LOL, that's not how we treat guns in USA#1.

The problem I see here is, where do you draw the line? 1/2 pits, 1/4, 1/8?

I made it pretty clear those statements were my opinions.

I think requiring that they are fixed or banning commercial sales and breeding are something reasonable people can discuss and disagree on, but having the police raid people's homes and take their dogs would merit a revolutionary response just based on how awful it is, let alone the massive surrender of personal autonomy to an entity (the police and the state) far far more dangerous than any dogs.

Some genetic testing on those which are already euthanized each year for the injuries and deaths they cause may be necessary to determine where the optimum line is.

I would personally be fine with a "one drop" rule. No idea how precise the genetic testing which was previously mentioned is, but first world countries don't need fighting dogs as pets.

Oh OK

Every law on earth has weird details about where to draw the line. We just don't know most of them. Drawing the line is only an unsolvable problem when discussing with laypeople on the inner nets. "I've spent a good 30 seconds thinking about this and am stumped. Therefore it probably can't be done."

Well, that's one and I'm not sure it's an entirely real life position as people are way more extreme in stupid online arguments. Polls indicate very low numbers for making it entirely illegal to own a pitbull and don't even bother with asking people if they think existing pets should be taken and killed.

lol carry on

Of course polar bears shouldn't be pets, that's insane. Grizzly bears are probably fine though.

Lol, why can't more people kinda sorta agree with the incorrect things I think?!?

But also, most of the reasonable ones you just ignore. I mean, that's the easiest way to be correct about a thing.


p.s. Lol 27offsuit threatened to ban me a year and a half ago for refuting your Breitbart Dogsbiteorg/Meritt Clifton Black Pitbull Crime Blog and for having a general disrespect for White Man Storyhour.

So many other breeds out there like snickerpoodles and German huahuas. No need for anyone to have a pit bull. Easy Peasy just let the breed die off of old age.

People have already worked this **** out. Like, there are actual communities that have enacted breed-specific legislation which has led to reduced numbers of kids getting disfigured. Somehow these places didn't turn into fascist wastelands where no one is allowed to own any dogs.

6ix - every one of your arguments has been debunked a dozen times in the OOT thread. Pits cause way more than their share of serious injuries and deaths. They tend to stalk or flip out in an instant and give no warning. No other breed routinely has owners resort beating them with hammers to try to get them to let go of a person or animal. If you read my OP that's exactly what happened.

There's a dozen other slam dunk arguments against pits that I'm not even listing. And there isn't one single argument as to what pits offer that you couldn't get from another dog - unless you run a dogfighting ring.

Only emotionally invested pit lovers can't see the very simple straightforward case against pits.

He is an OK singer. His song with Ke$ha was pretty OK I thought. I don't see him as dangerous and don't know why people would vehemently oppose him breeding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHUbLv4ThOo

Mandatory insurance for liability (for all animals that have the potential to inflict serious damage) would solve the problem without needlessly limiting peoples choices, and if you're a responsible owner, your premiums will reflect it. Same basic premise for car insurance being mandatory.

Seems like a challenge to enforce.

Find me just one and I'll donate to whichever charity you want.

Wait.

Incredible. Part of a conversation we had there addressing the OP was literally quoted ITT.

I'll admit I was partially trolling with the White Man Storytime stuff but goddamn it really does come down to Science VS This One Time This Thing Happened To Suzzer.

Here's some more random text generation:

https://globalnews.ca/news/2527882/t...tes-than-ever/

I think you know that it's the severity of damage inflicted that is the issue, not the number of bites. Obviously there's a difference between small dogs and bigger dogs, but German Shepherds are a large aggressive breed that bites as often or more than pitbulls, but the serious injury and fatality stats are much different, no?

I wonder how many of the pitbull naysayers could identify the actual breed of the dog.

Also ban baby hippos

There're a lot of possible ways you could've done it 10+ years ago, but i think in this day and age it's easier than ever. You could require that large dogs, when in public, to wear special collars that emit a signal that people can verify with smart phones against a public database. If someone takes a large dog (or any animal with the potential to inflict damage) out in public without one of these collars or isn't paying their insurance people will find out pretty quick and can report them.

The penalties should be sufficiently large that it isn't worth it for people to evade. In rural areas they can probably fly under the radar pretty easily - but it's a lot less likely in densely populated areas which is where there's a much higher potential for damage.

Are you bragging that you don't have any actual arguments?

One time a pit had to be repeatedly beaten, thrown water on, and still wouldn't let go. And at least half the pit mauling stories posted in that thread say the same thing. These are not the same as "one time a pit played with a kitten". Can you comprehend that?

Pit attacks are the whole point. Every data point counts. One data point of the 99.99% of the time pits don't maul is not very relevant.

If you could show me stories of golden labs having to be hit with baseball bats before they let go - that would matter.