Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Mon May 07, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 47):
Your comparison is meaningless because a beagle doesn't bite with the ferocity a pit bull has when biting.

You ever seen what a beagle does with a rabbit when it gets a hold of one? Not exactly a "love bite".

Quoting type-rated (Reply 47):
I thought so... and how many tattoos do you have?

Hello kettle....
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2617
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Mon May 07, 2012 12:57 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):
So it is okay for some breeds to bite?

The question to ask is "What are the consequences of the bite?" Now, virtually any dog (not sure about the pug!) could kill an immobile infant, given the opportunity to do so. But then you should never leave an infant or young child unattended with a dog around. However, how much damage could a Shih Tzu or little white (annoyingly yappy) fluffy dog do to most people before and how easily can they fight it off? I've been bitten on the toe by a psychotic little Sydney Silky Terrier. In shock I swung out my leg and it ended up on the other side of the room.

What would have happened if it was a pitbull or large dog taking that bite? How many bites before an major artery may be severed? How easy is it to fight that dog off?

What can you do to minimise the risk to innocent victims (eg someone walking on the footpath or playing in their front yard who is accosted by an attacking dog escaped from an inadequately fenced off neighbouring house)? As many have said before, a lot of owners of the reputedly vicious breeds (at least in Australia) use them as extensions of their own violent personalities and insecurities. And the owners' lack of empathy means that they don't care so much if their dog escapes through a hole in the fence and terrorises the neighbourhood. So the community is forced to use whatever tools it has at its disposal to protect themselves.

It's not a simple matter balancing the risks with humankind's long association with the dog.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Mon May 07, 2012 5:28 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 51):
And the owners' lack of empathy means that they don't care so much if their dog escapes through a hole in the fence and terrorises the neighbourhood. So the community is forced to use whatever tools it has at its disposal to protect themselves.

And that is fine for those particular dogs who's owners are idiots. But, why punish those of us who are responsible? Our pit gets way too playful. We know what that looks like and know to stop right then. Any responsible owner does. But, why punish the idiots who don't understand or know their dog?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
mad99
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Mon May 07, 2012 12:00 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):
People who buy Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous.
As a result, I support outlawing this breed of dog. Yes we all know that they aren't inherently dangerous buta vast majority of people buy these dogs to make them dangerous.
The Pit Bull Terrier can be trained to be much more vicious than a Yorkshire Terrier.

Completely agree..

Why would anyone want a dog like a pit bull? Nasty looking f...ing land shark.
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2617
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 12:24 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
And that is fine for those particular dogs who's owners are idiots. But, why punish those of us who are responsible? Our pit gets way too playful. We know what that looks like and know to stop right then. Any responsible owner does. But, why punish the idiots who don't understand or know their dog?

I'm somewhat curious to know the redeeming features that makes one want to own a pitbull over other breeds, with the exception of those that want them for the macho violent image. But I do know (and have lived with a couple) of other big, potentially dangerous, dogs with other characteristics that make them attractive as pets or work animals. In general, rather than ban the breed I think a better strategy is perhaps to have additional restrictions on ownership (most of which should be applicable to all dogs really).

1) Certified (and monitored for maintenance by the local council) escape proof yards/enclosures.
2) Muzzled and leashed in public
3) Certified that the owner and dog have attended a full behavioural training course.

On the other side it would be good to provide some secure free roaming areas for especially dangerous breeds, in addition to other dogs (and it is often the smallest dogs that are the most aggressive to other animals).

Just got an email from work about a "yellow dog attack" on the way to the workplace - fortunately the bite wasn't serious.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 12:40 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 50):
You ever seen what a beagle does with a rabbit when it gets a hold of one? Not exactly a "love bite".

I have a beagle, and they are definitely hunting dogs. If there is any animal in my backyard (from chipmunks to rabbits to geese) she will take off running after it. Friendly as can be with people though.

Quoting allrite (Reply 54):
1) Certified (and monitored for maintenance by the local council) escape proof yards/enclosures.
2) Muzzled and leashed in public
3) Certified that the owner and dog have attended a full behavioural training course.

I can agree with #1 and #3, but I have a problem with #2. If you have a hound dog like I do (a beagle), it would absolutely drive them nuts to be muzzled on a walk. There's nothing my dog loves more than to dig her nose into the ground and sniff every inch of the block as we do our laps. With the muzzles she wouldn't be able to do that.

Leashes go without saying. They need stricter laws for people that let their dogs off the leash.

Quoting allrite (Reply 54):
On the other side it would be good to provide some secure free roaming areas for especially dangerous breeds, in addition to other dogs (and it is often the smallest dogs that are the most aggressive to other animals).

They don't have leash-free parks where you are? We have about 4 within a 20 minute drive of my house.
Flying refined.
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2617
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 5:37 am

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 55):
If you have a hound dog like I do (a beagle), it would absolutely drive them nuts to be muzzled on a walk. There's nothing my dog loves more than to dig her nose into the ground and sniff every inch of the block as we do our laps. With the muzzles she wouldn't be able to do that.

I don't think all dogs should be muzzled, only certain breeds. That's already the rule where I live. I'm not qualified to say which ones. My dog doesn't wear a muzzle, but then he isn't equipped with pitbull jaws either and I would say that it is quite easy to control/restrain him just with a leash. I know many greyhounds wear muzzles in public.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 55):
They don't have leash-free parks where you are? We have about 4 within a 20 minute drive of my house.

There are surprisingly few in Sydney, but they do exist. Even a leash free beach in our local government area, which is a greater rarity, but it is also too close to a road in my opinion. Not enough parks for anyone within easy walking distance of us, especially ones equipped with decent children's playgrounds.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8974
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 7:14 am

Ah yes, Pit Bulls are the most loving, trustworthy, affectionate Dogs.



Until they bite your baby's head off.


Get real, these dogs are insane.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 9:36 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 51):
It's not a simple matter balancing the risks with humankind's long association with the dog.

True.

I found this story about a one year old baby who got torn to shreds and shaken to death by the family mastiff: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...-baby-las-vegas-his-first-birthday

So sad, the little kid was all set for bed but wanted to crawl over and say goodnight to the dog. Climbed up on the dog's fur and got tossed around like a rag doll.

Lesson learned, you need to look at a dog's CAPABILITY to cause harm because you can't rely on intent. For that reason I can see the logic behind restrictions on certain breeds based on their physical attributes. Legally enforceable restrictions because unfortunately people can't be relied upon to exercise any better judgment than their dogs.

Personally, my West Highland White Terrier is fierce enough for my purposes - but no matter how pissed off he gets he's probably not going to be able to kill anybody in our house. He'd have to work at it for awhile at any rate  
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 4:04 pm

Quoting allrite (Reply 54):
I'm somewhat curious to know the redeeming features that makes one want to own a pitbull over other breeds, with the exception of those that want them for the macho violent image.

They actually are very intelligent. When trained correctly and live in the right home. Gangstas and thugs who think they are the shizz and need to have an aggressive dog are stupid people. They should never have any dog period.

Watch any dog show. When they give the history of any given breed, the same thing comes up: protection. In other words, any given breed was origionally bred to kill. Smaller breeds to kill rats and rabbits, larger breeds to kill wolves. But, all breeds were given the job of killing. It is in their instinct to kill.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 4:21 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 57):
Get real, these dogs are insane.
Quoting mad99 (Reply 53):
Why would anyone want a dog like a pit bull? Nasty looking f...ing land shark.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 42):
those who deny Pit Bulls are dangerous are severely deluded

Ever been up close and personal with one? Not one of those who are abused by thugs who think they are tough but by a responsible owner? When you spend time with one, then get back to me about how awful they are and how the owners are evil.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Tue May 08, 2012 5:46 pm

Ammunition for both sides of the argument, both in the news yesterday in the Bay Area

2 year old girl attacked by family Pit Bull
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-...ed-hospital-after-pit-bull-/nNyXc/

Pit Bull tied to railroad tracks by douchebag owner
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...-found-tied-antioch-railroad-track

Personally, I feel that a Pit Bull and other large breeds can be a fine pet as long as it has responsible owners and is well trained. That said, I would not have one in the home with small children. The same goes for many other large breeds like Mastiffs, Boxers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and German Shepherds.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 5:31 am

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 61):
I would not have one in the home with small children. The same goes for many other large breeds like Mastiffs, Boxers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and German Shepherds.

I take our pit bull out. Our neighborhood is full of children. I make him sit and hold his collar while the children pet him. He has never thought about nipping or biting any of the kids. Just licking them. He loves pets and love the attention. And knows not to do anything other than lick. Because we are responsible owners.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
mad99
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 7:04 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Ever been up close and personal with one? Not one of those who are abused by thugs who think they are tough but by a responsible owner? When you spend time with one, then get back to me about how awful they are and how the owners are evil.

My sister has one! She works at a vet clinic and the previous owner did not want to pay for surgery and wanted the dog put down so she kept it.

Its not a big dog (might not be pure breed?) and it doesn't have a massively wide jaw like most you see. It's not aggressive at all and on a pitt bull scale of 1-10 its about a 2.

When i take the kids over the dog gets locked up.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6318
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 7:31 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 52):
But, why punish those of us who are responsible? Our pit gets way too playful. We know what that looks like and know to stop right then. Any responsible owner does.

Because that has never happened before that a dog from the so called responsible owners went nuts without any obvious reason and caused some major problem to uninvolved strangers or attacked the owner himself (for which it is kinda hard to feel sorry)?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
And knows not to do anything other than lick. Because we are responsible owners.

The dog "knows"?   I am sure that guy whose baby got his head bitten off thought of himself as a "responsible" owner too.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
Smaller breeds to kill rats and rabbits, larger breeds to kill wolves. But, all breeds were given the job of killing. It is in their instinct to kill.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 45):
So we're deluded because you don't understand how dog
training works?

The difference is that mine "not understanding how dog training works" has no potential to result in a huge tragedy. Your delusion does.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 7:48 am

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 61):
Rhodesian Ridgebacks

My parents moved in with my mother's father when I was a year old to take care of him. He had a Rhodesian Ridgeback. That dog was extremely protective of me by instinct. Even when I was two or three, and my parents might go to smack me for misbehaving, the dog would jump in between them and me to protect me.

That dog didn't have an aggressive bone in his body...unless his family was threatened, unless you rubbed his head. Then, you could break into the house, and he'd probably help carry stuff out.

I would have no qualms whatsoever about having a Ridgeback around kids. People often find their size intimidating, but they are kitty cats, really...unless they are guarding a herd of sheep in Africa and a lion goes to attack the herd.

Marc
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 2:50 pm

Quoting allrite (Reply 56):
I don't think all dogs should be muzzled, only certain breeds. That's already the rule where I live.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounded like you were suggesting all breeds. I don't think they even make muzzles small enough for some breeds.

Where I live I believe pitbulls are the only breed mandated by law to wear muzzles.

Quoting allrite (Reply 56):
I know many greyhounds wear muzzles in public.

Seriously?! Greyhounds are harmless. We had an Italian Greyhound when I was a kid and she couldn't be less interested in causing harm to anyone or anything. Half the time she didn't even care if you were in the room.  
Quoting mad99 (Reply 63):
When i take the kids over the dog gets locked up.

If your sister doesn't have kids herself and the dog wasn't raised in a house with exposure to children everyday, then that is responsible ownership on your sister's part. So that's a good move by you guys. Regardless of breed, dogs with little exposure to children are often a little more apprehensive with kids. Even if it were aomething as small as a Scottish Terrier I would probably lock it up when the kids are over.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 64):
The dog "knows"?

Yes, it's called "training". We've been discussing it this entire thread.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 64):
I am sure that guy whose baby got his head bitten off thought of himself as a "responsible" owner too.

That's the problem we've been discussing this entire thread as well. Every owner think's they're a "responsible owner". We need to somehow control the owners that think they are responsible but actually aren't. You'll find that owners that are truly "responsible" by definition never have problems with their dogs (pitbull or otherwise).

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 64):
The difference is that mine "not understanding how dog training works" has no potential to result in a huge tragedy. Your delusion does.

I can assure my "delusion" has not resulted in a single nip, bite, or injury in the almost 10 years I've been training dogs rescued from shelters. Again, there are deluded owners out there that we need to be able to recognize before they get their hands on a dog that has the physical ability to do serious damage, but don't call the real responsible owners like myself and seb146 "delusional". Frankly it's pretty ignorant on your part. If you're that opinionated on the subject, then go do something about the bad owners instead of insulting the good ones.
Flying refined.
 
slider
Posts: 7735
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 3:43 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 30):
There is no such thing as a dog that is inherently dangerous.

Empirical evidence would suggest there is.

Reading some of the comments here would lead me to believe that every pit bull attack is due to some wifebeater-wearing dog-fighting moron raising a fighting dog and keeping it caged up. The truth is far from that in reading tales of these dogs' attacks.

it's time to stop being PC and fuzzy about this and start getting serious about the pit bull problem.

A little girl in my old neighborhood, who went to school with my kids, was chewed up by one. Several HUNDRED FACIAL stitches later and many plastic surgeries, she returned to school. The dog in question was raised by suburban nice folks, was docile, calm, had plenty of exercise with no history of violence. They killed it rightfully. So forgive me if I'm less than charitable with this so-called 'misunderstood' breed.
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 3:56 pm

Quoting slider (Reply 67):
Reading some of the comments here would lead me to believe that every pit bull attack is due to some wifebeater-wearing dog-fighting moron raising a fighting dog and keeping it caged up.

None of the actual people with significant experience have suggested that. We have consistently said "irresponsible owners". Of course there is a trend of the rougher "wifebeater-wearing" crowd owning pitbulls, but there are plenty of nuclear family types who are bad owners as well.

Quoting slider (Reply 67):
Empirical evidence would suggest there is.

Please provide?

Quoting slider (Reply 67):
The dog in question was raised by suburban nice folks, was docile, calm, had plenty of exercise with no history of violence

As I mentioned above, that doesn't make the responsible owners. Nice owners and plenty of exercize does not equate to proper training.

Quoting slider (Reply 67):
They killed it rightfully. So forgive me if I'm less than charitable with this so-called 'misunderstood' breed.

Honestly I don't blame you. It's difficult to be impartial when you know someone who has been attacked. It's like if someone you know was stabbed by someone with schizophrenia. You know they suffer from a terrible condition that is no fault of their own, but you still want them to rot in jail all the same for injuring/killing your loved one.
Flying refined.
 
slider
Posts: 7735
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 4:03 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 68):
Please provide?

Have you been reading this thread? There's tons of stats already given on this. Where there's smoke...

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 68):
As I mentioned above, that doesn't make the responsible owners. Nice owners and plenty of exercize does not equate to proper training.

So please enlighten me as to what constitutes "proper training" for a pit bull.

What kind of training is needed? For how long? How does it vary from other breeds? Shoudl training be mandatory for pit owners? To what ridiculous extent does or should a pit bull owner have to reasonably go to insure a "safe" dog, even knowing that may not be possible? Because you're breaching a line that is impossible to maintain, enforce or control/manage. I know the people who owned the dog--it was trained. Remarkably docile. No history of violence or anything.

You see, when you start to take this to a ridiculous set of requirements or would-be mandatory elements to own the dog, it just becomes something not worth owning.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 68):
Honestly I don't blame you. It's difficult to be impartial when you know someone who has been attacked. It's like if someone you know was stabbed by someone with schizophrenia. You know they suffer from a terrible condition that is no fault of their own, but you still want them to rot in jail all the same for injuring/killing your loved one.

But I also know that a HUMAN BEING who is schizo is different from a dog. Also, this is a ridiculous example. No wonder we can't have a discussion about pit bulls.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 4:47 pm

Here is a fact for the debate. If we ban all pit bulls I won't have to hear all this noise from over-compensating owners defending the breed  

And so that all the dog lovers don't think I'm being a complete ass I will reiterate:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
Make all dogs (or even all pets) a liability risk. Problem solved.

I think there's an odd parallel here with other issues of personal responsibility (gun ownership for example, much as I'm not trying to introduce a polarizing analog). I don't care what guns, dogs, or vehicles you own... so long as they don't unjustly injure me! If a certain gun, dog, or vehicle is of questionable societal value and high risk of danger, it's up to the owner to mitigate that risk (and to be held accountable if they can't).


