Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Mince Pie · 24-02-2014 02:45PM

I wonder how many can identify a Pitbull?

http://www.pickthepit.com/

Yeah_Right · 24-02-2014 02:47PM

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.

What if they pull a rottweiller's ear? Or a doberman's? Or an alsatian's? Or a boxer's? Or a labrador's? Or a St. bernard's? Or a wolfhound's? Should they all be banned as well?

I am pie · 24-02-2014 02:53PM

Amount of people killed by Pitbulls each year vs amount of people killed by cigarettes and alcohol?

But yeah, lets ban pit bulls...

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 02:56PM

I am pie wrote: »

Amount of people killed by Pitbulls each year vs amount of people killed by cigarettes and alcohol?

But yeah, lets ban pit bulls...

and coconuts. seemingly they claim 40 lives a year!

suicide_circus · 24-02-2014 02:57PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What if they pull a rottweiller's ear? Or a doberman's? Or an alsatian's? Or a boxer's? Or a labrador's? Or a St. bernard's? Or a wolfhound's? Should they all be banned as well?

you seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension, keep your knickers on, I never said anything about banning?
look I agree the owners are mostly to blame

the traits these dogs were bred for makes them attractive to scrotes and hard men.

scrotes are unlikely to be responsible owners.

so you have these dogs, capable of causing more damage than the average dog, owned by scrotes whose sole reason for owning them is the dogs violent and aggressive breeding.

beverly hills princesses own those little rat dogs because they fit in a handbag, farmers own collies for sheep herding, why do people own these breeds?

what I advocate is strict licensing.

ShaShaBear · 24-02-2014 03:05PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

look I agree the owners are mostly to blame

the traits these dogs were bred for makes them attractive to scrotes and hard men.

scrotes are unlikely to be responsible owners.

so you have these dogs, capable of causing more damage than the average dog, owned by scrotes whose sole reason for owning them is the dogs violent and aggressive breeding.

beverly hills princesses own those little rat dogs because they fit in a handbag, farmers own collies for sheep herding, why do people own these breeds?

what I advocate is strict licensing.

People own the breed they own (most often) because they love the personality traits that they possess. All dogs have a personality and regardless of why they were bred, they have depth to that personality too. My dog is a collie, he was bred to herd. But he absolutely sucked at it, so here he is with me learning tricks to bate the band and behaving like a general dufus. His immense wish to please me, his love of performance, his unpredictable hyperness and extreme loyalty are all collie traits he possesses that I adore. Sure, he also likes to herd, but that's not all he is. Just like bull breeds possess many endearing qualities that other breeds might not. If you love the quiet and lazy "couch potato" trait of a staffie, why would you buy/rescue a JRT/springer spaniel/beagle?
The only thing bull-types were bred to do was to be easily offended by other dogs. And I can say that well over half of the population of Irish dogs, mongrels, bichons, collies, afghan hounds, huskys etc have exactly the same problem. Not liking other dogs does not mean you will suddenly also not like humans. They might not be creatures of overwhelming intelligence but they know the difference :P

Dr Turk Turkelton · 24-02-2014 03:07PM

conorhal wrote: »

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.

Lol this happened to me a few years ago.
Was picking my son up from the childminder when a little jacker came running at me and latched on to my foot.
I landed him about 30 feet away.(was next door neighbours of the childminder).
Posh lady comes running out because of the yelps and asks "oh my god are you ok"?
I replied "yeah grand" and she said "not you,you animal,the facking dog"!!!

Yeah_Right · 24-02-2014 03:17PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

you seem to have difficulty with basic reading comprehension, keep your knickers on, I never said anything about banning?
look I agree the owners are mostly to blame

the traits these dogs were bred for makes them attractive to scrotes and hard men.

scrotes are unlikely to be responsible owners.

so you have these dogs, capable of causing more damage than the average dog, owned by scrotes whose sole reason for owning them is the dogs violent and aggressive breeding.

beverly hills princesses own those little rat dogs because they fit in a handbag, farmers own collies for sheep herding, why do people own these breeds?

what I advocate is strict licensing.

