Wtf who cares about a properly trained animal. You could say the same thing about lions and tigers and you don't see those is people homes. The whole point is that in the case of an untrained animal (or one that was brought up incorrectly) a pit bull is significantly more dangerous than most other dogs because it is capable of high amounts of damage, has a locking jaw, etc. The same could be said about some other breeds but not most.

I don't think they should be banned, some sort of licensing probably wouldn't be a terrible idea, but trying to compare a pit bull to the majority of other dogs who occasionally are also aggressive is ******ed. It isn't about how often they are aggressive, it's about what happens when they are.

You are probably right. You can't have a cutoff. I do agree any dog can be dangerous. I'm 6'4" and 250 lbs. I have a black lab that weighs 40 lbs. If my dog attacks a kid on the street, I know I can do something about it. Could it be already too late? Yea, of course. But I could stop further damage once I grab my dog. Now, if my next door neighbor's pit bull did the same thing, that kid is probably SOL even if I tried to do something.

Believe it or not lots of dog owners do.

And the whole "you can't enforce a ban on breeds" argument doesn't really hold up either. Yeah there are definitely technicalities, but none so insurmountable.

Could I reasonably expect to walk a ⅞ tiger, ⅛ tabby down the street and not face any serious consequences?

Pussies with weak dogs get what they deserve.

not in my experience or for that matter the experience of other boxer owners i've spoken with. maybe i just got lucky though.

Obviously the answer to the OP is, yes they can keep breeding. But my own two cents is they are ass ugly dogs and I would never own one. But why the **** should we ban breeding them? Call animal control on the drug dealer down the street that raises his in the wrong way.

sigh

I'd be more scared of a tabby that's willing to f a tiger than what you are describing.

that pretty much sums it up right there

no, tabby was power bottom

Oh OK, whew! I was going to say that's one fiesty tabby.

Do any of you "ban all collies" people even process this kind of post? We've had several in this thread. This guy is on your side and he's still saying they're a dangerous "breed" that should be treated differently.

The problem is even badly raised collies don't go shooting out of car windows with almost no warning to latch on to happy mutts that are just walking by, then take several people, their owners repeatedly punching them in the head, and cold water thrown on them before they finally let go a couple minutes later. Beagles and collies just don't do that - they just bark and snarl and act like *******s. And if they do bite they don't latch on for minutes. And even if they did, you wouldn't be so terrified to put your hand near their skinny little heads.

you saying that they are dangerous is irrelevant. I get that they are dangerous. However, I do not think they should be banned just because they are dangerous. All dogs are dangerous, to differing levels. If you want true safety, just ban all dogs. If you want to allow people to be responsible with their dogs, ban no dogs. Those are the only two reasonable options. Banning the most dangerous dog doesnt work, because there will always be a most dangerous dog. (ban pitbulls and whatever is now second most dangerous becomes most dangerous...do you then ban that too?)

Lol so if one dog is 10x more dangerous than 2nd place? Your logic still holds?

I want one of these:

er yeah

i doubt there would ever be a 10x gap like that.
take pitbulls off, then you have rottweilers (in fact, maybe rottweilers are more dangerous, idk). im not a dog expert, so idk what would be 3rd.

the key is for owners to not only raise dogs properly, but to monitor them so that they behave properly at all times. especially when the dog is w/ other ppl/dogs.

please dont ever leave a child with a bull terrier.


my bully is dog aggressive towards dogs he doesnt know. it's just how he is. i took him the dog park 5x a week from 4 months til about 18 months. no fights or anything and then one day some rescue mutt jumped him--err, tried to... after that incident he just got real defensive towards other dogs. it's so sad b/c he always the hit of the dog park b/c he's hilarious and the breed is so rare.
he's amazing with children though. we live in DC and wherever we take him, people line up to pet him (sometimes random cars pull over). he's probably gotten 10 pictures taken at the national mall. /brag


RIP Boss

#2 hanging from Rufus' neck is for our wedding reception table #2 ldo

You're just anti government in general. And you have no good reason to be.


You are legally obligated to insure yourself as a driver just about everywhere.

Failing to do that is illegal, and for good reason.

If you're driving uninsured and the worst case scenario happens (huge crash, 500k+ damages), most people cant afford to compensate the victims.

So to make sure victims dont get ****ed, you force drivers to pay based on an actuarial estimate of how high risk you are. You're paying for your "expected" damages (ideally). I dont think anyoen who is informed doesnt believe these laws are absolutely necessary.

That's the basic premise for why people should be legally obligated to insure dogs that pose a non-trivial risk to people living near them.

If a dog is well trained, he would perform well at the evaluations and your insurance rates would be significantly lower. But the risk is never zero, and you can't just put your neighbors in the line of fire because you get hard for big breeds of dogs.

define non-trivial

And what if we know a certain % of owners will never do that? It's nice to say what owners should do. But that dude tonight was just a moron. And there will always be morons. I just keep coming back to the stalking and the latching on. It just creeps me out.

Don't ever stray into the Politics forum. Just trust me. They don't even want the government to build roads, much less force you to insure yourself against damage you might do to others.

The difference between collies and pitbulls is that if a collie bit you, you could get it off of you very easily. Collies have much weaker jaws than pitbulls. It's very obvious that pitbulls are the most dangerous dogs around, which doesn't mean that you can't condition them to be sweet loving dogs in all situations, but it's much much harder than say a golden retriever or collie.

Most people who own pitbulls embrace the protective image, which is really bad imo. Having a dog that you have to lock in a room if someone comes over is pretty telling of how dangerous they can be, I have no idea how anyone could own a dog that would require that kind of restraint. The size and power of the dog is the most important thing, I don't care how aggressive someone's chihuahua is, I'm not threatened at all by it because I could kick it about 20ft if necessary.

Tibetan mastiff, imo.

As stated above, some tend to have a LOT of hair. There are two main types, the "Lion" :


And the "Tiger":



They aren't usually as big as the (english or Bull) Mastiff we sometimes see in North America, Nor are they as docile. They are -very- protective and can have a mean streak.

This was just a thinly veiled brag in order to post a picture of my Tibetan Mastiff: