any reason not to go shopping for a tiny white dog in some kind of rescue facility?

i don't think adopting any breed can be considered promoting a breed that troubles you.

I agree with Mat. Lots of good dogs to adopt. Teeth issues are nearly guaranteed with some breeds and hip problems are common for lots of purebreds, not just the little ones.

Mongrels are generally pretty awesome.

I love mutts, too.

Howard,

Maybe take a look over the borders for your need of data. There are plenty of countries which banned the breed resulting in - guess what - way less dead people.

It seems that some of you don't know anyone with pit bulls. I know a few girls that have them because they are big, cuddly, super needy, seems to be super passive, and probably makes them feel safe. You would never be able to convince them that the dog attacks are from anything but mistreatment.

personally I think they are like a lot of wild animals that people keep as pets. for the overwhelming majority of people there will never be an issue but they are so big and strong that it only takes the animal to have one bad moment in its life for it to be a disaster.

GM,

I’d never dispute that a ban will save lives, but I don’t think that answers whether a ban is the best solution. I admit to a substantial antigovernment bias on most subjects.

ya, if the dogs were truly aggressive and wanted to kill, attack, maim your dog, then they would have done it before you could stop it. nor would a kick to the neck have stopped it.

I have seen plenty of dog interactions, including 2 attacks where a friends dog nearly killed another. its seems there are 2 kinds. one kind is the dogs run at each other and bark and nip and make a lot of noise and run around but nothing really happens. maybe a nip draws some blood. the other is the dog just goes for the neck and its bad news from there.

this may have been the first type which are kinda loud and scary but its not really an attack. with the real killers, they dont bark or growl or run around or swipe their paw, they just quickly and quietly latch onto the neck and shake. its pretty traumatizing really.

and dave says they may not have been pits, but just bc they are pits doesnt mean they automatically go for the kill.

glad your dogs are ok.

Care to elaborate on other possible solutions?

I've seen dogs run up, act aggressive, spook other dogs and have it escalate to a fight. In some cases intervention will end the escalation.

i think intervening probably makes it worse on average, hopefully one dog just kinda submits and the other relaxes

my dog was attacked by a pit and eventually let go, tho it was a smaller one

Somebody else's dogs may be friendly. My dog, although she is fluffy and adorable, is NOT friendly to most other dogs and many people. So I keep her on a leash and avoid people and dogs when I walk her. Somebody could have the friendliest pit bull in the world, but if it's off-leash and runs up to my dog to say hello, the likelihood is that my dog will try to attack it (she thinks she's defending me). Then, who knows how the previously-friendly pit may respond? If my dog is controlled and another dog isn't, that's not on me.

Mat, you were entirely correct to do what you did.

Sure. How about a rule that makes dog owners criminally liable for assaults their dogs commit, with no exceptions for a dog’s first bite? And a parallel rule establishing strict civil liability on the same premise.

Rather than establish an ex ante ban, set up an ex post remedy that establishes a significant deterrent to owners who raise dogs that end up being violent, and apply it to all dogs so as to avoid debates about the exact definition of a pit.

I’d probably support solutions like this in a fair number of similar circumstances, the idea being that keeping responsibility with the person in control of the situation will act to reduce the number of bad decisions made.

Howard,

While the idea behind your preference is a charming one, it is not more effective. The responsibility of making bad decisions in regards to smoking, is a clear example.

Over here one is criminally liable for one’s pet. If my dog kills someone, I’m going to jail for it. Yet there are still plenty of pit bulls here.

People often don’t care about the consequences the bad things that might happen have, because people think the bad things won’t happen. (Take speeding for an example. Or smoking.).

It isn’t wrong for a government to forbid something per se. It is highly sensible if it saves the lives of the people, even more when their is no apparent benefit to the forbidden act (like owning a pitbull.).

Not to politard, or to get in a debate about European and American law-philosophical views, I’ll just say I disagree.

Also, sorry if my tone seems angry or demeaning or something; I find it hard to get the right nuances across in English.

Yeah. Most people who own dangerous dogs do not believe they are dangerous. Those that get them because they are dangerous many times are not consequence concerned/risk adverse type of folks.

None of that stuff would protect the innocents it is designed to protect. Irresponsible people will continue to be irresponsible.

If attacks on humans or other dogs = mandatory jail time for the owner - people would abandon pit bulls pretty quick. Tie the sentence to bite damage.

GM, never a worry. I can debate politics with reasonable people, of which you are very definitely one, without getting bent out of shape. I certainly understand your LOLEuro position. What’s the limiting principle on what government can and can’t or should and shouldn’t regulate?

Most of the regulatory regimes here in USA#1 start small and reasonable, then eventually accrete well past the point of rationality. I don’t really care about the pit bull issue one way or the other, but rather my position here is just an example of broader principles I believe.

I've been watching a lot of pitbull attack videos. And it seems like there's an awful lot of them.

Has anyone here, who owns or has owned pitbulls, had their dogs attack people or other dogs where significant injury was inflicted? I'd like to hear from that perspective if possible.

You'll probably have to find the "U + rescue" forums to do that

I think this is a reasonable position, but I take violent dog ownership to be equal to owning a weapon. It shouldn't be illegal to own any weapon, IMO, as long as the owner uses the weapon responsibility.

I think violent dog owners are of many minds, but the main ones I'm aware of are the paranoid type who wishes to have the dog for home protection.

I think that violent breeds should be registered like any weapon would have to be. If it's let loose on the neighborhood, then the owner should have their fortification inspected and face fines. If they take it out, they should be required to have them on a leash with a muzzle, if the dog bites, then there should be charges pressed. If the dog kills, then you are charged with murder.

The problem is that, in most cases, the bite is minor enough that the victim is just going to go about his or her day and not bother reporting anything. I've beeen bit and attacked a few times, and thank my lucky stars they didn't take off a finger. I don't think that any major attack is the first attack of a dog, and for that reason, I agree that it's history should not be a part of the punishment.

Howard,

Of course you are right to not trust the US government, I do the same.

Just ban the breed. Apart from your principles not being validated in this one instance, there’s no downside to banning the breed.

Your initial reaction was correct, no matter what breed.
The guy you talked to is correct also. Pit bulls are highly dog aggressive, and have a very high prey drive. It comes naturally. Sometimes shouting or whistling can snap them out of it before they latch on. If the dogs are trained. If they are not trained, then they will do what comes naturally to no fault of their own. Especially when it's more than one dog. Pack mentality, one attacks, the others join in.
I raised a female pure bred Am Staff. She was the friendliest dog I've ever known. Not one ounce of human aggression in her. I completely trusted her around kids, and the neighborhood kids loved to play with her. But still, I would never leave her alone with little kids or elderly people. Because while she had my trust, she was still a animal. And when she sensed fear, she naturally went into a defensive mode. Not aggressive, but a confused state. When things aren't normal, that's when attacks could happen. If you look at the stats. The vast majority of people killed by dogs are very old or very young. It's usually the fear that they have that sets off the dog.
That being said, a properly trained and socialized pit bull should be no problem to anybody as long they're under care of a responsible owner.

i just got a purebred blue nose pit puppy from a rescue.
she was 10 weeks when we got her and she's now 16 weeks and she's the sweetest most friendly dog I've ever encountered.

she's incredibly friendly with other dogs, ppl and kids and she wants to play with everyone or everything she meets.
she's also super friendly to other species such as kittens and rabbits.

she is also the most snuggly dog ever.

whenever we take her out in public literally every person who sees her stops to play with her and gushes over how cute she is.

I know one dog doesn't mean anything but I've meet a bunch of pits in my life and they were all super friendly.

I really think their default personality is sweet and it's just that ppl who want an aggressive dog pick pits and raise them up to be aggressive and mean.

you can make pretty much any animal mean if you want to i don't believe their is anything inherently evil about the breed but I have only ancedotdal evidence so obv could be totally wrong.

but regardless our puppy is the most wonderful little bundle of love ever and every single day I am so incredibly grateful I found her.

RBK, your post sounds exactly like what most pit bull owners say after their dog has mauled a kid/grandma to death.

Almost every owner whose pitbull kill someone starts off by saying, "I don't understand it, he's the sweetest dog in the world, he's never attacked anyone before."
This "there are no bad dogs, just bad owners" sentiment has been justifiably mocked throughout the thread. Pit bulls have the temperament to kill without warning regardless of their owner.