Pit Bulls Attack, Kill Owner While She Visited Her Dogs in Bite Quarantine Facility

Gun Animal

Member
Jan 22, 2013
1,946
141
445
O'ahu, Hawaii
pitbull apologists are as bad as antivaxers or flat earthers, and not nearly as entertaining.

owning a pitbull should be handled along the same lines as owning a wolf, bear, tiger, etc. not illegal per se, maybe or maybe not requiring a permit or additional paperwork, but you wouldn't put a bear on a leash and take it on a walk through your nearest playground, and you probably wouldn't leave your children with it unsupervised.

edit: i wonder if banning the most popular "weaponized" dog breed among civilians would cause a kind of breed race? There's a large demand for threatening/intimidating dogs, for a number of reasons. That's why pitbulls exist in the first place. If you ban one breed, wouldn't breeders respond to market forces and adapt other existing breeds to be larger and more aggressive within a few generations? I have no idea how to go about counteracting this without throwing a lot of large but harmless breeds under the bus.
 
Last edited:

iconmasterX

Gold Member
Jan 27, 2018
2,894
3,715
400
If you ban one breed, wouldn't breeders respond to market forces and adapt other existing breeds to be larger and more aggressive within a few generations?
Sadly, I think this is what would happen. But we’d cross that bridge when we came to it.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
276
153
195
so you admit it wouldn't solve the problem yet still want to force other individuals to do it? That is so fucked up.

If you ban one breed, wouldn't breeders respond to market forces and adapt other existing breeds to be larger and more aggressive within a few generations? I have no idea how to go about counteracting this without throwing a lot of large but harmless breeds under the bus.
Precisely the point I am trying to make. It's futile.
 
Last edited:

Gun Animal

Member
Jan 22, 2013
1,946
141
445
O'ahu, Hawaii
so you admit it wouldn't solve the problem yet still want to force other individuals to do it? That is so fucked up.



Precisely the point I am trying to make. It's futile.
market forces and human ingenuity make a lot of laws ineffective over time. doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws, and i think there's a middle-ground between pitbull genocide and zero regulation of psuedo-feral pet breeds. there are more domestically owned tigers in the united states alone, in fact more tigers owned in the state of Texas, than there are wild tigers on planet earth, but they don't pose a risk because of a shared common sense on where and how to own tigers. The issue, more than anything, is false consciousness regarding the nature pitbulls and certain other dog breeds. If you could just get everyone to agree that a pitbull is inherently more dangerous than a dachshund, something that a surprisingly large demographic of "pit-mommies" and other apologists are unwilling to admit, you wouldn't need to pass any laws. Passing laws---for example, requiring permits, or keeping large breeds out of public areas, apartments, parks, or away from children, etc---is only necessary because of a lack of common sense on the issue.
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
276
153
195
So the solution isn’t government regulations but simply private property and rules against them


Fine.
market forces and human ingenuity make a lot of laws ineffective over time. doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws, and i think there's a middle-ground between pitbull genocide and zero regulation of psuedo-feral pet breeds. there are more domestically owned tigers in the united states alone, in fact more tigers owned in the state of Texas, than there are wild tigers on planet earth, but they don't pose a risk because of a shared common sense on where and how to own tigers. The issue, more than anything, is false consciousness regarding the nature pitbulls and certain other dog breeds. If you could just get everyone to agree that a pitbull is inherently more dangerous than a dachshund, something that a surprisingly large demographic of "pit-mommies" and other apologists are unwilling to admit, you wouldn't need to pass any laws. Passing laws---for example, requiring permits, or keeping large breeds out of public areas, apartments, parks, or away from children, etc---is only necessary because of a lack of common sense on the issue.
I think that is precisely why laws mean nothing and mostly shouldn’t exist.

What does this have to do with tigers? Dogs breeds that we are referring to by definition are not feral but domesticated. There aren’t many species of wild dogs.

