What's new
By:

Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

franklin said:
Go full retarded defending ghetto mentality if you want to. Pitbulls and German dogs are responsible for 78% of dog deaths in the states.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. It's the behavior of the owners that determines the behavior of the dog.
A 2009 study in the Journal of Forensic Science ($$), found that the owners of vicious dogs, regardless of the breed, had “significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners.” The researchers added that “vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy,” and concluded that “vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance.” And according to the ASPCA, “Pit Bulls often attract the worst kind of dog owners.”
Click to expand...

How do pit bulls temperament vary from other dogs given similar environments?
According to the American Veterinary Medicine Association, “controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.” The American Temperance Testing Society (ATTS) puts thousands of dogs – purebreds and spayed and neutered mixed-breeds – through their paces each year. The dogs are tested for skittishness, aggression and their ability to differentiate between threatening and non-threatening humans. Among all of the breeds ATTS tested – over 30,000 dogs through May 2011 — 83 percent passed the test. How did pit bulls do? They showed an above average temperament, with 86 percent making the grade. Pit bulls are the second most tolerant breed tested by ATTS, after only golden retreivers.
Click to expand...

https://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/
 
Come to think of it this gives me a good idea. Your town could require that all dogs over 30 lbs be registered and tested by the American Temperance Testing Society (or similar organization). This would not only be more fair but it would also guard against any dangerous large dog regardless of breed.
 
VINYLONE said:
This is incredibly ironic. Franky just argued for the other side.
Click to expand...
He does that a lot. It is what happens when you jump to conclusions. He makes great points but should put his reasoning abilities to work before he defines his positions.
 
heyhey said:
You hit the nail on the head. It's the behavior of the owners that determines the behavior of the dog.


How do pit bulls temperament vary from other dogs given similar environments?


https://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/
Click to expand...

Maybe the problem is that when a pom-shi t(zu) bites you it hurts for a few minutes. When a teacup poodle gets all pissed off and decided to off someone, it tickles. When a pitbull does, it can kill full-grown humans quite easily. So might be the same percentage of attacks, but a far higher percentage of pitbull attacks will end in serious injury or death compared to most other breeds. In the end, I would much rather be attacked by a guy with a badminton racket than a guy with a gun. There is a reason big cats as pets are banned in most localities. If they choose to attack a fatality is likely.

So how do we ban bad owners? Seriously, it seems it would be far easier to ban the breed than the owners. Or are we just to accept that every so often a pit is going to kill someone and just kind of say "oh well" and move on. Is the issue even worth discussing when there seems to be no real solutions, or at least none that anyone will legitimately consider?



As an aside, a pitbull attack had a devastating effect on someone very close to our family, and the owner was a licensed breeder and trainer and regularly held obedience and temperance training sessions for pits and other large breeds. Not every pit that kills is a pet of a gang-banger intent on pit-fighting the dog. It is easy to brush it all under the rug with sound-bites like "it is a bad owner not a bad breed", but that is a cop-out way to not really analyze or address the issue. More often than not in the newspaper articles they describe their dog as a wonderful family pet that would never hurt a flea, until it attacks and/or kills someone.


However you view it, there is a problem here to be dealt with. What is the best way to deal with it? One way, is to ban the breed. That would work, even if it is unpopular or "unfair". How do we ban bad owners? Or how do we ensure that dogs that have been sweet wonderful family pets for a decade don't suddenly kill or permanently disfigure someone? Is the risk worth being "fair" to the poor wonderful falsely-maligned totally innocent pitbull?

I know I have been facetious here, but it does strike kind of close to home, and honestly I don't know the answer, and I wish there were an answer but I honestly don't know if there is one.

But if it came to a ballot, I would vote in favor of banning or controlling the breed, at least as a stop-gap. I like the idea of temperance "registering" or whatever you might want to call it. But there are plenty of reports of nice sweet kind pits, who never show any aggression for years, suddenly attacking someone, very often unprovoked. So is the temperance registration foolproof? Again, I don't know, but I do believe something needs to be done.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Maybe the problem is that when a pom-shi t(zu) bites you it hurts for a few minutes. When a teacup poodle gets all pissed off and decided to off someone, it tickles. When a pitbull does, it can kill full-grown humans quite easily. So might be the same percentage of attacks, but a far higher percentage of pitbull attacks will end in serious injury or death compared to most other breeds. In the end, I would much rather be attacked by a guy with a badminton racket than a guy with a gun. There is a reason big cats as pets are banned in most localities. If they choose to attack a fatality is likely.

So how do we ban bad owners? Seriously, it seems it would be far easier to ban the breed than the owners. Or are we just to accept that every so often a pit is going to kill someone and just kind of say "oh well" and move on. Is the issue even worth discussing when there seems to be no real solutions, or at least none that anyone will legitimately consider?



As an aside, a pitbull attack had a devastating effect on someone very close to our family, and the owner was a licensed breeder and trainer and regularly held obedience and temperance training sessions for pits and other large breeds. Not every pit that kills is a pet of a gang-banger intent on pit-fighting the dog. It is easy to brush it all under the rug with sound-bites like "it is a bad owner not a bad breed", but that is a cop-out way to not really analyze or address the issue. More often than not in the newspaper articles they describe their dog as a wonderful family pet that would never hurt a flea, until it attacks and/or kills someone.


However you view it, there is a problem here to be dealt with. What is the best way to deal with it? One way, is to ban the breed. That would work, even if it is unpopular or "unfair". How do we ban bad owners? Or how do we ensure that dogs that have been sweet wonderful family pets for a decade don't suddenly kill or permanently disfigure someone? Is the risk worth being "fair" to the poor wonderful falsely-maligned totally innocent pitbull?

I know I have been facetious here, but it does strike kind of close to home, and honestly I don't know the answer, and I wish there were an answer but I honestly don't know if there is one.

But if it came to a ballot, I would vote in favor of banning or controlling the breed, at least as a stop-gap. I like the idea of temperance "registering" or whatever you might want to call it. But there are plenty of reports of nice sweet kind pits, who never show any aggression for years, suddenly attacking someone, very often unprovoked. So is the temperance registration foolproof? Again, I don't know, but I do believe something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

You have a nice way of conveying your pov in a teaching role to the ignorant masses. I've always figured you as a patient man.
 
VINYLONE said:
This is incredibly ironic. Franky just argued for the other side.
Click to expand...

VINYLONE said:
You're right. Like Im not a fan of rye but Jewish folk love it. To each his own as far as Im concerned.
Click to expand...

Your leaps in logic have been too large for me to follow. Engrish mother ****er, do you speak it?


++++++++++++++++++


where did heyeyhey's last post go? It was once again a solid point in the abstract, although nauseating when getting into specifics. That seems to be hey's specialty -- a forest for the trees type genius.
 
I think my view can be summed up by simply saying that I would rather live in a world that was slightly more dangerous than one that has been sterilized of everything that may cause people harm. If we continue to eliminate everything that could kill us there will be less of a reason to live. I think for instance that we should reintroduce grizzly bears and wolves to at least some of the land here in Utah.

I am really tired of all of the romantic/adventurous/fun things in life disappearing because somebody got hurt or killed. It is sad and tragic when something bad happens but tragedy is a part of life. Imo our society has put too much emphasis on comfort and safety to the point that we have sheltered ourselves into dull lives. We are a nation of fat, slothful, cry babies, it is beyond pathetic.

Further it does not make any sense to ban pit bulls. If there wasn't a single pit in the us than thugs would fight St. Bernards, Great Danes, German Shepherds, or even Black Labs. You can't blame Smith & Wesson for the cultural problems in our cities any more than you can blame pit bulls for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top