PDA

View Full Version : Ban on Pitbulls


deoxys121
July 29th, 2011, 06:29 PM
About a month ago, there was a proposed bill to ban pitbulls in Michigan, where I live. The reasoning behind it was the fact that pitbulls are 1. used in illegal dog fights, and 2. have been shown to have occasional incidents involving death or serious injury.

Thankfully, this bill did not get a hearing. This page (http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/state-of-michigan-pit-bull-regulation-and-prohibition-act_20110609_dk#disqus_thread) states more details about the proposed ban.

I personally do not believe that any sort of dog breed should be banned. First of all, if pitbulls were banned, then dog fighters would just find another breed to use. And my counter to the occasional incident is this: they are a few isolated incidents and should not be used to make a generalization about the breed as a whole.

I have been around pitbulls on many occasions, and none of them have been mean at all. One family I used to babysit for had a pitbull named Scooby, who was one of the sweetest dogs I ever saw and the worst thing she would do is lick you to death.

A dog's behavior depends on how you raise it; it is not dependent solely on the breed.

What are your opinions on this?

-ty-
July 29th, 2011, 06:37 PM
You are joking right? GASP

A pitbull has just as potential to become violent as a collie, or German Shepard.

I totally agree, my sister-in-law and my aunt both have pitbulls that are gentle. One of which is in a home with a 2 year old boy. Maybe they should increase the punishment for dog fighting so that breeds that have a structurally built are not demonized.

Livewire
July 29th, 2011, 06:57 PM
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicates that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 (http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf). JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.) An outright ban is idiotic. However, the Pit bull has a reputation you cannot ignore, and rightfully so. If you are a new dog owner or a novice when it comes to these animals you should never, ever even consider keeping one. Especially when you have small children. Not all Pits are like this, obviously. But they account for more dog bites and dog fatalities than any other breed of dog.

FreakyLocz14
July 29th, 2011, 07:04 PM
Pit bulls are only violent if their owners train them to be that way. Pit bulls are great with kids. This is why they are called the nanny dog.

Oryx
July 29th, 2011, 07:20 PM
You are joking right? GASP

A pitbull has just as potential to become violent as a collie, or German Shepard.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. Pitbulls are generally more vicious than other breeds, part of a personality is bred into an animal, take Ragdoll cats for example. But that doesn't mean they should be banned - just carefully controlled and not taken in by families that aren't confident in their dog-handling skills.

Safir-Hime
July 29th, 2011, 07:46 PM
Why blame the dog for the owner's mistakes? If a dog is violent it is 100% because of how they were treated by humans (or lack of treatment depending.) Sure pit-bulls have a trend of being violent, but so do German Shepards.

Livewire
July 29th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Why blame the dog for the owner's mistakes? If a dog is violent it is 100% because of how they were treated by humans (or lack of treatment depending.) .

That's not remotely true. A violent dog is violent because of its upbringing and its breed.

Sure pit-bulls have a trend of being violent, but so do German ShepardsThis is contradictory to what you just said. Wouldn't that just mean the German Shepards were brought up that way? Dogs, while domesticated, are still animals. Every single breed has the penchant for violence, it's just that some have come to be more violent, being bred that way over time. If anything, blame the AKC.

G.U.Y.
July 29th, 2011, 07:58 PM
Pit bulls are only violent if their owners train them to be that way. Pit bulls are great with kids. This is why they are called the nanny dog.
Pitbulls tend to be more violent than other dogs. However, it really does matter how the owner trains them.

And yes, pitbulls are fantastic with kids. They just love each other, it's really cute. <3

I don't agree with a ban, but since they can be spontaneously temperamental, you should have to have a license.

My dog was attacked randomly by a pitbull, but the owner sucked (it was my neighbor's dog, so I know that for a fact.) Just because that pitbull attacked my dog, that doesn't mean every pitbull is going to attack something. :|

Safir-Hime
July 29th, 2011, 08:13 PM
That's not remotely true. A violent dog is violent because of its upbringing and its breed.

This is contradictory to what you just said. Wouldn't that just mean the German Shepards were brought up that way? Dogs, while domesticated, are still animals. Every single breed has the penchant for violence, it's just that some have come to be more violent, being bred that way over time. If anything, blame the AKC.

That's what I meant, is that a dog is violent because of how they were treated or trained. Its breed usually isn't a big deal in the way it behaves, a good owner can make a sweetheart out of any dog, even a wolf.

It's not contradictory exactly to what I said, I just worded it wrong. I can agree that some breeds tend to be more violent, but like I said above, it can be controlled, rather easily.
A dog becomes violent because of ill-training, mistreatment, abuse, or neglect (i.e. growing up in the 'wild')
Ill-training can include raising an attack dog but not training it by command. Therefore the dog might think they can attack anything.

FreakyLocz14
July 29th, 2011, 09:20 PM
A license? No.

Just require all large dogs to be caged, behind a fence, or on a leash when outdoors.

-ty-
July 29th, 2011, 09:35 PM
A license? No.

Just require all large dogs to be caged, behind a fence, or on a leash when outdoors.

I don't agree with the license either.

Also, it is not true that Pitbulls are more danegerous.

According to the American Temperament Test Society, temperament evaluations of American Pit Bull Terriers shows that this breed has a very high passing rate of 82.6%. The average passing rate for the other 121 breeds of dogs in the tests: 77%.

This is all misinterpreted data. In 1979-1998 a study found that Pitbulls were responsible for the most fatal attacks. (United States)


Pit Bulls: 66

Rottweilers: 39

German Shepherds: 17

Chows: 8


So you are like, hey, Pitbulls are awful, right? Well, how many dog of each breed were there?

(estimation) Pit Bulls: 5,256,000

(estimation) Rottweilers: 900,000

(estimation) German Shepherds: 780,000

(estimation) Chows: 240,000

The estimated percentage of attacks per number of dog was:

Pit Bulls: .00125 %

Rottweilers: .00433 %

German Shepherds: .00217%

Chow: .00333%

Hmm. Rottweilers are about 4 times as much likely to fatally attack a person. Actually Of these four breeds, Pit Bulls are the least likely to fatally attack a person.

Mr. X
July 29th, 2011, 09:49 PM
All dogs can become violent dependent upon how they are treated/raised. But some are genetically more prone to violence.

The main reason why these dogs attack is because most people don't know how to properly train the dog. Each breed requires special training for certian genetic characteristics, although for most this can be safely disguarded.

Edit - To above

Are these numbers for purebred dogs, or just were pitbull was the dominating breed in that dog?

Dracorus
July 29th, 2011, 09:51 PM
i do believe you that they would just find another breed to use, and thats true, they will just find another breed. im not a very quick reader so i dont read the aboce comments before posting this..

Ive had my share of pit bulls and i honestly love them( i love all dogs, but you know). but what i dont understand is:

Why fight animals against each other? for entertainment? for money? well yes, sure, you could say that.. but why? why pit two dogs against each other and fight to the death? now im not a super animal freak but i do believe they have just as much right as humans.. that may throw people in my face but thats the truth for me.

now my view on the ban? i think it was a good idea, as much as a bad idea, good as in pit bulls wont be used as much(for they are lawbreakers, they arent gonna stop). but a bad idea as in more dogs will be in fights.

-ty-
July 29th, 2011, 10:05 PM
All dogs can become violent dependent upon how they are treated/raised. But some are genetically more prone to violence.

The main reason why these dogs attack is because most people don't know how to properly train the dog. Each breed requires special training for certian genetic characteristics, although for most this can be safely disguarded.

Edit - To above

Are these numbers for purebred dogs, or just were pitbull was the dominating breed in that dog?

It doesn't specify, but I assume dominant breed.

FreakyLocz14
July 30th, 2011, 08:29 AM
The locking jaw myth has also been debunked.

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
July 30th, 2011, 12:48 PM
That article does not surprise me for several reasons. Where I am from (New York City) they have a banning of both Pit bulls and Rottweilers in certain living areas like the projects. I honestly dont see that as a fair thing because not all Pit Bulls have the personality of being vicious, yes most of them do but not all of them. I think its the owner that does not discipline them correctly.


:t354:TG

Livewire
August 9th, 2011, 08:16 AM
Pit Bull Owners and the Ohio Revised Code
What is a pit bull?
Ohio Revised Code states that Dog Wardens are the only authorities that can legally designate whether a dog is a pit bull-type dog. Breeds of dogs that fall under the classification of “pit bull” in Ohio include (but are not limited to):

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Any other purebred or mixed breed dog whose appearance (looks or physical characteristics) are predominantly like the list of breeds above (or a combination of breeds from the above list)

What laws do Pit Bull owners need to follow?
If you own, keep, or harbor (have at your residence) a “pit bull-type dog” in the state of Ohio, the Ohio Revised Code 955.22 mandates that you must comply with ALL of the laws listed in this document. Additionally, your local municipality/city/township may have additional laws that Pit Bull owners must follow, or they may ban Pit Bulls completely.
For example, in Central Ohio, Pit Bulls are banned if you live in the city limits of Bexley or Reynoldsburg, and they are subject to additional restrictions in Gahanna.
To determine if your area of residence has additional pit bull laws, please contact your local code enforcement officer.
How do I need to restrain my Pit Bull-type dog?
When your Pit Bull is on your property, you must either:


Keep your dog in a securely fenced yard (no gaps in the fence and no way for the dog to escape) with any gates locked (padlock or combination lock)
Or, keep your dog in a locked (padlocked or otherwise secured) enclosure with a top (like a kennel or pen with a secure top)

When your Pit Bull is off your property, you must always:


Keep your dog on a chain-link leash or tether that is 6 feet (or less) in length (this means you CANNOT take your Pit Bull to a dog park)
Additionally you must do one of the following three things:

1. Be sure that the person holding the leash is an adult who is able to control the dog
2. Attach the leash/tether securely to the ground or a stationary object ONLY while an adult (who can control the dog) is right there
3. Muzzle the dog securely
Do I need insurance for my Pit Bull-type dog?
Ohio law forces anyone who owns a Pit Bull-type dog to have at least $100,000 in liability insurance that would provide coverage if your dog would cause damage to a person’s body or a person’s death.
Your existing homeowner’s or renter’s insurance may already cover this. Check with your insurance agent to see if your policy covers the breed of dog(s) you own.
If you do not have insurance or if your existing insurance does not cover your dog, switch to a company that does not discriminate against Pit Bulls!
We recommend the Insurance Companies listed in the green column on the right side of this page. You can also call us for a list of non-discriminatory insurance companies.
Alternatively, you can purchase a “personal umbrella liability policy” to provide the mandatory liability coverage, as long as the umbrella policy covers canine-inflicted injuries.


Some of the local laws regarding to Pitbulls. I hardly find these unfair.

Mewtwolover
August 9th, 2011, 09:17 AM
IMO there should be a dog owner's license that you need to get before you can own i.e. pitbulls or other dogs that are difficult to handle properly.

U.Flame
August 9th, 2011, 11:24 AM
Pitbulls are innocent. I hate it when people treat pitbulls like crap and blame the dog if it fights back.

Phantom
August 12th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Pitt bulls are amazing dogs.

As long as you aren't mean to your dog they are great animals.

Chikara
August 12th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Just saying but, it doesn't matter who raises a Pitbull. They're vicious dogs by nature. Even if it's raised in a kind, loving environment, it's not going to deplete the breed's natural instinct. That's just reality. Yeah, a lot of Pitbulls are nice, good dogs and won't tear your face off for existing withing a 10 foot radius of it, but like I said. It's instinct.

Ever heard the whole "Rocky's never done that before. Rocky never bites. Rocky is a good dog" explanation?

Don't get me wrong; I love pitbulls, I think they're adorable. But saying things like "they're only violent if the owner treats them bad" is very naive.

BUT YEAH. Either way, I disagree with the ban lmfao. It's completely ridiculous and won't accomplish a thing. Even if it did get a hearing, an passed for that matter, it wouldn't change much. Yeah, less violent dog breeds. Still psycho killers with guns and knives. All it'll do it take family dogs away from families that love them ):

twocows
August 13th, 2011, 03:55 PM
That's silly. Anything has the potential to be violent. If anything, there should just be mandatory training for people who raise dogs with more aggressive reputations.

cazzler
August 13th, 2011, 04:04 PM
Just saying but, it doesn't matter who raises a Pitbull. They're vicious dogs by nature. Even if it's raised in a kind, loving environment, it's not going to deplete the breed's natural instinct. That's just reality. Yeah, a lot of Pitbulls are nice, good dogs and won't tear your face off for existing withing a 10 foot radius of it, but like I said. It's instinct.

Ever heard the whole "Rocky's never done that before. Rocky never bites. Rocky is a good dog" explanation?

Don't get me wrong; I love pitbulls, I think they're adorable. But saying things like "they're only violent if the owner treats them bad" is very naive.

BUT YEAH. Either way, I disagree with the ban lmfao. It's completely ridiculous and won't accomplish a thing. Even if it did get a hearing, an passed for that matter, it wouldn't change much. Yeah, less violent dog breeds. Still psycho killers with guns and knives. All it'll do it take family dogs away from families that love them ):

I agree, these dogs are very violent by NATURE, recently in Australia (Where I live) A pregnant women who owns two Pitbulls was killed by one of them, the husband gave the other one away. These dogs were apparently nice and what not, this was the first incident caused by them.

Zy-Reji-Mario-Zylon
August 13th, 2011, 06:27 PM
I don't think pit bulls should be baned because I have a pit bull named Pepsi and She loves to sniff my shoes she is completely harmless

DowntownDumpling
August 28th, 2011, 03:53 PM
Humans have been shown to kill one another, fight in gangs, be crafty and manipulative, and influence each other to commit terrible crimes.

Humans, on an evolutionary level, do not need to hunt other animals for food, but many do anyway, and upwards of 96% of the world's population eats meat.

Humans are the only species to force other animals to do their work on a large scale. They are also the only species to domesticate other animals for their own amusement.

Ice Car
August 28th, 2011, 04:53 PM
I ****ing hate these people, pardon the language. If you're going to generalize that much, why not go and emphasize all other stereotypes? Hey, all Asians are smart, let's allow only Asians as teachers! All Black People live on the streets, talk trash, and listen to rap, so let's deny them jobs! Etc. etc.

Besides, as others have said, the dog fighters will just find another breed to use dog fighting for. It's not that hard at all. First they're going to ban pit bulls, then whatever dog they use for fighting, then the next, and the next after that until too many breeds to count are banned, or just about any breed that could be characterized as dangerous. This whole idea is just stupid.

Humans have been shown to kill one another, fight in gangs, be crafty and manipulative, and influence each other to commit terrible crimes.

Humans, on an evolutionary level, do not need to hunt other animals for food, but many do anyway, and upwards of 96% of the world's population eats meat.

Humans are the only species to force other animals to do their work on a large scale. They are also the only species to domesticate other animals for their own amusement.

I can see your argument about Humans being Bastards compared to anything else by far, but how exactly are we going to "ban ourselves"? I can apply "fight in gangs and be crafty and manipulative" to quite a few species/animals. Just because us humans are flawed in oh, so many ways, does that mean we can't enforce laws for the general good, regardless of the fact that it may or may not jeopardize animals? So, we'd have no right to put a ban on snakes or other dangerous animals as pets. Indeed, they can be domesticated and friendly, almost any animal can, but they are still more dangerous than others, but if it's for the general good, why can't we pass it?

I'm just assuming you're arguing "Humans are bigger problems than any of the world's problems with animals combined. Why are we focusing on them instead of us?". If I'm wrong, ignore this post.

Livewire
August 28th, 2011, 07:40 PM
Besides, as others have said, the dog fighters will just find another breed to use dog fighting for. It's not that hard at all. First they're going to ban pit bulls, then whatever dog they use for fighting, then the next, and the next after that until too many breeds to count are banned, or just about any breed that could be characterized as dangerous. This whole idea is just stupid

No, they use that breed specifically because of the breed's inherent qualities - the compact, muscular build and penchant for aggression. They use the breed capable of fulfilling the role they need. They won't fight Golden Retrievers, because they would suck at it.

Shiny Celebi
August 30th, 2011, 06:03 PM
No breed of dogs should be banned. It isnt the dogs fault, it is human's fault for forcing them to be fighting dogs.

Esper
August 31st, 2011, 12:47 PM
These are dogs. Animals. They can't control themselves so it's the owners who need to take responsibility. However, since you can't restrict where people can go and live the only way to keep dangerous animals (or, if you prefer, "animals with a greater disposition toward aggressiveness") is to have outright bans or restrictions in certain areas. You can't exactly have a license for people to carry around which say "It's okay. My pit bull is safe." There's too much room for error there. It's an animal. It can be unpredictable. And the owner could be unscrupulous, reusing a license from another dog and so on.

I mean, a ban isn't asking for everyone to have their dogs put down or anything. It's not like you couldn't just choose to get a different breed or dog.

Gold warehouse
September 1st, 2011, 05:01 PM
If anything AT ALL we should just have a ban on people breeding this dog. It's not like this particular breed of dog is natural anyway, they've been purposefully bred as violent dogs. It's just sick and twisted human intervention. At least if we outlaw breeding, no dogs are neglected in the process.
I'm talking about American Pitbulls here, but I have to admit I have never actually been in contact with one, so I am simply basing this on what I've heard.

Although I have met English Bulldogs and Staffordshire bull terriers and I have to say they really are lovely dogs and I could never support a ban.

I don't think I'd ever support an outright ban of having a particular breed; so many breeds can become violent, depending on how **** their owner is. It's not the fault of the dog, it's the owner.

Yoshikko
September 2nd, 2011, 11:33 AM
Well, I do believe that the aggressiveness of any animal is definitely influenced by the owner. The energy of the owner, the way it treats the animal, the way it was raised, all those factors count. But it's true that Pitbulls can be dangerous, and in this case I think it's just a case of nature or nurture, probably. Pitbulls have very strong jaws, and most of the time they refuse to let go, and like most animals, will bite even harder if you try to shake them off. There is a myth about them having a "lock-jaw", that would be a mechanism in the jaws, that would make the dog unable to, as the name points out, unlock their jaws from a bite. This piece of text explains that there is no such thing in any animal though, and I think I agree. The following quote was sent to me from Dr. Howard Evans, Professor Emeritus, College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, Ithaca New York. We were colleagues in the veterinary college for four years. He is the author of the textbook, ANATOMY OF THE DOG, (the world's definitive work on the anatomy of the dog). His statement was in a letter addressed to me on March 26. 2002. His quote was: "I have spoken with [Dr.] Sandy deLahunta (the foremost dog neurologist in the country) and [DR.] Katherine Houpt (a leading dog behaviorist) about a jaw locking mechanism in pit bulls or any other dog and they both say, as do I, that there is NO SUCH THING AS "JAW LOCKING" IN ANY BREED.

We all agree that the power of the bite is proportional to the size of the jaws and the jaw muscles. There is no anatomical structure that could be a locking mechanism in any dog." As a Professor Emeritus from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University, I agree completely with their conclusion.

As for fighting dogs; they are using the Pitbulls because of their strong jaws, so it is not at all the dogs fault. They should focus on the fighters, instead of the dogs. Any dog could be made aggressive, they all have jaws and sharp teeth.

Archer
September 2nd, 2011, 05:19 PM
While I don't necessarily believe in a blanket ban on a particular breed, suggesting that the breed has nothing to do with the nature of the dog is just naive.

Add to that their jaw strength, your average Pitbull produces a more dangerous dog than your average Golden Retriever. Of course, there will be (many) exceptions to the rule. But they have more potential to be dangerous, which is the concern.