Sorry jumped to the conclusion that you were supporting the banning of the pitt bulls by comparing the damage they can do to that of jack russell. i was simply pointing out that there are a lot of dog breeds out there that can do significant damage to a child if they are provoked.

You are right, it is down to the owners and how they raise their dogs. Licensing would be a big help because even though the "scrotes" probably wouldn't license their dogs, at least that way the dogs could be legally removed from them.

rubadub · 24-02-2014 03:21PM

I am pie wrote: »

Amount of people killed by Pitbulls each year vs amount of people killed by cigarettes and alcohol?

But yeah, lets ban pit bulls...

If cigarettes or alcohol were only discovered today they would be banned. Most new recreational drugs, many deemed to be far safer than alcohol, are banned today. So you have actually unintentionally come up with a very good argument, most governments DO ban recreational drugs, which some users could use in a pretty safe and responsible manner.

As I said earlier its easier to implement and outright ban on particular knives or breeds of dog.

suicide_circus wrote: »

the traits these dogs were bred for makes them attractive to scrotes and hard men.

And some would be more than happy with a docile dog which looks like a dangerous breed, just to strike fear into the average person on the street.

Mince Pie wrote: »

I wonder how many can identify a Pitbull?

http://www.pickthepit.com/

So you think you know what a pit bull is?
-nope, and I don't think I would be 100% if a dodgy looking lad in a dark alley is a scumbag, I will take the same option and presume the worst. So I am prejudiced, and unashamedly so, some people treat prejudice like a dirty word, 100% negative connotations, when often its just common sense to pre-judge a situation and err on the safe side.

DNA tests of pit bull-looking dogs often come up with some surprising results. One dog, who looked to all intents and purposes like a pit bull, turned out to be 40 percent poodle!
So I wonder why they chose this dog

especially after reading this
Even if they're 40 percent poodle. They can be taken to the pound and then killed.

I sometimes have a knife on me, usually a mini 1" blade leatherman mulit-tool, I might prefer to have a larger one but am fully aware I could look like a scumbag out for trouble if a garda or bouncer were to search me.

Can any owner of a dog which is or could be mistaken for a bull type dog explain why they selected it?
Were you not put off your selection by the inevitable way you and your dog would be perceived by many people? (I cannot for one second believe you were unaware of the reputation of such dogs and owners)

suicide_circus · 24-02-2014 03:27PM

I think I'm gonna start selling pomeranians with lasers taped to their heads, the scrotes will snap them up and kids will be safe.

I am pie · 24-02-2014 03:41PM

....So you have actually unintentionally come up with a very good argument, most governments DO ban recreational drugs, which some users could use in a pretty safe and responsible manner.....

Right, except agressive dogs aren't exactly a recent invention are they.

You are missing the point on a grand scale, the point being that the amount of death and serious injury from the these dogs over a year is so statistically insignificant the legislation is not required, outside of the emotional arguments and arguments about doggie genetics. At a cold statistical level there just is not any real need for this law.

A couple of children generally die each year strangled in blind chords (the strings used to control blinds), we aren't banning those.

It's very simple. Children should be supervised, no more should they be left alone where they can choke, burn themselves or fall from a height than they should be left alone with a dog or a dog left unrestrained around children (whi might pull, poke annoy etc).

Don't ban dogs of a certain type, take personal responsibility for protecting your children and stop looking for state assistance against statistically insignificant risks. It's an emotive issue based on fear, ignorance and lack of personal responsibility.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 03:42PM

rubadub wrote: »

Can any owner of a dog which is or could be mistaken for a bull type dog explain why they selected it?
Were you not put off your selection by the inevitable way you and your dog would be perceived by many people? (I cannot for one second believe you were unaware of the reputation of such dogs and owners)

how i or my dog are perceived by our looks really means nothing to me. my dog walks at my heel, sits when crossing the road and stays calm and relaxed when kids pet her. if anyone has a problem with her ill just walk away from them. she;s on a short lead and generally doesnt like the taste of humans so they'll be safe enough. also, unlike us intelligent humans, she's not offended easily by ignorance.

