in behind the TV stand and tried to dig through the wall, causing a nail to break and blood to pour everywhere. I had to grab him to lift him out, and he bit me. Yet if a child tried to approach him and no-one was watching, he would have been put to sleep for "mauling" an innocent child.

Dogs cannot speak, but they can communicate their discomfort in a situation very, very easily. Of course, for you to spot this communication, you would need to be watching your dog carefully around a child or other adult, not in the other room having coffee and biscuits, or riding your child around on the dog's back for photos.

26 years of life. Three dog bites. JRT, Labrador and Collie. Probably three of the most common household breeds of dog in the 90s. And in fact, probably still.
My boyfriend suffered a severe break in his arm from being jumped on by a beautiful Great Dane that wanted to lick his face. I imagine he could have done a lot more damage had he wanted to bite it as well. But, why would he want to do that? Answer: he wouldn't - because he was brought up and socialised properly and my partner didn't provoke him.

gcgirl · 24-02-2014 01:54PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

How many were killed or maimed by being attacked by a jack Russell or king Charles spaniel?

A King Charles once tried it on with my leg think he got lucky with a Dora the explora doll in the end

My own dog is a GS/Samoyed mix he is brilliant with the kids and cats and yes with both he plays the peace maker

Yeah_Right · 24-02-2014 02:07PM

If they ban pitt bulls what will I use in my dog fighting league??

Anyone that blames a breed and not the owners is an idiot. Kids the get bitten by dogs - most of the time the kid has done something to aggravate the dog. Therefore the responsibility is on the parents and the owner.

rubadub · 24-02-2014 02:30PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It feels kinda like the gun debate, dogs don't injure people, irresponsible owners of dogs injure people.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

You're comparing a dog to a gun? That's ridiculous tbh.

I think it's ridiculous if you cannot see/accept the similarities. Can you come up with a better analogy/comparison?

I think guns, or knives is a great comparison. Some "strains" types are banned, like flick knives or walking the streets with a machete probably is. Of course many owners are flick knives are able to control them and are not a menace to society. Far easier to have an all out ban than come up with some method of proving someone is a scumbag.

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Yes, they should be banned. The only people who own them do so for image reasons.

I find that often seems to be the case. But I do see a "mild mannered" middle aged woman walking 2 dogs which look like a "bull breed" on my way to work, I see lots of people getting well out of her way. She does not appear to be doing it for any image reason and so am left wondering why she got them, as it must be blatantly obvious to her the impression people have of them. It is obvious that the mere look of them strikes fear into a lot of people, even if the owner thinks they look cuter than a poodle.

20 years ago I knew lads who would not dare get a skinhead for fear of being perceived as a thug/scumbag -most of these now have them. Most people do care how others perceive them. Some might even select it to prove a point or something, like some smartarse wearing a t-shirt with a swastika saying its a good luck symbol with a "don't be so quick to judge" mentality.

Even if I did think it was the most suited dog to me, and if some new study came out saying they are the most unlikely breed to attack anybody, I would still not consider getting one. If the media had made out poodles to be the same I would not get one either, I mightn't like the fact it forced me into that decision but I would accept it and not just get one to prove a point or not give a **** about others perceptions of me and the dog.

suicide_circus · 24-02-2014 02:32PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

If they ban pitt bulls what will I use in my dog fighting league??

Anyone that blames a breed and not the owners is an idiot. Kids the get bitten by dogs - most of the time the kid has done something to aggravate the dog. Therefore the responsibility is on the parents and the owner.

yes but if a child puls a jack russells ear the child might gets hand nipped. with a pitt, it might get its face removed.

Dyr · 24-02-2014 02:36PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

yes but if a child puls a jack russells ear the child might gets hand nipped. with a pitt, it might get its face removed.

or the pit bull with it's massive pain tolerance and hundreds of years of breeding traits might just ignore the kid while the poxy little jacker latches onto the kids face

ban jack russells, poxy little f**ks who are inevitably left out to roam by their poxy owners

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 02:39PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

yes but if a child puls a jack russells ear the child might gets hand nipped. with a pitt, it might get its face removed.

once again...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/09/baby-died-bitten-jack-russell

seamus · 24-02-2014 02:39PM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Some things however are safer. This is why insurance companies wont insure a young driver on a Ferrari for instance.
....
Similarly, some breeds of dogs are capable of doing many times more damage to a child or even an adult in a shorter time.

Do you see the difference now?

No, because "some dogs are bigger and stronger" is not the same as "some dogs are safer".

By your logic, walking out in front of a lorry is safer than walking out in front of a double-decker bus because the latter is capable of doing many times more damages in a shorter space of time.

If you pick a dog breed on the basis of "This type of dog is safer than that type of dog", then you've already made a big error.

Dogs are carnivorous animals. They have teeth which easily cut through flesh and are very adept at gripping onto flesh and ripping it from bones. This is in contrast to human teeth which are better at grinding and crushing than they are at cutting.

In short, it doesn't really matter what type of dog bites you. In the 3 seconds it takes you to react, they will have put large puncture wounds in your skin, and particularly when you have small children involved, they may have broken small soft bones or removed appendages before you can even blink. This is true whether you have a collie, a great dane, a pitbull or a jack russell.

Yes, some breeds have stronger bites than others. But don't be fooled into thinking that the "weaker" dogs are any less capable of causing a serious injury in a short space of time. Kilo-for-kilo if you asked me whether I would rather be attacked by a pitbull or a St. Bernard, give me the pitbull any day. An angry pitbull at least doesn't have the weight advantage. The strength of the jaws play second fiddle, it's the teeth that do the damage, not the bite.

Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Comments