All dogs should have secure fencing and be kept on a controlled leash in public, so I don't see what the fuss is about, aside from the blanket bans that I oppose.

-ty-
September 3rd, 2011, 08:04 AM
I think some us are forgetting that Pit Bulls are not the most lethal/aggressive breed. Chows, Dobermans, and many other breeds are more likely to cause human deaths. If you go back to the first page of the thread you will see the numbers. If that is the case than all dogs with a higher rate of human mortality should also be banned, or none of them, including pit bulls.

Graceful
September 3rd, 2011, 08:59 AM
I blame the owners and the way they were brought up, rather than the dogs themselves. The environment surrounding them will choose whether it will be aggressive or what not.
If it's brought up nicely in a caring environment, then that's fair enough.

Also, I have a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (and a Shih Tsu/Jack Russell cross) and although mine is REALLY friendly, I have read several articles and there are reported cases of Cavaliers being aggressive, when in fact, it's not in it's usual nature >.>

DreamQueen
September 17th, 2011, 11:15 PM
Look at it this way.

If they were banned, it would not stop the people who shouldn't own these dogs. The dog fighters are already breaking the law by fighting their dogs, not desexing, registering or microchipping them, as well as breaking home slaughter laws and home veterinary care laws, depending on what state you're in.

If APBT are banned, do you think the dogfighters are honestly going to throw their hands up in the air and sigh "Well, the police say I can't, so I won't. In fact, I'm so ashamed of my earlier actions that I'm going to turn over a new leaf and sign up to adopt a Labrador, whom I will love, adore and care for"

NO.

They are merely going to keep their dogs in worse conditions in order to conceal them. The ones who will have to give up their pets are the ones whose dogs pose no risk to the public. The ones who rescue the ex fighting dogs and rehabilitate them.

Banning a particular breed of dog isn't going to make a drop in dog attack statistics. People are freaking stupid, there is no law that will solve this. They will buy a bull breed to show off. They will buy a bull breed or working line dog and not train it. They will leave their children with their dogs unattended. They will not contain their dog if it shows previous signs of aggression.

APBT from appropriate, responsible breeders surpass hundreds of other breeds in temperament tests. They are the breed most likely to be chosen for therapy and disability work in states where the APBT is not restricted- these dogs do not "snap" and randomly mow their way through child care centres.

So what can people do to reduce dog bite statistics?

ENFORCE breeding laws. No more backyarders or mills. No puppies sold without up to date microchipping. All breeders of any breed to undergo annual inspections and provide up to date records of breeding animals.

ENFORCE responsible ownership. Classes to teach children how to approach a strange dog and to teach dog ownership. Puppy social school not a choice. Adult dog training classes by registered trainers for at least the first two years. All dogs registered, desexed {unless a very good reason} and microchipped. Aggressive dogs MUST be seen by a qualified dog trainer well versed in treating aggression at least twice a year.

ENFORCE leash laws. Dog that have previously attacked or shown actual aggression to be muzzled in public. All dog on leashes at all times, NO exceptions whatsoever.

ENFORCE dog fighting and responsibility laws. Extremely heavy penalities for dog fighting, illegal breeding, providing dogs/pups to known fighters, overcrowding of dogs, poor breeding environment.

However, it is far easier for a government to admit that it's not their problem than to help the situation.

Moreover, plenty of cities and states have found that the only thing that banning breeds has done is decrease public hysteria. It costs a city over $750,000 a year to maintain a breed ban, only for the end result of making the public *mistakingly* think that they're safe.
A study in scotland about dangerous dogs showed that after banning pitbulls, there was no decrease in dog attacks, but rather an increase in what type of dog was attacking.
There are hundreds of articles about it if you search Google.

Dogs will always bite. The only way you can have a ZERO bite rate in any country, state or city is to ban every single breed of dog that there is.
Will it ever reach that state? Yes, most likely.
All the pitbulls are gone? Yes, but German Shepherds now bite the most. Okay, ban them.
All the Shepherds are gone. Now huskies bite the most. Ban them.
All the huskies are gone. Now Golden Retrievers bite the most. Ban.
Yes, eventually it will reach the stage where the only way you are safe from any animal attack or death from an animal is to ban every single pet and to live in a plastic bubble.

By then, you'll have lost all of your rights completely.

Yes, all the nasty evil killer pitbulls will be gone....but so will your Chihuahua. So will your Labrador. So will your Lowchen. And you'll never, ever get them back.

Stand up for one breed and you stand up for all breeds.
Save one breed and you save all breeds.
Demand the rights of your neighbour's dog and you get the rights to own your own dog.

Jeikobu
September 18th, 2011, 08:23 PM
I am in agreement with pitbulls being banned everywhere. Just look at all the cases of them attacking people. Many seem fine for a long time and then suddenly they attack for no reason. A human life is more important than a dog's. I adore animals, but they can't compare to people and we have to put their safety first. I realize not every pitbull may attack someone during the course of their life, but it's not worth the great risk.

DreamQueen
September 19th, 2011, 10:41 PM
I am in agreement with pitbulls being banned everywhere. Just look at all the cases of them attacking people. Many seem fine for a long time and then suddenly they attack for no reason. A human life is more important than a dog's. I adore animals, but they can't compare to people and we have to put their safety first. I realize not every pitbull may attack someone during the course of their life, but it's not worth the great risk.

I assume then that you will be in agreement of a worldwide ban on:

Labradors http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003849/Boy-3-left-horrific-facial-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

Golden Retrievers http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/12275--3-year-old-child-mauled-by-dog

Great Danes http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338953/6-month-old-baby-snatched-mothers-arms-mauled-Great-Dane.html

Poodles http://www.wboc.com/story/10769319/girl-7-hospitalized-after-poodle-attack?redirected=true

Jack Russell Terriers http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/March/Cairn%20or%20JRT%20mix%200310.pdf

Saint Bernards http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/Februrary/st%20bernard%200210.pdf

Weimeramers http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/December/Toddler%20killed%20by%20Weimeramer%201209.pdf

Greyhounds http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/November/Greyhound%20classified%20as%20vicious%20after%20killing%20another%20dog%201109.pdf

Collies http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/October/collie%201009.pdf

Chihuahuas http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/November/woman%20looses%20both%20legs%20after%20chi%20bites%20her%201109.pdf

And any breed that has been found to have ever bitten more than once.

Yes?

That's how much sense a pitbull ban makes.

Livewire
September 20th, 2011, 07:33 AM
I assume then that you will be in agreement of a worldwide ban on:

Labradors http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003849/Boy-3-left-horrific-facial-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

Golden Retrievers http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/12275--3-year-old-child-mauled-by-dog

Great Danes http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338953/6-month-old-baby-snatched-mothers-arms-mauled-Great-Dane.html

Poodles http://www.wboc.com/story/10769319/girl-7-hospitalized-after-poodle-attack?redirected=true

Jack Russell Terriers http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/March/Cairn%20or%20JRT%20mix%200310.pdf

Saint Bernards http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/Februrary/st%20bernard%200210.pdf

Weimeramers http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/December/Toddler%20killed%20by%20Weimeramer%201209.pdf

Greyhounds http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/November/Greyhound%20classified%20as%20vicious%20after%20killing%20another%20dog%201109.pdf

Collies http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/October/collie%201009.pdf

Chihuahuas http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/November/woman%20looses%20both%20legs%20after%20chi%20bites%20her%201109.pdf

And any breed that has been found to have ever bitten more than once.

Yes?

That's how much sense a pitbull ban makes.

Because people get mauled by Chihuahua's all the time. I'm not for an outright ban, but to not see the obvious fact that they are a violent breed that needs special attention is foolish.

Kura
September 20th, 2011, 08:17 AM
I don't think they should be banned either. I'd much rather see them under the same law that we have here; that they need to have a muzzle if taken outdoors.

Unfortunately.. dog fights are illegal activity.. and it should not matter what dogs they use as the act should be barred entirely. People who participate in those would probably not follow the "no pitbull" law anyways.. or just continue with a different dog.