Okay...I'm all for animal rights. I detest animal abuse. I think the guilty in these cases should have much stricter punishments then they currently do.
This being said....here comes the but...
But due to the chemically and environmentally sensitive nature of the breed I believe that not everyone should be allowed to own one. Just for the simple fact that most are completely ignorant of how very sensitive these creatures are. Any breeder will tell you that something as simple as the wrong dog food can create a chemical imbalance that can cause a sever mood change in a normally docile animal. Not everyone knows how to properly contain them. Or have the proper facilities to keep them. Unfortunately it is also a sad fact that not everyone wants them as a pet. They want a "guard dog" they claim, and normally to me this is fine. Then take them to a REAL trainer for said training, and TREAT them as a guard dog. NOT as a pet.
I feel the need to at least mention the fact they are the targeted breed for dog fighting, which I also feel is wrong. BUT that is not the issue I wish to address.
I believe anyone wanting to own a Pit Bull should:

1) Educated: As to the dogs behavior and needs.

2) Have the time and resources to properly care for the dog.

Two simple rules, and yet so hard to enforce. Which becomes the problem. I HATE the places that make owning these wonderful dogs illegal. I feel basing a decision off fear and ignorance is NEVER a way to properly handle any problem. But I don't feel that just anyone should be allowed to purchase and own one of these animals. With out the proper care they can be a danger, but the same could be said of any dog. But because they are SO much more sensitive SO MANY more areas then a normal dog more attention should be paid.
I also don't believe current RESPONSIBLE dog owners should have their animals taken from them and cruelly put down. I believe that compromise is needed. Owners should be held accountable for the care of their dogs, and everyone else should be compassionate enough to realize these are not blind killers.

The way I look at it, animals have a simpler outlook on life than we do, obviously, and not much of a great understanding of the complexities... So, like simpler humans, they're never that far from a violent reaction (for whatever reason), especially if they're not socialised and trained correctly.

That being the case, the bigger the beasti, the more devastating the consequences of such action. So a sensible size and weight limit on dogs would seem prudent, don't you think? I mean, what's the deal with having a dog the size of a leopard or a puma for goodness sakes? Obviously no single dog is as dangerous as a single big cat, that's just nature, but they can still do a great deal of damage.

I know it's not as simple as a basic size/weight ratio and that larger dogs are often a lot quieter and more placid than their teeny counterparts, but when it comes to breeds like alsations, pit-bulls etc, it is part of it.

Well...Ozoneocean...I both agree and disagree.
I personally love great danes. They have a wonderful temperament, and are notoriously lovable. Plus I think they are just beautiful dogs.
I don't think size really should matter as much as natural disposition, and aggressive tendencies. I've seen, and been victim to damage by average sized dogs myself. But I fully admit to my own ignorance, and stupidity toward that situation. I think the limits for size and weight should depend on the space made available by the owner. I don't think you should have a dog of any size if you live on the second floor of a tiny one bedroom apartment for any reason. It's simply not healthy for them, nor sanitary for the owner. But for a person with a house and decently fenced in lawn I don't see it as unreasonable to own a large dog.
The difference in anatomy should be taken into account too. Pit Bulls have excessively strong jaw, neck, and chest muscles. Where Great Danes are not weak by any means, and can do a lot of damage they simply aren't built as lethal, although mishandled the certainly could be.
There's also the problem that because of the INSANE popularity of the Pit Bull many unregistered breeders inbreed them for profit, even some registered. So there's not a professional selection involved, and no way to really monitor this. People will pay big money for Pit Bull puppies just so they can brutalize them into a highly aggressive state. Because of the docile nature of the Great Dane there's not as big of a demand, despite the size. Plus where Pit Bulls are popular are in mostly urban areas, and while yes in comparison to some a Pit Bull is big, compared to a Great Dane or Newfoundland ( I think I misspelled that, forgive me please) they are FAR easier to care for.

So..unless relating to the size of the facilities compared to the dog for health reasons, I don't think the problem is with big dogs. I think people are scared of bigger dogs out of either ignorance or simply they have a natural distrust of larger animal. I've never been attacked by a large breed dog, but many an average, which technically speaking the Pit Bull is.

As for the simplest mentality of an animal, your right. Dogs are animals that think in terms of pack, and alpha dogs. Which is why experts tell you not to let dogs in your bed, or on furniture so that they firmly establish a place as a submissive member of the pack/ your family. If the dog is in your home and owned by you, then you should be completely dominate. Where as entering anthers house where a dog resides, with assurance from the owner, you should let the dog sniff the back of your hand. To them it's a sign of respect. Your allowing them to check you out while in their territory. NEVER do it with your palm up. An aggressive dog will see this as threating.