I think some people lack an appreciation for the risk associated with ownership of a dog, gun, or car, but I have no problem with ownership of any of the above (provided that responsibility is pinned to the owner). So long as you are an owner willing to take said responsibility, I don't need to hear arguments about how well tempered and gentle your dog is, how "guns don't kill people, people kill people", or why 600hp in a road car is necessary (and I expect no excuses if when the unfortunate time would come to own up to said responsibility).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 5:39 pm

Quoting slider (Reply 69):
What kind of training is needed?

I don't know how to define a type of training, but whatever training you do always needs to be based around [b]contructive[b] discipline, consistency, attention (as in don't leave it alone for 10 hours at a time while you're in the early stages of training), and the owner needs to legitimately want the dog to behave better. That's just a high-level explanation of what's needed to train any breed. Of course different breeds will require attention in different areas.

Quoting slider (Reply 69):
For how long?

Training never really ends. It's not like putting a kid through school. Dogs are creatures that require consistency. Breaching that consistency can bring out some oddball behavious (maybe even some of the attacks we read about).

Quoting slider (Reply 69):
How does it vary from other breeds?

Different breeds typically have different personalities (for lack of a better word) and different intelligence levels. For those who haven't been around many different breeds of dog extensively it might be hard to understand. For example, there are breeds, such as pitbulls, that seem to have a greater propensity to physically exhibit their dominance (an instinct that exists in EVERY dog) with other dogs they encounter. Ways to treat this include practicing much stricter leash/leader control, and progressive exposure to different sized dogs. That's just one example though.

Quoting slider (Reply 69):
Shoudl training be mandatory for pit owners?

I think training should be mandatory for all dog owners, but I know that isn't realistic.

I wouldn't be opposed to mandating stronger controls for owners of "dangerous" breeds. When I rescued my beagle from a shelter I was put through a very intensive process that included an interview, multiple meet-and-greets with the dog in a supervised room, reference checks, and a signed contract. The government should look into that for breeds like pitbulls, rottweilers, and dobermans which are often used for the wrong reasons and not properly trained.

Quoting slider (Reply 69):
To what ridiculous extent does or should a pit bull owner have to reasonably go to insure a "safe" dog, even knowing that may not be possible?

Same as above, I don't think it should be only pitbulls that are singled out.

Quoting slider (Reply 69):
But I also know that a HUMAN BEING who is schizo is different from a dog. Also, this is a ridiculous example. No wonder we can't have a discussion about pit bulls.

1) If you break it down, a human with a dangerous mental condition and a big dog with a dangerous mental condition can both be a serious threat.

2) Maybe you didn't catch this, but I was sympathizing with your view. Not sure why you're being hostile about it.
Flying refined.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Wed May 09, 2012 6:15 pm

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...-pulls-owner-off-train-tracks.wcvb

See video regarding Pit Bulls posted to CNN earlier today.

Marc
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 3:22 am

Quoting mad99 (Reply 63):
Its not a big dog (might not be pure breed?) and it doesn't have a massively wide jaw like most you see. It's not aggressive at all and on a pitt bull scale of 1-10 its about a 2.When i take the kids over the dog gets locked up.

So, it is a smaller pit and not aggressive, but it gets locked up? If it were socialized in the first place, it would not have to be locked up!

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 64):
I am sure that guy whose baby got his head bitten off thought of himself as a "responsible" owner too.

No. He was probably a thug who thought it would be the thug thing to do to own a pit bull.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 64):
You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I am just making the point that ALL dogs kill. That is their instinct. From dalmations and akitas to yorkies and chihuahuas.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
mad99
Posts: 1281
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 6:37 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 73):
So, it is a smaller pit and not aggressive, but it gets locked up? If it were socialized in the first place, it would not have to be locked up!

because i don't trust it around my kids.
Its not a bad dog, stupid but not bad.

I've seen a dog attack a child (not a pitt bull) and it didn't give any warning.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6318
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 7:08 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 73):
He was probably a thug who thought it would be the thug thing to do to own a pit bull.

Let me take that with grain of salt at least as big as the grain of salt I take your an Westjet's delusion that you are so called "responsible owners" to whom something like that could not possibly happen.

Quoting slider (Reply 67):
it's time to stop being PC and fuzzy about this and start getting serious about the pit bull problem.

I don't know whether it's PCness gone crazy or just simple fact that people no longer treat dogs as dogs or animals, but "personalize" them.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 71):
a human with a dangerous mental condition and a big dog with a dangerous mental condition can both be a serious threat

That's exactly what slider was pointing at, your putting a mentally ill HUMAN on the same level with a DOG. Mental illness is something one does not choose to have, however you can choose not to purchase a potentially dangerous breed of a dog. Problem solved.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 2:47 pm

Quoting mad99 (Reply 74):
because i don't trust it around my kids.
Its not a bad dog, stupid but not bad.

So, no one has taken the time to train or socialize it. Could be why no one trusts certain breeds: People don't take the time to train or socialize them and, when they attack, people think the breed is the worst.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 75):
Let me take that with grain of salt

Which is worse: Responsible owners who train and socialize their dogs or thugs who just buy a dog and feed it and let it roam?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
slider
Posts: 7735
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 75):
I don't know whether it's PCness gone crazy or just simple fact that people no longer treat dogs as dogs or animals, but "personalize" them.

That's a very good point. At some point there been this anthropomorphic influence if you will--maybe it's Disney's fault, I don't know, but we value dogs higher than ever before. It's almost ridiculous that people get totally wound up about killing dogs but barely lbink an eye when humans die. I know that's a gross oversimplification of things, but it seems as if our collective prioritization is out of whack.
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 6:33 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 73):
So, it is a smaller pit and not aggressive, but it gets locked up? If it were socialized in the first place, it would not have to be locked up!

Not quite. There's actually a big difference between socializing a dog with adults and socializing it with kids. A dog may be good as gold with you or I, it may not be great with kids if it hadn't been exposed to them since it were a pup. Mad99 makes it sound like the dog was raised in a childless home, so I don't blame him for erring on side of caution by keeping it locked up with his kids around.

Quoting mad99 (Reply 74):
I've seen a dog attack a child (not a pitt bull) and it didn't give any warning

That's a defense thing. Dogs aren't the only animals that do it (cats included). It goes back to instinct where not giving warning is a way for a defensive dog to gain the upper hand if it has to lash out against a predator or another dog.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 75):
I don't know whether it's PCness gone crazy

Why was political correctness even brought into this conversation? The dogs don't speak our language. They aren't going to have hurt feelings from this discussion. They won't know whether laws are in place to control their breeding. PC is irrelevant.

Quoting slider (Reply 77):
It's almost ridiculous that people get totally wound up about killing dogs but barely lbink an eye when humans die.

What?! As much as I love dogs, a human's life has more value. Are you saying you personally know people like that, or are you just making a sweeping generalization because we disagree with you?
Flying refined.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23731
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 7:36 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 78):
Mad99 makes it sound like the dog was raised in a childless home, so I don't blame him for erring on side of caution by keeping it locked up with his kids around.

Using our pit bull as an example: I don't know his upbringing. I only have known him for five years. He is about 8 or 9 now. Keeping that in mind and being a responsible owner, I hold his collar when he sees a child. He sits and lets the child pet him. I socialize him to children. He knows how to act, but he is still a dog with animal insticts. Like a lab, schnauzer, mastiff...
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
slider
Posts: 7735
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Thu May 10, 2012 7:41 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 78):
What?! As much as I love dogs, a human's life has more value. Are you saying you personally know people like that, or are you just making a sweeping generalization because we disagree with you?

No, I stated that it's a blanket statement. But there is--IMHO--far too much emphasis placed on the lives of animals in general, and dogs/cats in particular. I do know someone personally whose entire Facebook posting history is all about getting people to adopt animals that are about to be put down. I finally blocked her updates because that was ALL of it--her entire existence revolves around animals.

I know someone else who just spent $7k in vet bills to extend the life of their old dog who has cancer. A ridiculous sum, and too much time and focus placed.

While those might be an extreme example, I do think strongly that there is too much money, attention, time and focus placed on domesticated pets in general. Just my two cents.

And yes, I am a lifetime dog owner until very recently.
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 20, 2012 8:08 pm

"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: afcjets, BaconButty, Drucocu, FlyEndeavorAir, skyservice_330 and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos