Unreal story

You mean Facebook? Talking to someone one on one could go OK. I feel that with Facebook and all the pittards backing each other up they'd just form an internet lynch mob.


Wtf talking about your dogs penis. I guess pit bulls are the lifted pickup truck with trucknuts of dogs.

Agreed.

I wouldn't go this far. I do however agree that a feral pit is no more/less likely to be violent than any other type of dog that is feral.

Im sure nearly every dog owner does say/think is. But I also know the majority of people suck and are stupid. I only know how I treat my dog(s) and how that treatment has influenced how awesome ALL of my dogs have been, regardless of breed. I never said my dog is "special" because she possesses the qualities I mentioned (nor did I say they were breed specific traits). I just believe the reason she is how she is, was a result of how I raised her. Point being the breed of yoir dog doesn't matter, how you treat/raise your dog does.

Um, yeah, actually I kinda do (in one way or another). Let me explain though. Whether a dog was raised by a neglectful/****ty dog owner, or the dog comes from a blood line where its parents were trained to be violent for whatever reason (dog fighting, guard dogs) it's all the same in that it was ****ty HUMAN behavior/influence that negatively altered that dogs behavior. Dogs are pack animals and therefore social by nature.

Just as there are inexplicably anti-social/evil people who came from loving homes, I'm sure the same is true for dogs. A dogs breed doesn't make that dog more or less susceptible to violent behavior though. For some lols you should google "dog violence by breed." You'll be suprised which dogs are statistically more violent then pits. Is it a suprise that the breed of dogs highest up on that list are the most popular breed of dogs that people own? It's not to me because I believe it's human influence that makes dogs go bonkers; direct or indirect.

I swear every time a new one pops up ITT, it's just the best.

Pits make up 6.2% of the dog population and result in >70% of the people killed by dogs.

To late to edit post. In response to kids/babies being mauled, animals as a whole are unpredictable. People who leave their kids around any dog/animal unsupervised are unfit parents IMO.

Key word there: killed. That's due to their incredibly strong physical attributes. I'm not debating the fact they CAN be violent. I'm debating the fallacy that they are overall more violent then other breeds; all things being equal. An unruly Pitt is terrifying and can cause an insane amount of damage, I get that. Look at it like this: guns don't kill people, crazy *******s with guns kill people. Along the same lines a responsibly raised Pitt doesnt kill/attack people at random, Pitts raised by a neglectful, violent ******* on the other hand.....

Please share the stats for the % of bites/attacks against humans they are responsible for.

Edit- while your at it please cite your source. There's plenty of anti-Pitt sites out there masquerading as being unbiased

Who are you debating that with?

Thanks. I try.

I dunno. Close minded ******s who think a Pitt is dangerous JUST because it's a Pitt?

Or maybe just myself? Just killing some time here offering an opinion based of having a lot of experience dealing with these dogs. Doesn't really matter to me if anyone reads,engages with me here tbh

4Q, let's say a shih tzu bites 1,000x more often than a pit bull. Why do you think people are more concerned about pit bulls? LFS posted a few days ago that his kid was attacked by their friend's pit bull. He was right there when this happened. Is he still a bad parent, or is it his son's fault and he had it coming? Obviously I know the dog is never at fault in this scenario since all dogs are good.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. I know my dachshund is statistically more likely to bite someone than a pit bull. The difference is that the worst case scenario for a dachshund attack is losing a finger and for worst case for your pit is a dead kid. THATS why people ITT say theyre dangerous. They're not the MOST aggressive breed, and they're not the strongest breed, but they're in the upper echelons of both categories, and that's why their dangerous.

Pretty lol when you talk about dogs that come from "dangerous bloodlines". Pits by definition do-thats the whole purpose for the breed (and to show off one's manhood apparently).

You're goddamn right it's the key word there. Duh.

4Q, before you tell us to enjoy the circle jerk and disappear forever - please fill in the blank:

You agree that pit bulls are more dangerous in the hands of stupid people than most any other breed. But as with guns, there is positive utility, in that pit bulls are better than other breeds at ___________?

To think when I was younger I actually thought pit bulls weren't that bad.

Bad parent? Obviously not. DUCY?

I can't assign blame without knowing a lot more then just, "friends dog attacked son." Sometimes bad things happen, thus is life. I also never said a dog is NEVER at fault. I believe in my last post I said that just like humans, some dogs are violent/dangerous regardless of their upbringing.



Btw, what is this positive utility guns provide that you speak of?

Hm, so by the logic of people ITT, any dog that has the potential to harm people shouldn't be allowed to breed? Yeah, that makes sense. ****zus and labadoodles are the only dogs that should be allowed to live then, amirite?

Anyway, enjoy your circle jerk, time for me to disappear forever.

Can a pit lover answer 27offsuit's dilemma of going for the eyes or neck to stop an attacking pit? I thought for sure neck as it's probably going to be easier to stop an attacking dog going to the neck. But now I'm thinking about the eyes maybe being better and cause it more pain which might make it release faster.

P.S. Pitty lovers I will stab your dog if it attacks anything I love.

What if there was a way to mitigate how often those bad things happen?

It is a gross thing to think about for me. I would have a hard time dressing an animal, but I'd say the neck would do the most damage.

Dunno, things are thick-skinned and take a long time to bleed out, because they were bred to be fighters and killers. Hard to keep your head in the heat of the moment, but I am pretty sure I've read earlier in this thread that sticking something (even a finger) up it's butt is on one of the more effective ways to get them to release a bite.

Cursed out a pit owner the other day from my car. Dumb ass was walking it's dog with no leash.

There's a dude in my neighborhood who walks his pit with no leash. Thing seems very well trained fwiw, and is pretty small for a pit, but ****, that's just asking for disaster. If I had kids I'd probably tell him to stay the **** away from my house.

There is a Wall Street journal book review today on a book called "pit bull" that seems unabashedly pro-pit. It argues that a) it isn't really clear what a pit bull is and b) pit bulls don't bite people more often than other dogs and c) that only 35 people a year in the USA #1 die from dog bites in any given year.

I'm rather more skeptical than that.

yeah that sounds like bull**** to me too. People aren't just imagining this stuff.

kioshk,

How many pure-bred pits are out there? Are people that own "pitbulls" buying them from reputable breeders that can provide provenance that the animal is that breed? I think it's more likely that ****ty people adopt dogs from ****ty circumstances and then treat them like ****.

When this is a principal component of the argument in favor of something, there's a problem.