I bet this dumb ***** LOVED her dog. lol.


Jesus even a ****ing serial killer would probably be like, aww geez, aww man.


Also, fun fact, 7 of the 14 dead humans were children under 9 years old. Most were under 3 years old.

So yea, pit bulls make serial killers look like ****ing pussies.

Further, serial killers spend the vast majority of their lives being normal ass people. Quiet, respectful, productive...

Zangief's post was definitely not logical, and neither was yours.

He responded to posts about fatalities (or at minimum, serious injuries) with references to "bites." That alone is illogical. He then implied that since GSDs became #1 in bites after pitbulls were banned in his area, that somehow that is a good argument in support of pitbulls. And then says that "it's not about logic any more" when he never makes a logical argument or rebuts the previous arguments made against pitbulls being more dangerous than other dogs or more likely to kill people.

Then you support his post, and claim/imply that a different breed of dog will be just as dangerous/lethal, when that is likely not the case. It is unlikely that if you outlaw pitbulls that a different breed of dog will be responsible for the same frequency of fatalities. That is not logical. You are both wrong.

GSD have value you can't get from a replacement breed.

How about rottweilers?

omg 14 ppl died, there ought to be a law.

Why don't we just make a law against dying and really solve this problem.

That's just sad.

I mean, yeah. Wtf am I even reading here?

Are you alluding to an actual experiment or are these educated guesses? I mean, that's fine, but I'm not sure why you'd arrive at those numbers.

Yes, this is trivially correct. Somehow though I think you're not realizing pitbulls are significantly smaller than those other two breeds in the thought experiment. Like, it's not really even close.

As has been noticed twice since you posted, the second claim is much more sensible but you're in the minority of those claiming it. I don't need to go back and quote posts. We don't need to play that game.

I mean, the guy who proudly did not know if pitbulls were a separate species just posted again on this page.

The whole crux of this business is what falls into the group of 'other dogs'.

Pitbulls are 30-40lb dogs. If you wanted to disappear the dogs starting at 30lbs and work your way up, that'd be fine, but I don't think you'd have too many people on board with you.

I do see a difference, but I'd find it really weird if the anti-dynamite people were pro-TATP or pro-RDX or pro-ANFO. I'd maybe start to suspect they have no idea what they're talking about.

Let's assume that any discrepancy, real or imagined, in someone's argument negates the validity of anything else they say. Boom. You are now "right" up to this point. Now explain why pit bulls are a good idea and necessary as an option for pets without pointing to perceived holes in the argument against that. I'm legitimately curious. You have given no argument except that the people you disagree with are misinformed, emotional or lack logic.

Make a case. I'll consider it.

Visited with a buddy and his girlfriend this weekend. His girlfriend was limping around and had a bad looking scar on top of her foot. Turns out she suffered an unprovoked dog attack where the dog latched onto her foot and then started dragging and pulling its teeth and jaw over her foot. Now she has nerve damage in her foot. Breed of dog responsible for the attack?

Yes, I ran the experiment this past weekend and killed 1775 toddlers in my back yard. It's a tragedy, but, you know, the science demanded it.

So, we rank them by deaths caused instead of weight then. You're nitpicking against the bigger point.

I don't think many are claiming that pits are inherently more likely to be vicious. I think that those claiming that pits are more likely to attack realize that pitbulls are more likely to be owned by ****heads and treated poorly compared to other breeds. This means that there are probably more mistreated and maladjusted pits than other breeds, per capita... making them more vicious on average than most dogs. This is not inherent to the breed, just a side effect of attracting the worst owners.

Or, maybe, we could use another metric than weight to rank the danger of the breeds. Maybe looking at the breeds responsible for the most deaths first would be a good place to start, rather than just blindly slaughtering St. Bernards.

Disingenuous.

I'm not gonna ignore the rest of your post but for now I just have to say that this snippet means you're on 'my side'. Like, we're brothers-in-arms here.


p.s.

Yes, that's exactly what they're claiming.

If you ban pit bulls another breed will just fill the void and start mauling all those uneaten babies.

That's because it is correct. In case you missed it, here it is again, the verbatim dictionary definition of the word you are misusing:

6ix, I may have missed it earlier itt, but what do you propose to do about pit bull maulings and fatalities caused? Any stricter regulations at all?

Yes, one million percent.

That's good. Some would not agree to any of those. Like I said, I would prefer outlawing them, but if not, I think perhaps those 3 regulations would be an acceptable compromise.

And we're way past the OP, but (1) answers the question in the title of the thread.

Do other pit bull advocates disagree with those 3 regulations?

Yeah, getting a money because my toddler got his neck ripped out and had a terrifying death makes it all okay.

Of course it doesn't, and I prefer outlawing them, but in the absence of that, those regulations work towards more responsible ownership. You can add more restrictions if you like.

Also, financial liability insurance does indeed help in cases of ER visits or hospitalization, which are far more common than deaths.

When will the madness end? Soon morons won't be able to own any vicious animals at all! Who will maul the children then?

Why are we trying to put the production team behind 'Pitbulls and Parolees' out of busines?

I'm down for 1).
I see no plausible reason for 2).
3) I think you should already do but I wouldn't mandate (fwiw I'm talking about mitigating risk through insurance not gov't list-keeping)

I also don't get how the dictionary definition of vicious including 'a vicious dog' proves that pitbull are the most vicious dogs

lol was not a challenge. I agree with you and wanted to buy action on your side of the bet.

Cool on (1). Here's one plausible reason given for support for (2):

"Pit bulls were selectively bred for an activity that is now a felony in all 50 states: dogfighting. Pit bulls are the 'chosen' breed for drug dealers, gang members and other violent offenders and as such, make up the vast majority of dogs shot by police officers. Convicted felons do not have the right to own a firearm, nor should they have a right to own a dog breed easily deployed as a 'deadly weapon.'"

For (3), mandating would be necessary due to the higher incidence of pit bull attacks that necessitate the victims' hospitalization and medical treatment.

The claim that pit bulls are inherently more vicious is supported by the definition of vicious being "dangerously aggressive." Pit bulls are generally more dangerous and do more damage than other dogs when they attack. A certain chihuahua and pitbull might be equally aggressive, but when they attack, the pitbull is inherently more dangerously aggressive, ie vicious.

Banning felons from owning pitbulls instead of everyone is the stupidest thing said in this thread

Lol. Pretty sure that pit bulls with no restrictions at all is stupider.

Anyway, I've said multiple times that I would prefer outlawing them, and have argued against them. In this part of the conversation though, I've been asking pit bull advocates who oppose bans, what measures they would accept. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

These are also not my solutions, I've just been asking about them. They come from a site that advocates for victims and against pit bull ownership.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php