quote:

---

There's not one. Just as there is no logical/functional reason to own an EBR.

---

ever heard of ZOMBIES! good luck with your long bow against this!

quote:

---

Um, excuse me? Says who?

---

I wish I were clever enough to make a school house rock song for this...

Since it is not stated in the Constitution as a power controlled by the federal government, and your right to own any type of animal is not expressed, the tenth amendment applies...

quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

The state that you live in has the power to control what types of dogs can be owned...

Your local government has the power unless the state doesn't allow it...

Your HOA can not allow certain types of dogs in your neighborhood...

edit: Im sure our current federal government could find a way to twist the constitution to give them more control...




[This message has been edited by WATER TOWER (edited 6/8/2011 10:27a).]

quote:

---

1st - you dont have the right to own whatever dog you want... so your comparison is flawed

---

what are these dogs that you can't own?

quote:

---

2nd - if anyone that actually owns or supports ownership of "assault rifles" is asked what they intend to use it for they will give them a straight answer because odds are they arent a liberal, and odds are that answer will make sense

---

the point is that you think your reasons for owning an "assault rifle" make perfect sense(not every one agrees). just like a person who owns a pit bull does so for reasons that make perfect sense (not every one agrees). you may think this sounds like moral relativism, but what i'm really trying to convey is that just because you think your position on owning something is well reasoned and logical, and someone else's reasons aren't doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

3rd - an assault rifle has a trigger that has to be pulled by an operator... there is no control over when the dog will attack

---

people who don't understand guns say the same thing, that they are just waiting to hurt someone. the truth is that if you understand them, and practice responsponsible ownership, you'll realize that there is no magical switch that makes these things instantly deadly.

quote:

---

Unless you have an answer, I will just assume you are trying to make an asinine comparison between an inanimate object and a violent dog breed...

---

there's more of that emotionally charged rhetoric! pit bulls/guns are violent! get them away from our children!

I also feel the need to jump in here and say that while I see no reason for owning a pit (or an AST, or whatever), I will not blindly throw all dogs under the bus!!

I mean, what if you have a tennis ball and it's just laying in the yard and you're too fat & lazy to go get it!! Well that, my friend, is when you need a fetching dog. Labs were bred specifically for the purpose of going and getting tennis balls for lazy white folks.

What are the reasons for owning a pit bull and not another breed?

The lab will hunt down your children!

If you're saying pit bulls are for fetching 40s, that's racist Sean.

FWIW - my neighbors had fighting pits (see above photos) and they would jump my fence to get to my dog and one night they got out of their fence and when I got home around midnight the three of the dogs sat outside my truck doors barking and charging when I tried to open them...

This was after the yellow one killed the white one on a sunday morning by biting its neck... that was a lot of blood and screaming by the white one and the police said they couldn't do anything about it unless the dogs were actively attacking a person (both times)...

quote:

---

What are the reasons for owning a pit bull and not another breed?

---

as hard as it may be for you to believe, pit bulls are good pets.

quote:

---

as hard as it may be for you to believe, pit bulls are good pets.

---

German Shepherds are great pets, smarter, protective... and they are a lot safer

Now which argument for gun ownership does that correspond to and what is the argument against it?



[This message has been edited by WATER TOWER (edited 6/8/2011 10:51a).]

Not to hijack, but when can you legally shoot a dog on your own property. Like if three dogs are threatening your ability to exit your vehicle.

Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup, while effective, doesn't answer the question.

I know this is from way earlier in the thread, but I just had to point out the idiocy:

quote:

---

By looking at the stats, if you eliminate strictly the pit bull purebreds, you are significantly reducing the number of dog attacks each year. It's not going to solve all the problems, but will take care of a majority of them.

---

Have you ever spent time in ****ty areas where a lot of these bites occur? Do you know anything about the breed standard? The answer to both of these is obviously a resounding NO. The whole point urusus was trying to make by posting the pictures of all those dogs was that people don't know what a true pit bull looks like. They will call any bully or molosser type dog a pit bull, thus making the breed over-reported in bite statistics. Add in the fact that these bully type mongrels were largely bred and owned by those that neglect them, beat them, and deprive them of any type of socialization and you have a recipe for disaster. If you ban anything that looks like some what uninformed, reactionary, idiotic legislator thinks is a pit bull, guess what will happen. The ****heads who own problem dogs will find another breed that they can mold into the next big thing for ghetto dwellers. It's pretty easy to see if you'd look past your irrational hatred. Can't have pits? How bout this english mastiff that you mistreat and turn mean? Maybe a rottweiler, doberman, or GSD? The problem is and always will be ****heads who want an aggressive, uncontrollable dog. These ****heads will find a breed that they can warp to suit their needs.

On the issue of pit bull type dogs "snapping", it's another myth perpetuated by the uninformed. Pit bulls simply don't give the warning signs that we're used to in dogs. With most dogs bred for guard duty or working purposes, you will get barking and growling before any snapping or biting. Pit bulls operate mainly off of body language. They'll go stiff, pin their ears back, and maybe curl their lip. It's common behavior in terriers. You have to know what to look for and how to react to it.

I own a corgi/pit bull mix, and I would put him up against any dog out there for behavior around kids. The high pain tolerance that is characteristic of the breed makes them much less likely to react to a kid tweaking their tail or petting too hard. I've had a little girl run up to my dog from out of nowhere and slap my dog in the face as hard as she could. Teddy didn't react. In my parent's neighborhood their are tons of elementary school aged kids that just kinda run around without supervision. They all love Teddy because he won't snap at them when they pet him, hug him, or tug and his ears and tail. They can reach into his mouth to get a stick or a tennis ball and he will stop mid chew.

It'd be great if people would take them time to understand issues instead of having a kneejerk reaction that doesn't deal with the root cause. That being said, I've seen enough that I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen, even with this supposedly freedom loving group.

ETA:

quote:

---

German Shepherds are great pets, smarter, protective... and they are a lot safer

---

Crazy idea, some people want dogs for different things! How wild is that?! I don't want a dog that's a canine Rhodes Scholar. Teddy can sit, stay, come, speak, and do some other tricks. He listens. That's all I need. I also don't have to introduce him to new people to show him they're ok. Which begs the question, how is a GSD safer? Would you feel comfortable having your dog in the backyard while a complete stranger went to check the meter, or a neighborhood kid jumped the fence to grab a ball? Seems a protective dog might react negatively to that happening.

[This message has been edited by NRH ag 10 (edited 6/8/2011 11:06a).]

quote:

---

German Shepherds are great pets, smarter, protective... and they are a lot safer

---

Bulls**t. If treated the same way that your neighbors pits are treated, they'll react the same way and be just as dangerous.

It's an owner issue.

I agree that most people on this board couldn't tell a Pit from any number of dogs. I have owned three American Staffordshire Terriers in my life and never had one that bit or menaced anyone.In fact, I now have one who is ten and is like a lap dog. It is most definitly an OWNER PROBLEM and like most breeds can be made mean or gentle.

quote:

---

German Shepherds are great pets, smarter, protective... and they are a lot safer

Now which argument for gun ownership does that correspond to and what is the argument against it?

---

neither gun nor dog ownership are about owning the safest (this means nothing), or best of the best. do you agree there is room in there for personal preference?

let's put it another way. is there something inherently bad with a hi-point 9mm because it is preferred among the criminal element? or is the problem with the wielder of the implement? if hi-point 9mm are used in a proportionally higher fraction of crimes, should i, a responsible gun owner still be allowed to purchase, use, and own a hi-point 9mm? what if someone has his family killed by a thug that used a hi-point 9mm, and decides that rather than going after the guy who committed the crime, he fights for legislation to make them illegal. why should i, who has a hi-point that has never been used illegally have to give it up because of a moron that doesn't understand the difference between the actor and the implement?

i'm sure you're not condoning that anything that is misused be criminalized, right?

quote:

---

What are the reasons for owning a pit bull and not another breed?

---

I always love this question. The answer is none. People prefer certain dogs over other dogs. I know many responsible pit owners and know a few not responsible ones as well. I have a coworker who had a black and tan coonhound that turned on his children. Almost killed the little girl. When i heard the story i didn't go home and put a bullet between the eyes of my coonhound. It's the conditions, not the breed (as from what i saw has been repeated on here numerous times). Sure the breed has the ability but it still boils down to the condition.

saw this the other day, thought it might be appropriate here http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pit-bulls-surprising-past-nanny-dogs-195612543.html

quote:

---

Bulls**t. If treated the same way that your neighbors pits are treated, they'll react the same way and be just as dangerous.

It's an owner issue.

---

Now you can never say that labs are not hunting dogs...

I'm just glad we're going for Round Two on this thread. It was highly entertaining during the first go-round. Although it could use a little spicing up right now (Paging txaggie02, Paging txaggie02). Now, please continue...

AMEN, my family has owned AMSTAFFS since the 1920's and never had a mean one . Their only problem is their strength and heart which coupled with the wrong type of owner make a bad combination.

Where is the data that you are all using to prove it is the owner and not the dog?

True or False
Bull breeds of dogs have been bred for thousands of years to kill.

quote:

---

Where is the data that you are all using to prove it is the owner and not the dog?

True or False
Bull breeds of dogs have been bred for thousands of years to kill.

---

seriously?

it must be a complete fabrication that the people i know with pitbulls have never had problems with their dogs, and in fact, still have their faces intact.

is it your position that a pit bull WILL attack someone, no exceptions? if so, your bias is showing. if not, why do you think that is, since these killers have thousands of years of blood guilt driving them to KILL KILL KILL!

The bottom line question is:

Are dogs genetically predisposed to behaving in a certain way?


In my opinion, herding dogs are better at herding than other dogs, retrievers are better at retrieving, killers are better at killing.... Im going to go get a maltese to herd my sheep now because it is all about the owner...

quote:

---

is it your position that a pit bull WILL attack someone, no exceptions? if so, your bias is showing. if not, why do you think that is, since these killers have thousands of years of blood guilt driving them to KILL KILL KILL!

---

It is my position that it is stupid to own a dog that is more likely to attack a child than another dog...

Is it your position that a pit bull that is treated well has NEVER attacked someone?

Schmendeler, have you never seen a mean or aggressive dog that wasn't a PIT? If you have, what made them mean? Their breed or their owner?

quote:

---

In my opinion, herding dogs are better at herding than other dogs, retrievers are better at retrieving, killers are better at killing.... Im going to go get a maltese to herd my sheep now because it is all about the owner...

---

here's the thing, all the dogs you listed are all still capable of being good pets. a working drive doesn't prevent a working breed from being a good pet.

also, i think it's funny that you think a trait can be bred in, but don't recognize that trait can be bred out.

either way, your argument has obvious holes, with the many examples of loving pets made from pitbulls that show your opinion of an inherently bad dog to be nothing more than fear, and a misunderstanding of how the role of the owner of a dog affects it's behavior and mental state.

quote:

---

True or False
Bull breeds of dogs have been bred for thousands of years to kill.

---

Good job phrasing the question in such a way that it can only support your argument. You should contact a polling agency and let them know of your talents.

I don't think anyone who owns APBTs or AmStaffs denies that they were bred to fight. First they were used for bull baiting and later for dog fighting. Dog aggression is something that can be an issue with the breed, which is why they should be socialized, trained, and leashed when in an open area. The rub is when (uninformed) people try to translate this into human aggression. If you have the ability to set aside emotional hangups and think about it logically, it's pretty easy to see human aggression is an undesirable trait in a fighting dog. Think of what people who bred these for their original purpose wanted. They needed a dog that will be game when put into a pit with another dog, but after the fight will be handled and probably receive medical treatment. You have to move them in and out of kennels all the time and take them out to work with and train them. Do you want a dog that tries to bite you through all this? No. You want a dog that will never curl their lip towards a human. Human aggressive dogs were culled from the bloodline from the very beginning. The surge in attacks has come from mixing breeds to gain stature and mass. A lot of the dogs you now see referred to as pit bulls have some sort of mastiff or other large molosser in the bloodline. Mix that capacity for human aggression (not saying mastiffs are bite happy dogs, but they are guard dogs) with a APBT or AmStaff's desire to please its owner and an owner who wants a dog that acts mean and you have a recipe for the current state of affairs.

quote:

---

Schmendeler, have you never seen a mean or aggressive dog that wasn't a PIT? If you have, what made them mean? Their breed or their owner?

---

i hope you're asking this sarcastically. how does a person live in the US and NOT have multiple encounters with mean or aggressive dogs at some point? seeing as they were a wide variety of breeds, i've got to surmise it's a matter of the owner, not all breeds of dogs.

quote:

---

Is it your position that a pit bull that is treated well has NEVER attacked someone?

---

no. just like it's ridiculous to say that ANY animal treated well will NEVER attack someone. i'm certain you're not trying to say that responsible ownership of dogs doesn't severely curtail such instances, right?

Heres a fact:

33% of dog attacks are from pit bull or pit bull mix dogs

Unless there are facts to support that all of those were only from mistreated dogs I dont think there is any more than can be discussed here...

edit: obviously a dog treated well might be less likely to attack but that is impossible to prove...

[This message has been edited by WATER TOWER (edited 6/8/2011 11:42a).]

quote:

---

Heres a fact:

33% of dog attacks are from pit bull or pit bull mix dogs

Unless there are facts to support that all of those were only from mistreated dogs I dont think there is any more than can be discussed here...

---

here's some things not reflected in that number:

1. who determines what the actual breed of the dog is? i'm inclined to believe it's not someone who has training in identifying breeds of dogs, but more likely a parent freaking out about their injured child.

2. i can only assume that only includes reported attacks. meaning, that a nip from a smaller dog will probably not be factored, so the numbers are skewed. we can have a discussion about the severity of bites, but you're arguing on the aggression itself, not the damage per incident.

3. where are dog attacks more prevalent? are they more prevalent in areas where the dogs are not cared for and responsible ownership isn't as common? (don't know, but is a good question) and if so, what is the most common type of breed among these irresponsible owners?

My guess is that 33% of REPORTED attacks, may be from Pits/mixes.

I have personally witnessed far more relatively serious bites from Aussie Shepards, Collies & any number of smaller territorial little dogs. In fact, in my (almost) 35 years I've only seen 1 aggressive pit in person.

...and yes, a pit is more capable, physically, of rendering significant damage than the breeds I mention above, but when we're talking about attacking small children (the OP in this thread was re: a 2 year old) even a small dog is capable of rendering serious damage.

So the other 66% of attacks that weren't by whatever someone decided was a pit bull that day(according to a source you fail to give), were they all done by mistreated dogs? Seems like we should just get rid of dogs that have the capacity to attack and harm people.

Fun Fact, here are some dogs that are currently or at one point in their history were bred to bite something human or animal:

EVERY TERRIER BREED EVER
EVERY MASTIFF BREED EVER
EVERY SIGHTHOUND BREED EVER
Germans Shephards
Dutch Shephards
Malinois
Belgian Tervuren
Boxers
Rottweilers
Doberman Pinschers
English Bulldogs
American Bulldogs
Dachsunds
Akitas
Chow Chows
Shar Peis

That's just off the top of my head.

I will concede and allow you all to keep your dogs so you can look like gangsters...

HOWEVER

The same laws that apply to assault weapons must be placed on pit bulls and pit bull look alikes... which means unsupervised access provided to children is a felony, if you are walking the dog in public I can call in disorderly conduct, you have to be 21 to own one and you have to have a background check run...

you're right, this baby is straight-up gangsta!