Actually you'd want one for your family. They are one of the most loyal dogs ever. People who abuse them and breed them to fight are scum. I've had plenty putbulls and they've all been amazing, wouldn't want another breed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Maryland court rules that pitbulls are "inherently dangerous"
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
- Status
Actually you'd want one for your family. They are one of the most loyal dogs ever. People who abuse them and breed them to fight are scum. I've had plenty putbulls and they've all been amazing, wouldn't want another breed.
I said they were larger than bobcats not that they were large dogs. The point being that a bobcat requires special circumstance be met before you can own one but just about anyone can own a pit bull.
The bolded is the willful ignorance I was talking about. All the judge in this case has said is that because a pit bull is capable of inflicting greater injury or even causing death owners should not be given the same benefit of the doubt as owners of smaller, weaker dogs with less "potential to become dangerous" when these cases arise. If you own a pit bull you've willingly taken on that responsibility and it's a greater responsibility than if you had picked a different breed because of that potential. It's no different than the requirements and liabilities that go along with owning big cats and honestly I would think people who genuinely care for pit bulls as a breed would be all for it as it puts a greater barrier in place to prevent bad owners from easily getting them.
So... actuarial risk for pits is very high.
Some people are arguing that pits are not bad unless they are improperly socialized.
Other people are arguing that there are clear examples of well-raised pits snapping and attacking people/other dogs.
.....
????
I hear chainsaws are the cause of far fewer injuries than table forks btw.
Some people are arguing that pits are not bad unless they are improperly socialized.
Other people are arguing that there are clear examples of well-raised pits snapping and attacking people/other dogs.
.....
????
I hear chainsaws are the cause of far fewer injuries than table forks btw.
Trancetronic
Member
Yeah I live in MD and these people a few houses down from me usually have their pit in the front yard. I walk past it with no problems.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Can I have a tiger for a pet? Or maybe a wolf if that's too much. I kinda want a hippo too.
One of these is a domesticated animal that is the culmination of at least tens of thousands of years of breeding for domesticity, if not more. One of these is a wild animal that has not been bred for docility.
Can you figure out which is which?
Comparisons of pit bulls to wild animals are not serious comparisons.
Yep. The best thing you can do to make sure your dog is not aggressive (other than good training and lifestyle) is to neuter it.
Edit: Those making the argument about being bred for fighting should glance over this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_fighting_breeds
Dreams-Visions
Member
For those that missed this post. Sorry, but damn these violent breeds and their oft bad owners.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
An F1 Savannah is one generation removed from a medium-sized wild cat from Africa and at least as docile as a Pit Bull.
captainnapalm
Member
Pit bulls aren't inherently dangerous. Bad owners + pitbulls = inherently dangerous. It's sad that the dog has become a status symbol for young, stupid men who do not have the emotional intelligence to raise a dog properly.
vincent vega
Member
potentially dangerous regardless of owner i think
If you read up on most of the deaths in 2011 almost none of the pet's homes fit that description.
To be honest people need to be less lackadaisical about their dogs all around. The dog is your responsibility so you should behave responsibly yet so often many dog owners simply never occur the possibility that something might go wrong or that someone might not want a dog humping up on them.
Anyways, the ruling is fine.
Anyways, the ruling is fine.
i don't get it. why do people keep blaming bad owners?
Look at all of those death cases. Is everyone arguing all of those people are bad owners?
Also, for only 5% of the population, to make up for 71% death.
Can you imagine how many more deaths that'd be if putbull was 50% of population?
Look at all of those death cases. Is everyone arguing all of those people are bad owners?
Also, for only 5% of the population, to make up for 71% death.
Can you imagine how many more deaths that'd be if putbull was 50% of population?
potentially dangerous regardless of owner i think
Yep. Ban them all.
For those that missed this post. Sorry, but damn these violent breeds and their oft bad owners.
You may wish to read the skeptoid page that Leunam linked to:
Great read as usual from Brian.
I have to pay extra on my insurance because I have a pit bull. Can't argue with actuarial statistics. I ended up with the dog due to unintended circumstances.
I do have to say she is a good guard dog when out walking. Once she becomes familiar with a person she is all wiggling and licking but a stranger makes her stiffen up.
Good dog to hike with, strong and sure footed on rocky terrain. We walked 23 miles in 12 hours up around Joyce Kilmer Wilderness two Saturdays ago.
I would not let her off the leash or run free where she might bite someone. Too much tissue damage if she clamps down.
I do have to say she is a good guard dog when out walking. Once she becomes familiar with a person she is all wiggling and licking but a stranger makes her stiffen up.
Good dog to hike with, strong and sure footed on rocky terrain. We walked 23 miles in 12 hours up around Joyce Kilmer Wilderness two Saturdays ago.
I would not let her off the leash or run free where she might bite someone. Too much tissue damage if she clamps down.
That's 100% true. People just want dogs that have bad reputations. The way they treat and act with them reflects on them. I live in Prince George's County Maryland and pitbulls are banned here. So whereas I don't see many pitbulls (some people still have them despite the ban) I see TONS of Presa Canarios. It's the mentality people have with these dogs, not so much the dogs themselves. I've had and been around numerous pitbulls with owners who don't have the dog for the macho aspect, but the loyalty and awesomeness of them and I've never had a problem. I've had more problems with smaller dogs and bigger dogs than pitbulls. I really love pitbulls and Maryland blows. Pitbulls are inherently dangerous just like courts are inherently filled with morons.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Good. Fuck 'em.
The owners of Pitbulls more so than the dogs themselves honestly. Too many people are irresponsible owners and Pits are potential god damn killing machines if you're not a careful and responsible owner. (in total fairness a lot of careful and responsible owners do exist)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I know, I know "bu bu but the are irresponsible dog owners of every breed! You want us to ban them all!?". Look, if I have to choose between me or my loved ones crossing paths with an ill-trained Poodle/Lab/Retriever/Beagle or crossing paths with an ill-trained Pit/Boxer/Rottweiler/Doberman.. the choice here is as clear as it fucking gets.
For the record, I love dogs. A lot. But I can't just disregard the shit I've seen and heard in my life first hand. At least 60-75% of the terrible shit I've seen dogs do or heard stories about from close friends/relatives involved Pitbulls or Rottweiler. The way people defend these breeds sometimes you'd think there was some kind of god damn massive conspiracy to tarnish them for.. whatever other reason than their violent tendencies. But it's just not the case people. It's not even fucking close. These animals are legitimate potential dangers and there are way too many stupid and irresponsible people on this planet to trust them to.
The owners of Pitbulls more so than the dogs themselves honestly. Too many people are irresponsible owners and Pits are potential god damn killing machines if you're not a careful and responsible owner. (in total fairness a lot of careful and responsible owners do exist)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I know, I know "bu bu but the are irresponsible dog owners of every breed! You want us to ban them all!?". Look, if I have to choose between me or my loved ones crossing paths with an ill-trained Poodle/Lab/Retriever/Beagle or crossing paths with an ill-trained Pit/Boxer/Rottweiler/Doberman.. the choice here is as clear as it fucking gets.
For the record, I love dogs. A lot. But I can't just disregard the shit I've seen and heard in my life first hand. At least 60-75% of the terrible shit I've seen dogs do or heard stories about from close friends/relatives involved Pitbulls or Rottweiler. The way people defend these breeds sometimes you'd think there was some kind of god damn massive conspiracy to tarnish them for.. whatever other reason than their violent tendencies. But it's just not the case people. It's not even fucking close. These animals are legitimate potential dangers and there are way too many stupid and irresponsible people on this planet to trust them to.
Holy shit. Is this true? Where did you get the numbers?
So when we take a look at the numbers we can see that it's pitts who get neglected the most?
If that is the case, banning the breed will do nothing to reduce attacks. The idiots will just get a different breed to neglect. If you want to fix the problem, banning breeds will not be the answer.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Mandatory neutering unless you are a registered breeder would go a long way. Laws against mutilating dogs for aesthetic reasons would not hurt either. Registering all dog ownership and requiring socialisation training would be good too.
But really, I don't have to have the answer to able to say another suggestion will not work.
For those that missed this post. Sorry, but damn these violent breeds and their oft bad owners.
It seems like your missing the posts that those numbers are directly derived from NEWS MEDIA stories. Do you have any idea on how poor a sample that is? This is on top of the fact that it only involves identifiable dog breeds.
Hillzagold
Banned
You people are idiots. Pitbulls were specifically designed to have a stronger bite and a more aggressive attack than any other breed of dog. They were designed to kill other dogs, which also makes them really good at killing children. BUT DONT MAKE ANY LAWS AGAINST THEM!!
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Umm yes the fuck you do if your own suggestions are worse or no better. Anyone can just sit back and shit on something. It takes no effort.
But you actually do have good suggestions that I would sign off on. My only concern is how strongly it would actually be enforced. And how harsh the consequences would be if the owners didn't abide.
Well, that's ultimately the issue for any group of laws or regulations. Its oft said that the gun control laws on the books are just fine, they just aren't enforced to how they should be with necessary consequences.
No you don't. I can say that something will not work without having a better suggestion. Your reasoning is why governments pay for useless programmes that do nothing. Pointing out flaws with a suggestion is not 'shitting on it' if they are genuine problems. Trying to save resources and remove citizens angst by only having programmes that do some good is not shitting on things.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
A zero tolerance ban on these types of dogs is worth at least a shot. See what happens in a few years. If nothing positive stems from it then hopefully we can get it repealed as soon as possible.
I really don't see how it would have any negative impact on our society. If anyone would like to enlighten me as to how it realistically could, I would be very grateful.
I really don't see how it would have any negative impact on our society. If anyone would like to enlighten me as to how it realistically could, I would be very grateful.
It's not that it would create harm (except for dogs being euthenised needlesly and bitterness created in many dog owners), it's that it would do no good, so why spend money on it.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
How would it be no good specifically?
If vicious dogs are a product of bad owners more than bad breeds, those owners would move onto other breeds. Even if they are a vicious breed (which I disupute) there remain plenty of other 'fighting dogs' that people will still be able to breed.
If it comes down to bad owners then instead of banning dogs we should just require dog licenses for owners, maybe for certain breeds. It won't eiminate bad owners getting certain breeds but it should at least curb it. Maybe to get the license to won the dog they have to pass a training course.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
For me it was never really about how inherently vicious a dog is, or that it's even being trained to fight (pretty much any animal can be trained to fight). It's about what level of damage the animal in question is capable of doing to human beings if it decides to be aggressive. That's my number one issue with these types of dogs.
Yeah, sure, maybe a new breed will come into the picture once you ban all the big nasty ones we have now. It's possible. And we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. But right now these types of dogs are a problem and a genuine threat to human safety. It shouldn't be tolerated and something major has to change.
I honestly don't really have a problem with this solution.
I don't think it would work all of that well though, how would you enforce it? There are hundreds of thousands of breeders in the US.
Really though, I think this is a "problem" that is way overblown in the media. It's minor at best and not wholly the breeds fault. I mean, look at it this way. In 2008 there were 2,473,000 deaths according to the census. This is just the total number of deaths for any reason. Out of those deaths, 23 of them were from dog bites (according to that incredibly biased dogsbite.org site).
Is this something that we really need to do anything about? I mean, there has to be better uses of our time and legislation than banning something that literally amounts to .0000093% of the deaths in the US, right?
This seems very similar to the legislation a couple decades ago that set the federal speed limit to 55 MPH in 1974. Basically useless and safety improvements are heavily debated. The arguments are fairly similar though. If your car is going faster, it has the potential to do much more harm, therefore causing more roadway deaths. Some research found that crashes increased and that partial repeal made for safer roads. Other research found a safety benefit.
Pit Bulls, in the hands of a good owner, can be one of the best dogs you'll ever have. I know because I have one and have worked with many that were rescued. In the hands of a bad owner, they can be bad, aggressive dogs, but so can any other breed. Despite having been around 2 dozen or so pit bulls I've never been bitten or snapped at.
The owner, and to a slightly smaller extent how they are raised are the keys in how a dog behaves. Most dog owners do not know how to properly treat a dog and end up letting the dog think they are the leader and run their home. With pit bulls especially, this can lead to problems.
The owner, and to a slightly smaller extent how they are raised are the keys in how a dog behaves. Most dog owners do not know how to properly treat a dog and end up letting the dog think they are the leader and run their home. With pit bulls especially, this can lead to problems.
To all those good pit bull owners out there - I say great. Wonderful. Enjoy.
The thing is "bad" owners are out there in legion and they are contributing to some truly staggering numbers when it comes to attacks and, more accutely, child deaths.
If children are dying - and let's be clear - they are being torn to pieces by a bloody fanged monster in what must be a truly horrifying death, then provisions must be made and they should be made to favour children in all cases. No society in their right mind is going to hold up the freedom of dog ownership to the same degree as protecting it's children from being bloody well mauled to death.
I am for banning and restricting that breed untill we see the statistics of attacks and deaths go down. The numbers are still high and still in the majority so obviously they are not restricted enough yet.
Can you really argue with the numbers as they stand today?
The thing is "bad" owners are out there in legion and they are contributing to some truly staggering numbers when it comes to attacks and, more accutely, child deaths.
If children are dying - and let's be clear - they are being torn to pieces by a bloody fanged monster in what must be a truly horrifying death, then provisions must be made and they should be made to favour children in all cases. No society in their right mind is going to hold up the freedom of dog ownership to the same degree as protecting it's children from being bloody well mauled to death.
I am for banning and restricting that breed untill we see the statistics of attacks and deaths go down. The numbers are still high and still in the majority so obviously they are not restricted enough yet.
Can you really argue with the numbers as they stand today?
That's just it, the numbers aren't that high. Almost infinitesimally small really. 7 children died in 2011. That's awful for those parents, I can't imagine going through something like that with my daughter and I really feel for those 7 families. Banning pits is not going to make that number go down. I don't think it's feasible for that number to really go down much. There will always be freak accident deaths, legislation like this won't cause any sort of significant help and will cause very significant heartache to thousands of dogs and dog owners. The cost does not outweigh the benefit.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Or why not target the owners first and foremost that are abusing, mistreating and allowing these dogs to skew to being more aggressive?
I really don't understand targeting the dogs when they are usually at the mercy of their shit-tier owners.
Dude Abides
Banned
How should they be targeted? Routine home inspections by Animal Welfare?
A lot of private shelters do this. They do a home inspection prior to the adoption, and make scheduled checks afterwards for a period of time. For adopting out the larger, and more dangerous breeds, this makes all the sense in the world. It should not be as easy as walking into any government run shelter, or Humane Society and saying YES I LOVE DOGS, and then adopting out something like a pit, or rottie. But in too many places, this is the case.
A more strict adoption process for all dogs would be better, but it will never happen because adoption rates will plummet if people are forced to show they will be providing good care for the dog. Sadly, too many dogs of all sizes are neglected and abused.
The 'heart-ache' of dog owners is being held up to the same standard as an infant with her face ripped off. That seems like a disconnect to me. People can easily come to love another breed of dog. I'm not against grandfathering pets but once the pit bulls die off they should not be replaced.
The pro-pit bull side sites 'bad' owners constantly, yet you are calling these incidents a freak accident. It can't be both. Bad owners speaks to causality, a freak accident speaks to a random occurance.
You've made a pretty strong case against policing the owners, that it would be too difficulty, costly, and time consuming. Better to ban the breed.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
The car = dog analogy has to be one of the most ridiculous ever (as if the car could do anything on it's own if just left alone). But even if you want to go with it, I'm pretty sure insurance is different for something like a Ferrari than something like Rolls Royce limo, even if they cost about the same.
Pitbulls as Nanny Dogs in the Victorian Era
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pit-bulls-surprising-past-nanny-dogs-195612543.html
I don't want to make this argument, but slippery slope, etc etc.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pit-bulls-surprising-past-nanny-dogs-195612543.html
I don't want to make this argument, but slippery slope, etc etc.
The only thing I'm less worried about than being killed by a pit bull is being killed by lightning.
Ummm, no "the fuck you don't"
He doesn't have to prove anything in order to show some other logic is flawed. You are operating under the assumption that all social problems can and must be solved with one single move. Saying it takes no effort to point out something is bullshit doesn't make said thing less stupid... the opposite really.
Again, people should check out the skeptoid article.
Ummm, no "the fuck you don't"
He doesn't have to prove anything in order to show some other logic is flawed. You are operating under the assumption that all social problems can and must be solved with one single move. Saying it takes no effort to point out something is bullshit doesn't make said thing less stupid... the opposite really.
Naw, it's not that difficult, costly or time consuming. Plenty of non-profits pull it off with volunteers.
Again, people should check out the skeptoid article.
But it doesn't solve the problem for other large breeds are irresponsible owners. People that can't suddenly adopt a pit will look for another large breed they can secure that acts as whatever they want (guard dog, 'status symbol'). It's not like banning the breed in Ontario has helped with dog bites overall, so these people with out of control dogs are still finding them.
So you don't ban every breed over 50lbs, you heavily regulate the breeding and adoption process. Just having a more rigorous process will drive away many people looking for a dog because they're a tough guy. And the amount of money spent in most cities (like Toronto) on Animal Services is pathetically small. Even doubling the small budget in a city like Toronto to help with this process, as well as the TAS swallowing their pride for once and asking for assistance from Humane and outside private adoption agencies for these dogs, would go a long ways. Sadly, TAS is on the chopping block because it is not viewed as a public service by the city, but a revenue stream. And because it doesn't make enough money, it's been on the chopping block for the last few budgets.
- Status