the reason i choose this breed of dog is because everyday they show traits that i admire. their loyalty to friendly humans is unrivaled, they are courageous beyond reproach & very little rattles them which leads me to trust their proven stable temperment. the working type bull breeds havent been destroyed by the show ring yet so they cost very little in vet care (or sleepless nights!).
and mostly because they are a REAL family dog. they want to be in the thick of it with their humans. our girl sits by our side all day, she comes to work with me. she sits with my son when he's doing homework or just watching tv. she sneaks into the bedrooms late at night when she thinks we're asleep and wakes us up in the morning like she hasnt seen us in a year. you really cant ask more of a dog.

i lived with a mongrel, a rhodesian ridgeback (working bred) and a bichon before my staff. i'd never have anything but a bull breed now.

RiverOfLove · 24-02-2014 03:42PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

most ill informed post in the entire thread.

i know a lot of bull breed owners and none of us are wannabe hardmen. we're people who are into dogs and bulls are our preferred breeds.

do i look like a wannabe hardman with a killer dog to you?

Your doggie is so cute. I would love to get smothered with licks from your lovely hound.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 03:50PM

RiverOfLove wrote: »

Your doggie is so cute. I would love to get smothered with licks from your lovely hound.

no better dog for it

darced · 24-02-2014 04:15PM

This post has been deleted.

b_mac · 24-02-2014 04:16PM

Mince Pie wrote: »

I wonder how many can identify a Pitbull?

http://www.pickthepit.com/

Took me 4 tries to find the Pit Bull!!

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 04:18PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i can only speak for my own - i do athletics with her. she doesnt hesitate to try anything i want her to try (weight pulling, long jump, high jump, speed pulling etc).

not many 17" dogs will go over a 5ft A-frame without a moments hesitation.

Dyr · 24-02-2014 04:45PM

b_mac wrote: »

Took me 4 tries to find the Pit Bull!!

it took me half a dozen tries to open the web page

Wibbs · 24-02-2014 05:04PM

seamus wrote: »

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?

+1. Dogs occupy an odd position in the human psyche. The first animals we domesticated that have been with us for tens of thousands of years, yet we give them far less leeway than other animals around us. As you point out, bulls can be very dangerous, as can horses in some circumstances, cats can bite and scratch, even parrots can have a finger off a kid, yet nobody would be calling for them to be destroyed. A dog even snaps at someone and it's automatically a danger and the hand wringers are out in force. They're not allowed to have a one off, a bad day.

TBH what fascinates me is, that for an animal that is descended and outside the yappers that fit in handbags of the rich and dumb, still is for the most part an apex predator (and could go feral very easily), I'm surprised there aren't far more attacks and fatalities involving dogs.

barone · 24-02-2014 08:08PM

as a postie id just like to say this ... all of ye who have dogs and who let them roam,or wander out around unsupervised should be banned from keeping them,regardless of breed .

its the owners who think that their dog would never bite..despite their dogs insistence on having a go,and with each attempt getting more bolder (especially in front of said owner) who are the real cause of dog bites/attacks, blind ignorance to what they consider (and usually rightly so) to be a family member, that it would NEVER harm anyone,almost as if they think the dog is human,and they know how it thinks..they think because there breed isnt in the papers attacking people all the time there grand to leave out to stroll about.

if the dog (any breed) is kept in a controlled at all times manner, safely penned in if alone scenario..then bites and attacks will be at a minimum .

its when they are not under control when these things happen,its humans to blame..

common sense, dogs are not human,they dont think like humans .

been bitten twice as a postie, both by dogs that i was assured would never bite by the owners,and plenty of other posties i know have been aswell ..every breed can bite and do damage,keep them under control and they cant.

mitosis · 24-02-2014 08:20PM

Mince Pie wrote: »

I wonder how many can identify a Pitbull?

http://www.pickthepit.com/

All you need to do is remember the web page is pro pit bull propaganda, so you pick the cutest puppy dog looking one.

BrianG23 · 24-02-2014 08:59PM

Hmm, a bit of advice please, a family that lives down the road from me has this massive dog, we joke about it being a small bear instead of Dog. WEll, I don't know if they let it out or if it just jumps over the fence, but it's quite a vicious dog. Poor ownership definitely, it's not mistreated I am sure but the family simply aren't capable of owning a dog, I don't know why it got so confrontational. It doesn't get out often but when it does it will approach anyone and get up close barking and stuff, I feel it's only a matter of time before it bites someone and if it ever gets out with children around...well, you know. No one has really done or said anything, although my friends little brother said it bit him(while wearing a thick jacket) and he kicked it so it stopped. It seems like one of those scenerios where this dog is obviously an accident waiting to happen. So, what can I do or say to before something happens?

Da Shins Kelly · 24-02-2014 09:05PM

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. Dogs occupy an odd position in the human psyche. The first animals we domesticated that have been with us for tens of thousands of years, yet we give them far less leeway than other animals around us. As you point out, bulls can be very dangerous, as can horses in some circumstances, cats can bite and scratch, even parrots can have a finger off a kid, yet nobody would be calling for them to be destroyed. A dog even snaps at someone and it's automatically a danger and the hand wringers are out in force. They're not allowed to have a one off, a bad day.

TBH what fascinates me is, that for an animal that is descended and outside the yappers that fit in handbags of the rich and dumb, still is for the most part an apex predator (and could go feral very easily), I'm surprised there aren't far more attacks and fatalities involving dogs.

I think it's because they occupy that space that they're given less leeway. They're seen as 'man's best friend', the first animal to be domesticated, the animal that many humans form the closest bond with, etc., so when they turn and bite someone or do something instinctive, it's probably considered more shocking, like the attempt to domesticate and control them has failed. Whereas with horses or bulls, I reckon they're considered a lot more wild in a way (which they are), so when they kick or charge, it's just considered as an instinctive thing, part of their nature or what have you. We tread with caution around horses to a certain degree because we know they have a wild side, but we just expect dogs to be docile and manageable, and then are shocked when they do something instinctive.

marc96 · 24-02-2014 09:15PM

My little fella,the nicest dog I've ever owned or been around.

24-02-2014 09:17PM

Aren't staffordshire pitbulls known as the nanny dog as the are good with children?

I think there are some aggressive breeds but it's down to the owners on how they train and control them. If you can't control your dog you shouldn't have one. Simple as that. Any dog I've owned was always well disciplined, there is no excuse for not having a dog well disciplined, trained how to behave around people and under control of the owner. If a dog attacks someone the owner should be held accountable and face jail time. I think that would stop idiots owning breeds they can't, or are to stupid to control.

Also I don't think it's fair on bigger breeds to be raised in an urban environment.

mitosis · 24-02-2014 09:36PM

6781 wrote: »

Aren't staffordshire pitbulls known as the nanny dog as the are good with children?

.

Yes, but only the ones they are familiar with.

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 10:05PM

BrianG23 wrote: »

Hmm, a bit of advice please, a family that lives down the road from me has this massive dog, we joke about it being a small bear instead of Dog. WEll, I don't know if they let it out or if it just jumps over the fence, but it's quite a vicious dog. Poor ownership definitely, it's not mistreated I am sure but the family simply aren't capable of owning a dog, I don't know why it got so confrontational. It doesn't get out often but when it does it will approach anyone and get up close barking and stuff, I feel it's only a matter of time before it bites someone and if it ever gets out with children around...well, you know. No one has really done or said anything, although my friends little brother said it bit him(while wearing a thick jacket) and he kicked it so it stopped. It seems like one of those scenerios where this dog is obviously an accident waiting to happen. So, what can I do or say to before something happens?

Sandwich ?

Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Comments