Most of the time the average dog is fine. Just spoiled. Which it can be argued is a form of abuse in and of itself. But unless a dog is mistreated, or naturally aggressive, it would seem to me that a person would be safe. Mind you I'm no expert, but I am a firm believer that all strange dogs should be approached with caution. NOT however paranoia.

Well I had a pit mix, and he never growled or bared his teeth once. I made sure of that at an early age. I socialized him, I explained right and wrong. He was loveable because I showed him love. I taught him not to fear people, because I wanted a freind not a guard dog.

Of course he was a mutt, not a purebreed. I do believe that some breeders are irresponsible and its not always breed specific. I remember the same flap decades ago about Dobermans, they were a bad breed people said. As a breeder, you need to neuter agressive animals, and recognize when there is a streak of craziness popping up. I knew a pit breeder in Michigan and he could tell straight off when a pup was going to be bad. Right now there is a big streak of aggression in pit's because for years it was popular to breed them that way. The majority of his dogs are docile because he is vigilant.

Similarly, some owners are irresponsnible as well. Some buy pitts because they want to be badass and encourage their agression as puppies.

Anyone who has even been mauled by a dog will tell you the little guys can do damage and strike fear, and they don't have to be pitts to do so. I knew someone who got there face disfigured by a basset hound.

Dogs are a big responsibility and banning pitts will not solve the problems of criminally negligent breeders and owners.

I've known nice pits, bad pits, sweet pits and crazy pits.

To be honest, I don't think we need 'em. They're too dangerous, and there's plenty of other breeds out there that offer companionship and protection without the degree of unpredictability and sheer ability to devastate.

bobhhh
Dogs are a big responsibility and banning pitts will not solve the problems of criminally negligent breeders and owners.

That's the end of this discussion right here as far as I'm concerned. Assholes who keep dogs as weapons will always find a way. Ban one breed and they'll just crossbreed and/or selectively breed aggression into another breed of dog. It wasn't so long ago that we had the exact same discussion about Rottweilers, and then the Rottweiler breeders wised up and now they're generally considered respectable dogs.

That said, Pitbulls and other high maintenance breeds are certainly not for everyone, but you can't solve that problem by banning or, worse, euthanizing dogs, it's the fact that any asshole can get any dog he wants that's the problem here.

Ever read the stats on the power of a pit's jaw?

TnTComic
Ever read the stats on the power of a pit's jaw?

Yes. I have. It's insane.
But we certainly can't ignore that these animals are capable of love. Which is what brought me to my point in the first place...Not everyone should be allowed to own certain breeds. There are simply far to many that are ignorant of how to raise them. I think if you put in the time, effort, and educate your self you've earned the right to own a Pit bull.

TnTComic
Ever read the stats on the power of a pit's jaw?

If a horse kicks you in the face, your brain will fly out the other end. I don't see anyone calling for the euthanization of horses because they weigh hundreds of pounds, we equip them with metal horseshoes and they're unpredictable because they're easily frightened. The problem is people having animals that they can't handle.

Also, any statistic will show you that the majority of dog bite incidents involve German Shepherds.

The bottom line for me is that Pits were created for violence. They are bred to have a mean disposition, high musculature, and abnormally strong jaws.

Even if you think they are great pet, or cuddly, or whatever- that is NOT why the breed was created.

So, IMO, let them all die out by natural causes, and stop the line. Or make it legal only under certain circumstances, and fine/jail other breeders.

SpANG
The bottom line for me is that Pits were created for violence. They are bred to have a mean disposition, high musculature, and abnormally strong jaws.

Exactly.

spacehamster
If a horse kicks you in the face, your brain will fly out the other end. I don't see anyone calling for the euthanization of horses because they weigh hundreds of pounds, we equip them with metal horseshoes and they're unpredictable because they're easily frightened. The problem is people having animals that they can't handle.

Horses aren't pets.

spacehamster
Also, any statistic will show you that the majority of dog bite incidents involve German Shepherds.

Did you see the one bite the football player a couple of weeks ago? It was hilarious.

TnTComic

SpANG
The bottom line for me is that Pits were created for violence. They are bred to have a mean disposition, high musculature, and abnormally strong jaws.

Exactly.

So were lots of other breeds of dogs. Pitbulls are just being singled out at the moment because they've been in the papers a lot, that's all. Pitbulls show certain behavior patterns that go back directly to the purpose they were originally bred for, which is dogfighting. It's generally not a good idea to leave them unsupervised with other animals as they will attack them and they tend to mistake small children for the enemy because they were bred to be extremely territorial and attack anything and everything they percieve as an intruder about their own size.

But for the same reason, they're also very loyal to adult humans and need strong guidance, and that's the real problem - any breed of dog that is so prone to a strong attachment to a human "alpha" turns to aggression when they don't get the attention they need because it leaves them disoriented and frightened. The dogs involved in the horror stories of attacks on little kids you read about in papers usually come from bad homes and were just left to their own devices or worse, beaten.

i.e. Pitbulls are high maintenance dogs and not for everyone. But I don't see why people in general shouldn't be allowed to have them if they're capable of handling them properly, especially because, like I said before, the assholes and criminals who keep them as weapons will just turn to a different breed of dog. Outlawing Pitbulls won't solve this problem.

Horses aren't pets.

Semantics. We keep horses for recreational purposes, we let children interact with them, and while they weren't bred specifically with violent purposes in mind, they're certainly dangerous, and people die in horseback riding accidents all the time.

Would it work to consider a pit bull a weapon? What if you had to have a permit to have one, just like you need a permit to own a handgun?

The people I know who have pit bulls are not surprisingly the same people who believe it's really important to have several guns in the house for protection.

Hawk
Would it work to consider a pit bull a weapon? What if you had to have a permit to have one, just like you need a permit to own a handgun?

Works for me. I actually think there should be some kind of license/permit test for anyone who wants a dog. They don't let you drive without getting a license first either.

spacehamster

Hawk
Would it work to consider a pit bull a weapon? What if you had to have a permit to have one, just like you need a permit to own a handgun?

Works for me. I actually think there should be some kind of license/permit test for anyone who wants a dog. They don't let you drive without getting a license first either.

would certainly work for me too. I'm a dog lover, and I happen to own a dog myself too. So I can't tell you how much it saddens me to see some dog being mishandled by some jerk who thinks that dogs are only meant to be handled as a security tool. Even going far as to mistreat them on purpose so that they would be meaner. and I've seen this not just with pit bulls, but with different various of dogs such as a Husky dog.

Husky dogs are generally very lovable, known to be great family pets and known for their happy, energetic dispositions. They're very great with children... yet this jerk I witnessed mistreated his husky dog so much that he (the dog) was very dangerous despite his breed being known for their sweet nature.

And I get the feeling that people outlaw pit bulls, then those jerks are just gonna move on to some other dog to mistreat... who knows, husky dogs might even be the next big thing to outlaw. and then we move on to banning Great Danes, etc. Eventually all dog types would be banned out of fear!

No.... I believe some kind of license would be needed. Also, Educate the masses about pit bulls and other dogs!

I have an friend who owns an pit bull. Yes, that's right. Yet this pit bull is very friendly toward people, and actually even "adopted" an stray kitten as her own "pup" at one point. The kitten is now an full-grown cat living at the same house, and the cat and dog is actually very close friends. That's how gentle this dog is, despite her breed's reputation.
She's not the type of dog who would suddenly attack people for no good reason at all, period. And she's being handled by somebody who fully understands pit bulls, and can fully give the Pitt bull everything she needs.

And I tell you, if more people actually wisened up on this breed, people would stop seeing them as the big threat they are and actually handle them PROPERLY!!

spacehamster
So were lots of other breeds of dogs. Pitbulls are just being singled out at the moment because they've been in the papers a lot, that's all. Pitbulls show certain behavior patterns that go back directly to the purpose they were originally bred for, which is dogfighting. It's generally not a good idea to leave them unsupervised with other animals as they will attack them and they tend to mistake small children for the enemy because they were bred to be extremely territorial and attack anything and everything they percieve as an intruder about their own size.

Dude, they're in the papers a lot because they attack people a lot because of the reasons you listed. Jeez, man, make the connection.

spacehamster

Horses aren't pets.

Semantics. We keep horses for recreational purposes, we let children interact with them, and while they weren't bred specifically with violent purposes in mind, they're certainly dangerous, and people die in horseback riding accidents all the time.

Its not semantics, its apples and oranges. You're comparing horses to dogs. You know a lot of families with horses in the living room? Horses chasing mail men?

TnTComic

spacehamster

Horses aren't pets.

Semantics. We keep horses for recreational purposes, we let children interact with them, and while they weren't bred specifically with violent purposes in mind, they're certainly dangerous, and people die in horseback riding accidents all the time.

Its not semantics, its apples and oranges. You're comparing horses to dogs. You know a lot of families with horses in the living room? Horses chasing mail men?

We Name them. We pet them. We brush them, feed them, train them. Tell them they're good horsies. How are they not pets?

horseboy
We Name them. We pet them. We brush them, feed them, train them. Tell them they're good horsies. How are they not pets?

*sigh*

Some people have alligators as pets. Tarantulas as pets. Tigers, scorpions and falcons as pets. Can we please drop the devil's advocate junk? Horses don't sleep on your bed.

TnTComic

horseboy
We Name them. We pet them. We brush them, feed them, train them. Tell them they're good horsies. How are they not pets?

*sigh*

Some people have alligators as pets. Tarantulas as pets. Tigers, scorpions and falcons as pets. Can we please drop the devil's advocate junk? Horses don't sleep on your bed.

huh!?
I fail to see what that has to do with something being a pet. At least outside of some place like West Virginia.

TnTComic
Dude, they're in the papers a lot because they attack people a lot because of the reasons you listed. Jeez, man, make the connection.

Actually, he's right... there's plenty of different breeds who has "attacked" every year and yet the media will often omit most of those attacks unless it's a Pitt bull attack. or even worse, falsify the data of the actual breed just to get more hits on their news. After all, pit bulls is the next "scary breed", so they want to drum it up for as long as possible.

They used to do the same thing for Rottiwellers.

there's been too many times when I saw an picture or video of the dog that was in the alleged attack and went: "Wait a minute, that's not a pit bull!! That's actually an American bulldog/etc!"

In fact, a large chunk of "reported pit-bull attacks" by the news actually wasn't done by pit bulls at all. but actually caused by various different breeds.

in addition, they seem to confuse American Bulldogs and other breeds of similar build for pit bulls a lot.

So I wouldn't believe everything you hear in the news. Misinformation at it's best, folks!

Aurora Moon

TnTComic
Dude, they're in the papers a lot because they attack people a lot because of the reasons you listed. Jeez, man, make the connection.

Actually, he's right... there's plenty of different breeds who has "attacked" every year and yet the media will often omit most of those attacks unless it's a Pitt bull attack. or even worse, falsify the data of the actual breed just to get more hits on their news. After all, pit bulls is the next "scary breed", so they want to drum it up for as long as possible.

They used to do the same thing for Rottiwellers.

there's been too many times when I saw an picture or video of the dog that was in the alleged attack and went: "Wait a minute, that's not a pit bull!! That's actually an American bulldog/etc!"

In fact, a large chunk of "reported pit-bull attacks" by the news actually wasn't done by pit bulls at all. but actually caused by various different breeds.

in addition, they seem to confuse American Bulldogs and other breeds of similar build for pit bulls a lot.

So I wouldn't believe everything you hear in the news. Misinformation at it's best, folks!

You're welcome to believe what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that pit bull attacks happen all the time, Canada nearly banned 'em, fer cryin' out loud.

Pits are the creme de la creme of fighting animals. Bred specifically for fighting, they're absolutely awesome at their job. To convert them into pets is, well, dangerous. Other breeds attack, hell, dachsunds bite people. The problem with pits is that they are a fighting dog that people convert to a family dog, and when they attack it is devastating. It is in their blood.

horseboy
I fail to see what that has to do with something being a pet. At least outside of some place like West Virginia.

It doesn't. I'm trying to keep this within the realm of the discussion. People say pits are dangerous, someone else said horses are dangerous. Its an irrelevent point. People keep dangerous pets. We're talking about dogs. We're just talking about dogs.

http://www.pitbulllovers.com/

The Pit Bullâ??s Bad Reputation
Sadly, pit bulls have acquired a reputation as unpredictable, dangerous, and vicious. Their intimidating appearance has made them attractive to the wrong sorts of ownerâ??people who are looking for a macho dog and end up encouraging aggressive behavior. In order to meet the growing demand for pit bulls, unscrupulous and uncaring breeders are producing puppies without maintaining the breedâ??s typical reliability with people. In fact, pit bulls are now notorious for redirecting aggression from a dog to any person who attempts to break up a fight. It is a shame what has happened to this loyal and affectionate breed.

Having said all that, we must tell you that a well-bred, well-socialized, and well-trained pit bull is one of the most delightful, intelligent, and gentle dogs imaginable. Some of the most famous dogs in American history were pit bulls: Stubby, the most decorated United States war dog; Petey, the beloved mascot from Little Rascals, and Helen Kellerâ??s faithful companion. Additionally, many pit bulls were featured in well-known advertising campaigns, such as Buster Brown shoes and Levis. The majority of pit bulls are still ambassadors for their breed, serving as loving companions, family members, and therapy dogs, working in search and rescue, narcotics and explosives detection, and police and sentry duty. Unfortunately, we often hear more about the exceptions than the rule.

Myths about pit bulls:

MYTH: All Pit Bulls are mean and vicious.

It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population.

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers.

Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test. The achievement of Pit Bulls in this study disproves that they are inherently aggressive to people. (Please visit ATTS.org)

And weren't you going on about thier jaws having power? lol, you actually believed that shit?

MYTH: American Pit Bull Terriers have 1600 P.S.I. in jaw pressure

Dr. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs.

There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of "pounds per square inch" can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data."

I agree with whoever said that if we did ban the Pit Bull we would eventually move on to other dogs.

If you look at the pattern history has set for us extreme actions (such as removing a species from the earth out of paranoia) lead to anther extreme action and soon will call for anther, and just how many rights are pet owners going to have to give up? You simply can't over look that fact! Eradicating a breed isn't going to solve the problem. AGAIN...history has taught us this. Right now Pit's are the scapegoat. You also have take into account they aren't as ecstatically pleasing as most other dogs to the masses. They are frightening to too look at. So...common sense tells you they are the ones chosen. Someone already proved that they aren't the leaders in dog attacks. So then why are they in the media? Come on Tntcomic! Your the one making pleas for common sense when your so obviously ignoring it yourself.

Aside from the fact is it's just not fair to punish everyone for the stupidity of a few!

Aurora Moon
http://www.pitbulllovers.com/

Yeah, they don't have an agenda.

Ladyknight17
So...common sense tells you they are the ones chosen. Someone already proved that they aren't the leaders in dog attacks. So then why are they in the media? Come on Tntcomic! Your the one making pleas for common sense when your so obviously ignoring it yourself.

Come on, yourself. Just because someone said it, doesn't make it true. Did you see anything to back up their claims? A link? Some statistics? Anything? Nope.

So I figgered I'd do some googling.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

There you go.

Now, "Come on Ladyknight17"! Who's obviously ignoring whom?

I go back to my comparison with the smaller big cats. Would people say it's ok to have those as general pets? Some people DO have them as pets, even the really big species, but they have to know what they're doing and be a lot more careful than other bet owners. There tend to be a lot of restrictions on ownership of large cats.

You can have one and have a great understanding with it. Maybe it never attacks you either, but if it ever did, because of its size, its weight, and the way its body is designed it could kill you or anyone else with extreme ease.

Pit-bulls are a little bit like that. And like pretty leopards or even cute little bull-terrier dogs, they're a bit more prone to vicious attacks and unpredictable behaviour than others of their kind. So perhaps similar sorts of ownership restrictions should be placed on them as the lesser big cats?

Well that's the part of the argument that pit lovers want to forget. They say pits can be nice and loving and blah blah blah, and that is of course true. But what they want people to forget is that the pit was bred for fighting and is the best at that job. So when things do go wrong with a pit, the results are devastating.

The debate is not about whether pits can be nice dogs. They can. The debate is about what happens when they attack. And they do attack. All dogs attack. But when a pit attacks, the results are far worse than when other breeds attack. To ignore the propensity for devastation that the pit was created for is to dishonestly approach the debate.

In my opinion, the "pit bull debate" is akin to the debate on the banning of assault weapons. We are allowed to own guns, but some guns are judged to be too dangerous for us to have. Should not the same logic be applied to dogs? Especially considering that many people see the wisdom in locking up their guns, but not so many people see the same wisdom applied to their dogs.

In my opinion, the "pit bull debate" is akin to the debate on the banning of assault weapons. We are allowed to own guns, but some guns are judged to be too dangerous for us to have. Should not the same logic be applied to dogs? Especially considering that many people see the wisdom in locking up their guns, but not so many people see the same wisdom applied to their dogs.


Absolutely not! Unlike guns dogs are living things! How can you ignore that and compare a LIVING creature to an inanimate object! And not once have I said that Pit Bulls weren't bred for fighting. What I'm saying..if you could pay attention... is that not everyone should own one, there should be tighter restrictions on them to be certain! But under no circumstance's should everyone be denied the right! Fine...you want compare them to guns which is absolutely absurd, then there should be permits that have to be issued and test to be taken before a person is allowed to own one! I've said from the very beginning I believe this!Thats what I've said the entire time!

And the common sense your ignoring is how easily rights are taken when extreme action is the first resort people run to! You can't possibly ask people to give up their rights out of your fear! Especially people who are doing the right thing by keeping themselves educated, and the dogs properly contained.


Aside from that look at animal abuse! Or endangered species! Humans are much more threating not only other species but to each other! So what..should aggressive humans be put down next? By your logic a dangerous living things are no better then an object. So...where do possibly draw that line! At dangerous humans? And not just one or too, which we already do to both humans and dogs, but to an entire breed? I don't know...last I checked isn't that know as genocide?

I mean it's the same backwards logic applied by any race to hate another. "If they just weren't there things would be great!" But anyone with any common sense could tell you that an extremist attitude toward any subject as a first resort is dangerous! AND HISTORY PROVEN! Which I noticed how nicely you danced around that!

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."


Believe it or not as a person raised around dogs I try to keep myself informed. OH and I wasn't referring to the lady who mentioned German Shepperd's...I was talking about other aggressive breeds and the statistics on them. That other being experts. Now...according to this they make up PART of the percentage for dogs higher at risk to attack. Why aren't the other dog including in this as up for debate as Pit's?
Clifton questions they should be owned, which I don't, but does say that thoes keeping them should be held to a higher standard, which I do agree with! They aren't the only aggressive breed!

Now...get rid of pits, whats the next highest percentage of aggressive dog? Should those be next? ANd the ones after? And the one's after? Until they are all gone?

Ladyknight17
Absolutely not! Unlike guns dogs are living things! How can you ignore that and compare a LIVING creature to an inanimate object! And not once have I said that Pit Bulls weren't bred for fighting. What I'm saying..if you could pay attention... is that not everyone should own one, there should be tighter restrictions on them to be certain! But under no circumstance's should everyone be denied the right! Fine...you want compare them to guns which is absolutely absurd, then there should be permits that have to be issued and test to be taken before a person is allowed to own one! I've said from the very beginning I believe this!Thats what I've said the entire time!

Christ, Lady, take it easy. If you read critically, you'll see that you are using the same logic as the gun control proponents use, which is WHY I compared the two debates. Jesus. Its the same argument, in this instance you're applying the gun argument to dogs. So am I. I'm not comparing guns to dogs, I'm comparing the dangers of each and the policies to make a point.

Ladyknight17
Believe it or not as a person raised around dogs I try to keep myself informed. OH and I wasn't referring to the lady who mentioned German Shepperd's...I was talking about other aggressive breeds and the statistics on them. That other being experts. Now...according to this they make up PART of the percentage for dogs higher at risk to attack. Why aren't the other dog including in this as up for debate as Pit's?
Clifton questions they should be owned, which I don't, but does say that thoes keeping them should be held to a higher standard, which I do agree with! They aren't the only aggressive breed!

Now...get rid of pits, whats the next highest percentage of aggressive dog? Should those be next? ANd the ones after? And the one's after? Until they are all gone?

You're missing the entire point. The statistics in the Clifton link show over one thousand attacks by Pit Bulls on children. In the same time period, the next highest breed responsible for attacks is Rotts, with less than half the amount as Pits. And at third, way down the list with less than 7% of the attacks as Rotts is German Shephards. Pits are WAY ahead of all other breeds on the list. And if you go one step further and look up the most popular breeds of dogs, Pits are far from the top. Most attacks, one of the least popular. What's that tell you? It tells you they're dangerous dogs.

People aren't trying to get rid of dog attacks. They're trying to get rid of dogs that are violent. The statistics bear it out. The breeding bears it out. Pits are the most dangerous dog. No one wants to "go after" this breed and that breed, on down the line. They want to get the number of kids without faces reduced.

edit:

By the way, I grew up with a Doberman, my neighbor had a St Bernard, my uncle had a Pit, and my other neighbor had a Rottweiler. I like big dogs. There's a Mastiff in the office with me right now, its the boss's dog. I'm well acquainted with the perceptions of dogs versus the reality.