Yes, of course.

Do you think people with children should be allowed to let a lion roam free inside their home as long as the lion has never attacked a child? If not, why?

jfc, this and only this.

You clearly know nothing about dog breeds, traits, tendencies and temperaments. But somehow your an expert on pit bulls. Very few dogs are as people pleasing as pit bulls. The only breed that comes close to having all those traits is a boxer.
All you have to do is look up pit bull temperament to know that that statement is false. But go ahead, keep arguing in circles.

No dogs should be left alone with little kids or the elderly for the safety of both the dogs and the people. That's like Dog 101, I just assumed everybody would that in here.
The second part is not true. Pit bulls had human aggression bred out of them. It is not in their nature to kill people. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years their popularity and numbers soared as they became a symbol of thug culture. Thousands of pit bulls ended up in the hands of people with no caring or responsibility for themselves, their community, or their dogs. It's sad what has happened to a breed once known as the nanny dog. So now, if you didn't raise the dog from a puppy, you just don't know. But if you did, because of their natural temperament, they would be less likely to attack than most breeds. And that is a fact.

Ah, so you’re walking it back to “dogs” should not be left alone with children and elderly.

That's not even close to valid comparison.
I went back through some of these pages. You guys are arguing just to argue. Anytime facts are brought up by people who don't believe these dogs are inherently evil, it ends up in an ad hominem. It's ridiculous. Over 5 million pit bulls in this country and about 10 deaths attributed to them each year. The numbers alone tell you that they are not deadly as you guys want to make them out to be.

Clearly not, as I stated. I just figured people arguing about dogs and dog breeds would know the basics of what their talking about.
Nice try though.

*they're

EZmoney74, are you saying that the professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine is talking out his ass?

You are implying that he's talking out his ass, and I'm wondering what your qualifications are that are above his.

Everyone here knows that there are lots of dogs that are more aggressive towards humans and more likely to bite than pit bulls. But if a scared, aggressive bison frise attacks me, I'm probably not going to end up dead or needing major reconstructive surgery.

Dave, he's not just professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. He was also Director of their Program for Companion Animal Behavior, and a recipient of the Bustad Companion Animal Veterinarian of the Year by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

you specifically say pitbulls here.


Now you're walking back the walk back. I bolded the relevant parts here because you seem to have troubles with reading comprehension.

It's perfectly valid. You don't see any reason to ban a breed of dog based upon it's potential to maim /kill. So why ban lions? I can have a pet hedgehog but I can't keep a trained lion in my home that has never shown aggression? Why? Does it have anything to do with it's potential to murder my family?

The numbers alone tell us that they are the most deadly breed of dog, which is exactly as deadly as we are making them out to be.

You should go back and read quite a bit more, as you haven't said a single thing yet that hasn't been refuted many times over itt already.

it's fun, they kinda just trickle in here, get destroyed, then leave

yawn great reading comprehension.

I clearly said I didn't personally think they were inherently evil (and a giant LOL at anyone who thinks any animal is evil) and furthermore said that despite the fact I've only had positive encounters with the breed I fully admitted that my small anecdotal evidence was meaningless.

I simply was relating how wonderful my personal dog was and never made a single argument or generalization about the breed as a whole aside from the belief that they aren't evil and that many aggressive dogs are aggressive due to the way they were brought up.
I never claimed a dog couldn't spazz out without warning or previous warning signs.

I didn't read the whole thread so forgive me if there is no place ITT for discussing our personal experiences with pit bulls.

Is this a joke? The discussion is about pit bulls right? Which are dogs, correct? Which come with basic rules for care and safety? Dog care and safety goes for all breeds and sizes. Guess what? You have to feed and exercise all breeds of dogs too. Shocking, I know.
Walking back the walk back. Seriously? Is this how you get over 25,000 posts?

This whole thing is sad. You guys are saying that I said things that I never said to try to further your argument. Somehow I stated I know more than an expert. Where is that quote exactly? There are experts on both sides of this argument. Go look them up yourself, since you spend all day online. This is nothing but straw man and red herrings.
Sorry guys, I'm out. I said what I said, go ahead and turn it into whatever you want.
There, you won, happy?
Arguing in circles. Pathetic, truly ****ing pathetic.

yes, pitbulls are dogs. but why didn't you include that in your original post if your argument is actually, "dogs should not be left alone with children and elderly, pit bulls are dogs, ergo, pitbulls should not be left alone with children and elderly."

this was not your original argument. it is very clear from your first post. It became your argument when your inconsistency was pointed out to you. This is informally called 'walking it back' and is generally a response to being pointed out as being wrong.


But, I'll humor you. How do these two statements line up logically:


I've substituted pitbulls for dogs. So, since you've walked it back to dogs, it appears you are now (poorly) trying to make the argument that all dogs are dangerous. It's hard to be so bad at arguing that you malign an entire species of animal trying to defend one breed's behavior.

I'll ask it quite simply since I'm almost certain you're gonna misread that post somehow:

If [dogs] do not have the temperament to kill without warning, regardless of owner, then why is it not safe to leave them unsupervised with children or the elderly?

Done & Done!



Thanks for the stats GGoreo.

Howard,

It seems to me that your prescription is for more government intervention, by means of incarcerating persons for the actions of their dogs; and for more human suffering, by the persons attacked by these dogs that otherwise wouldn't exist were a ban in place.

Im sure this would work to stop dog maulings just as well as registering weapons works to curb gun related deaths.

You post was lol because you said the exact same thing, word for word, that every single dog owner says right after they maul a person to death.

We get it. People who like pits really like them. You are one of those people. For every one of you who talks about how you have a special relationship with your pit that, by golly you just couldn't have with any other dog, there is someone who says he same about their dog of every other breed and mix. It's not the unique soulmate match that you think it is ya dope. And that you love your dog doesn't mean you know **** about dog breeds.

I don't have to look far to see some idiot online saying pits have great temperaments, why I can look right itt to see a parade of people say "human aggression bred out" "best with kids" "sweetest teddy bear evarrrrr!" And then also link after link, with a new one coming in the nest few days most likely, of a person killed or maimed by the same wouldn't hurt a fly, only good boys in the world breed. The shelters are full of them. You and people like you have sentenced them to it because you are too dumb to realize that all doggies are good and some other ones also are not a grenade with the pin pulled.

You gave no eveidence of anything except your opinion that I'm wrong.

I suspect that an additional ten or fifteen prosecutions and incarcerations a year will cost less than policing a ban on five million dogs. I don’t know that to be true; it is of course a guess. It seems to me there is also a benefit from pit owners enjoying their pits.

Your talking two different worlds. In the hood, having a weapon is a matter of survival. In a safe area, it's just stupid to have a vicious dog.

I think it's okay to have a mean dog to protect your home or to hunt, just as it's okay to have a gun for the same purpose.

I'd also ask what percentage of gun owners, especially registered gun owners, accidentally shoot their neighbors and then say "well, it was the sweetest little toy. It never killed anyone before."

EZ,

One breed of dogs evolved to occasionally eat women and children. For this reason they unfortunately must be eradicated.