I’m not sure why you think it’s possible to make a homogenous opinion on dogs. I would never expect everyone to understand dogs. You will never get everyone to understand that some dogs in your opinion are dangerous.
 

Gun Animal

Member
Jan 22, 2013
1,946
141
445
O'ahu, Hawaii
So the solution isn’t government regulations but simply private property and rules against them


Fine.

I think that is precisely why laws mean nothing and mostly shouldn’t exist.

What does this have to do with tigers? Dogs breeds that we are referring to by definition are not feral but domesticated. There aren’t many species of wild dogs.

I’m not sure why you think it’s possible to make a homogenous opinion on dogs. I would never expect everyone to understand dogs. You will never get everyone to understand that some dogs in your opinion are dangerous.
It's a reasonable assumption that almost everyone agrees tigers are not good babysitters. To be fair, American Pitbulls may have been good "nanny dogs" a century ago. This is because dog generations are short and changes from selective breeding happen relatively quickly. Pitbulls are a completely different animal today than they were a hundred years ago.

you can partially reverse the traits associated with domestication in a couple of generations---although the end result won't be holistically feral either. Imagine an alternate universe where Super-Robot-Hitler won WWII, and turned the whole planet into a military utopia where---among other things---dogs are now bred to be living weapons capable of holding their own against bulls and bears, insane, pain-resistant kamikaze muscle freaks, rather than the adorable house-pets, sheep herders, and small-game hunters we know and love.

The Überhunde of this universe, I believe, would bear an uncanny resemblance in body and mind to the American Pit-Bull Terrier.

Anyways, we all know this conversation isn't really about Pit-bulls. It's about the implications that a correlation between phenotype and temperament in one animal would have on every other animal. Humans, for example. Apologist Pit-mommies are the Eternal Blank-Slatists and I'm glad they're being mauled to death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSlayer

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
276
153
195
...to be fair, American Pitbulls may have been good "nanny dogs" a century ago. This is because dog generations are short and changes from selective breeding happen relatively quickly. Pitbulls are a completely different animal today than they were a hundred years ago.
True so we also agree that not all "pit bulls" are created equal. One family tree can be drastically different than another. Just like other breeds there is a lot of variance of temperament, physical attributes and characteristics within a breed.

Since dog fighting is not as popular as it once was it is safe to say there are less and less true "fighting dogs" out there today.
 

decisions

Member
Jun 16, 2015
645
264
290
Pit bulls should be banned. How many more people have to fucking die before we stop listening to pit bull apologists who think their dog is cute. They will come over and see your herding dog trying to make an enclosed space out of blankets and think how "cute" that is. Then they will tell you that their pit bull doesn't have any instinctive behaviors.

Let's let reason stand for a change and put the double standard to rest: dogs - like all animals - have instinctive behaviors, and only some of them are safe.

No one should own a pit bull. Especially those stupid enough to think they are harmless or under their control.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
276
153
195
statistics are not perception
No but we have already established that breed history of dog is not set in stone. Also established that the description of “pit bull” covers a lot of different breeds.

Behavior and temperament is different even within specific breeds or even litters.

Furthermore regulations and laws wouldn’t help or stop certain characteristics from developing in dogs again through more breeding
 
Last edited:

Halo is Dead

Gold Member
May 20, 2018
1,344
1,671
385
No but we have already established that breed history of dog is not set in stone. Also established that the description of “pit bull” covers a lot of different breeds.

Behavior and temperament is different even within specific breeds or even litters.

Furthermore regulations and laws wouldn’t help or stop certain characteristics from developing in dogs again through more breeding
Yes not all pit bulls are created equal. But the fasts are that Pitbulls are more violent than your average dog. They already have a natural pre deposit to be more agreesive. I’ve seen a lot of wild life reserve people just fall in love with wild and deadly animals and they will always swear by the “connection” but simply put they are unpredictable like pit bulls.
 

triplestation

Member
Dec 23, 2008
20,864
1,439
1,030
NYC
look at this shit


any skinny dumb ass can decide hell yeah it would be cool as shit if i had a pitbull, people would think im tough as a motherfucker to have a fucken pitbull

then you see this 90 lb dude walking an eager 200 lb pitbull on the street like "yeah its cool don't worry i got this" while he's doped out, meanwhile there's also little kids around

fuckkkkk
 
Last edited:

slushaime

Neo Member
May 2, 2019
3
2
65
Great! more pitbull hate. Learn to socialise your fucking dog and you won't have this problem. Shitty dog owners gonna shitty dog owners
Good try. The hate is deserved. Its rarely the owners, the breed is just super aggressive and bred for fighting. I literally avoid anyone who owns a dog like that, and cross to the other side of the street. Fuk pitbulls.
 

lucius

Member
Feb 21, 2006
3,622
23
1,185
They kill/maim family members more than other dogs, but we are partly at fault from breeding and training them that way for a long time, obviously they were picked cause they can kill better with the jaw strength . I mean they are super cute as puppies, but I don’t think many owners have researched about the history or problems with the breed.

Poor woman she not the only one though
 
Last edited:

Gun Animal

Member
Jan 22, 2013
1,946
141
445
O'ahu, Hawaii
True so we also agree that not all "pit bulls" are created equal. One family tree can be drastically different than another. Just like other breeds there is a lot of variance of temperament, physical attributes and characteristics within a breed.

Since dog fighting is not as popular as it once was it is safe to say there are less and less true "fighting dogs" out there today.
Correct. Discriminating by phenotype, based on a correlation between phenotype and temperament, will always result in outliers from the pattern being unfairly penalized. Finding the fair balance between dog-racism and blank-slatism ("blame the owner, not the breed!") is key.

Perhaps the solution, though it's effects would be seen on a much longer timescale, is to regulate not dogs but breeders? Address the root of the problem. Create guidelines for what traits breeders are and are not allowed to select for. This wouldn't only address the issue of dangerous breeds but also the issue of overly bred dogs forced to live with painful health problems, like Pugs.

Blame the Breeder, not the Breed.
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
276
153
195
look at this shit


any skinny dumb ass can decide hell yeah it would be cool as shit if i had a pitbull, people would think im tough as a motherfucker to have a fucken pitbull

then you see this 90 lb dude walking an eager 200 lb pitbull on the street like "yeah its cool don't worry i got this" while he's doped out, meanwhile there's also little kids around

fuckkkkk
Did you even watch your own video? I posted some DDK stuff earlier in the thread. Those are 10,000k dogs trained for personal protecting. Most people can’t even afford those thing let alone the training to make them personal protection dogs. They are family dogs first that get trained to attack on command.

Just like a trained hunting Labrador. They are all calm and sweet until you put their ecollar on and put them in a boat then they change mindset and go fucking crazy do anything for Ducks mode.

Correct. Discriminating by phenotype, based on a correlation between phenotype and temperament, will always result in outliers from the pattern being unfairly penalized. Finding the fair balance between dog-racism and blank-slatism ("blame the owner, not the breed!") is key.

Perhaps the solution, though it's effects would be seen on a much longer timescale, is to regulate not dogs but breeders? Address the root of the problem. Create guidelines for what traits breeders are and are not allowed to select for. This wouldn't only address the issue of dangerous breeds but also the issue of overly bred dogs forced to live with painful health problems, like Pugs.

Blame the Breeder, not the Breed.
I don’t think the government will ever be more knowledgeable than breeders to know what or how to breed dogs. I sure as hell don’t want my money going to this.

I don’t think many owners have researched about the history or problems with the breed.
That’s most people who get dogs. Then they end up up for adoption.

Most people who own dogs in the USA probably shouldn’t have them no matter the breed but I’m not trying to get the government to criminalize or regulate them
 
Last edited: