Pit Bull Video

Off Topic
183

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:

BSL is a good idea and even owners should admit that. The gameness and strength of a pit are almost unmatched, so even a well behaved pit bull if in the right circumstance could do much more damage than the average dog. It is like owning anything that is dangerous, while the likelihood of a pit attacking might be low the damage it will do is likely high. Again people who deny that dogs instinctively do what they have been bred for in the past is probably about as smart as the dog they own. [/quote]

If pits were bred to fight then a pit that attacks humans is not doing what they were bred to do.

I guess we should all stop working out since that makes us greater risks to those who don’t in case of a physical confrontation. Learning martial arts is definitely out of the question.

Ban pits, rotties, dobermans, GSDs, etc. Then wait and watch the news to hear about someone getting killed by a lab or St. Bernard. There are a lot of dog breeds that are big and powerful. Ban one breed and the jerks will replace it with another. People will fight poodles if that’s all they have left.

184

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Here’s the video response on youtube:

>>>VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES<<<

If you wanted to see what some dog-on-human attacks look like, they’re in the video, but you may be surprised at which breed of dog goes with each attack image.

The video’s not all about graphic images though, and I think it is worth watching.

There are only a handful of “bad” images, but I think it was tastefully done, and the ending is great.[/quote]

Thank you for sharing that video.

I think the major problem is the media portrayal of these animals. As a publicist I understand first-hand the power of media suggestion.

If a poodle mauls someone, if it even gets picked up in the media, it is “an unfortunate dog bite.”

If any of the “bully breeds” were to perform the same horrible action, there is no question that it would be reported all over the media and called a “vicious attack by an unstable breed.”

Perfect Example:

Yes, I understand that the above website is not unbiased, but the facts of this particular instance are just that, true facts.

Being aware of the chances that can arise from any situation is just plain smart. But, taking that awareness and replacing it with fear of the unknown is very harmful. It is my opinion that it is this fear of the unknown replacing reasonable caution that leads to BSL.

BSL is no different than any other social problem. Education and openminded dialogue are keys and “the solution.”

185

I am not for or against pit bull bans. But that video was such propeganda and rhetoric. Jesus… a guy dressing his dog up to make the thing look cute and that is supposed to be an argument.
Clap clap

186

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If a dog is responsible for his own behavior then dog owners are not responsible for their dogs’ actions. Is this the idea? If not, then it is a moot point whether or not the dog has a will or mind of its own since the owner will always be the one to answer for what the dog does.

Also, to say a dog is capable of malice implies that a dog actually thinks about what “bad” things it will do. Dogs do not commit premeditated crimes, they react to stimuli. Captain Ahab thought animals were capable of such things and he was wrong.

People kill other people when driving and the driver is held responsible. All drivers don’t suffer because of an individual’s actions. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by dogs, much more, yet cars are not banned and alcohol is not banned.

There are laws in regard to their use but they are not banned. And whether it was the driver’s fault or a manufacturing problem, ultimately a human is responsible. Even if it was weather that caused the accident it is the driver who is responsible. Property is not held responsible.

Why should a breed of dog be banned and owners of that breed suffer for the actions of other dog owners? Especially when it can be proven that what the dog did was a result of what the owner did or did not do?

There is no proof that any breed is more inclined to violence than another. The number of atttacks when measured against the number of dogs proves that is very rare. There are over 50 million dogs in the US and around 20 people are killed a year.

Only a small percentage of dogs who killed were dogs that were loose. Most occured in the yard or home of the dog.Pits (or dogs identified as pits)are responsible for less than 20% which is not that many when measured against the number of pits out there. Rotties are probably more numerous and they committed an even smaller percentage. [/quote]

Your legal theory is wrong.

Dogs can act of their own will, dogs are property. Whether or not you understad that doesn’t change the fact.

Dog owners are responsible for the actions of their. Dogs can be viscious and can and do prey on people or other animals. Dogs can ACT on their own to attack. And fella, it isn’t moot, mute or immaterial if the dog can act on its own but still be property and the owner be responsible. That is a huge part of this issue.

Using a fictional character such as Ahab, not the best winner for an analogy.

You say it can be proven what the owner did or didn’t do… Not always.

I have posted links that detail what dogs do attack. They are completely different from what you say. Please post where you got your info.

187

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
Jesus… a guy dressing his dog up to make the thing look cute and that is supposed to be an argument.

[/quote]

So is it a good argument when someone shows a picture of a dog viciously showing his teeth?

The people who try to recruit others against certain breeds do the same thing to try and get their point across.

Neither are good arguments, but if it helps change the minds of those who have already been seduced to believe these dogs are vicious attackers, I’m for it.

The good arguments are the captions that went along with those pictures, IMO.

188

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Jesus… a guy dressing his dog up to make the thing look cute and that is supposed to be an argument.

So is it a good argument when someone shows a picture of a dog viciously showing his teeth?

The people who try to recruit others against certain breeds do the same thing to try and get their point across.

Neither are good arguments, but if it helps change the minds of those who have already been seduced to believe these dogs are vicious attackers, I’m for it.

The good arguments are the captions that went along with those pictures, IMO.[/quote]

I appreciate this thread because it does make me feel better knowing that there are some very responsible owners out there. You are the ones that I wish owned all of them.

it is good to discuss BSL. Dogs are not guaranteed you in the Constitution. What is guaranteed is you have the power to change your laws, your city codes and power to protest through voting, the courts and even on the street.

I don’t know if this is a slippery slope type of legislation.

Is that how some see it? I know some posters are champions of the breed but for some is it that they object to the government restricting their right to own the dog? That is two different things so I am wondering.

189

[quote]Dweezil wrote:
apwsearch wrote:
Anyway, I get it now. You follow Ms. October around the forums and give her e-rimjobs.

Maybe if she was younger.

[/quote]

DWEEZIL!!!

et tu Brute?

Where’s my cane so I can wack you!

190

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:

BSL is a good idea and even owners should admit that. The gameness and strength of a pit are almost unmatched, so even a well behaved pit bull if in the right circumstance could do much more damage than the average dog. It is like owning anything that is dangerous, while the likelihood of a pit attacking might be low the damage it will do is likely high. Again people who deny that dogs instinctively do what they have been bred for in the past is probably about as smart as the dog they own.

If pits were bred to fight then a pit that attacks humans is not doing what they were bred to do.

I guess we should all stop working out since that makes us greater risks to those who don’t in case of a physical confrontation. Learning martial arts is definitely out of the question.

Ban pits, rotties, dobermans, GSDs, etc. Then wait and watch the news to hear about someone getting killed by a lab or St. Bernard. There are a lot of dog breeds that are big and powerful. Ban one breed and the jerks will replace it with another. People will fight poodles if that’s all they have left. [/quote]

You are a moron, most BSL doesn’t ban the dogs it just places a lot of restrictions on them which there should be. Collies will also herd groups of children, thus, a pit could fight one. Corgis are not meant to herd geese yet mine will. You are really stupid, really, really stupid to say that just because pits weren’t bred to fight humans they would never attack one. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy by the way. Dogs that have been bred to fight or be attack dogs should be regulated labs are not the same as pits. Again you won’t understand because you are to dumb and biased but it’s the truth.

Does anyone truly believe that BSL is unconstitutional. I would like to know your legal theory if so.

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

Basically I have no problem with pits but people need to understand what they own, be responsible and not gripe when people don’t like their dogs. And quit being stupid and comparing dogs to people as far as behavior is concerned.

191

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
You are a moron, most BSL doesn’t ban the dogs it just places a lot of restrictions on them which there should be.[/quote]

“…most BSL doesn’t ban the dogs…”

Most. But in many counties, there is a complete ban, which I am completely against.

I don’t mind restrictions, but it shouldn’t apply to only the pit breeds. There should be restrictions on all big, strong, and powerful dogs.

192

[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

193

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/6/4/6489c-austin’s_b-day_038.jpg

The following picture may offend some people but here is a shot of my Dogs after killing a box of animal crackers.

The suspected animal cracker killer in the hoodie is a Staffordshire bull terrier, the one in McQueen Pajamas is of homosapein desent.

Note, the boy has bitten more people than all my dogs.

My other dog, has gone after people, but only to the point of growling and showing teeth when someone unfamiliar has entered my yard when the kids were outside.

I wouldn’t trade a Staffie, or an American bulldog for anything.

But I will only accept and trust these types of dogs if I raise them from a puppy.

I will not and have a hard time trusting just some stray dog of any breed becasue I have no control or knowledge of the current owners attitude towards thier dogs and how they are raised.

Bullpup

194

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:

Dogs that have been bred to fight or be attack dogs should be regulated labs are not the same as pits. Again you won’t understand because you are to dumb and biased but it’s the truth.

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

[quote]

This is some serious nonsense and shows you have no knowledge of the history of the breed. Briefly:

  1. Half and halfs were esteemed dogs long before dog fighting became an issue. Why? Couple of reasons. They were very versatile and could be trained for activities as broad as retriveing to herding. Also, they were extremely trustworthy and were known to have a distinct ability to recognize a threat and respond appropriately, or not. They were a very trusted family dog.

When dog fighting became a big deal the vast majority of owners were sickened by this and they tried to get the breed recongnized by the AKC to maintain purity of the lines. The AKC would not recongize the PBT so the AmStaff was born.

Interestingly, people who fight these dogs will kill a dog that displays aggression towards people. I am talking immediate execution b/c they are unmanageable in the pit.

My point is these dogs were not bred to fight. They were bred as a working breed and companion. Unfortunately many of their characteristics made them attractive to dog fighters and the rest is history.

195

[quote]tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

[/quote]

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

196

This thread really shows the ignorance of some people, not on their opinion, but in how they are unwilling to see the other side. On one side you have a guy that had his child mauled by pit bulls and can carry on an argument and back his opinion. On the other side you have guys insulting the people they disagree with and comparing a living breathing animal to an inanimate object. A dog is not a car people, let it go.

This is not a clear cut issue. I plan on getting a doberman in the near future. They also have a bad wrap and people will probably judge it as a vicious breed. I will do my best to raise it to be docile and friendly, but the moment it attacks someone, god forbid it ever happens, i’ll have to get it put down.

It’s a shame that some people can’t even carry on a civilized conversation without resorting to insults. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them wrong, vicious crimes and deviant behavior notwithstanding of course. If you cant even defend your decision to own a dangerous animal ( all dogs are inherently dangerous to some degree) then maybe you shouldn’t have one.

197

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:

Dogs that have been bred to fight or be attack dogs should be regulated labs are not the same as pits. Again you won’t understand because you are to dumb and biased but it’s the truth.

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

This is some serious nonsense and shows you have no knowledge of the history of the breed. Briefly:

  1. Half and halfs were esteemed dogs long before dog fighting became an issue. Why? Couple of reasons. They were very versatile and could be trained for activities as broad as retriveing to herding. Also, they were extremely trustworthy and were known to have a distinct ability to recognize a threat and respond appropriately, or not. They were a very trusted family dog.

When dog fighting became a big deal the vast majority of owners were sickened by this and they tried to get the breed recongnized by the AKC to maintain purity of the lines. The AKC would not recongize the PBT so the AmStaff was born.

Interestingly, people who fight these dogs will kill a dog that displays aggression towards people. I am talking immediate execution b/c they are unmanageable in the pit.

My point is these dogs were not bred to fight. They were bred as a working breed and companion. Unfortunately many of their characteristics made them attractive to dog fighters and the rest is history.[/quote]

Bully’s were working dogs before crossed with terriers. After crossing with terriers they were bred specifically for fighting read Octobergirl’s first post it tells why they crossed terriers and earlier bullys. These dogs existed before the AKC and the “big deal of dog fighting” existed before then as well. Be honest about the dogs. Don’t just post something until you actually know about the dogs. Being an owner or fan of them does not make you knowledgeable okay.

198

[quote]malonetd wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
You are a moron, most BSL doesn’t ban the dogs it just places a lot of restrictions on them which there should be.

“…most BSL doesn’t ban the dogs…”

Most. But in many counties, there is a complete ban, which I am completely against.

I don’t mind restrictions, but it shouldn’t apply to only the pit breeds. There should be restrictions on all big, strong, and powerful dogs.[/quote]

I think you are exactly the kind of owner everyone should want.

199

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?[/quote]

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.

200

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:

Bully’s were working dogs before crossed with terriers. After crossing with terriers they were bred specifically for fighting read Octobergirl’s first post it tells why they crossed terriers and earlier bullys. These dogs existed before the AKC and the “big deal of dog fighting” existed before then as well. Be honest about the dogs. Don’t just post something until you actually know about the dogs. Being an owner or fan of them does not make you knowledgeable okay.[/quote]

No. This is historically inaccurate. They were called bull and terriers or half and half’s and date back to the pioneer days.

If your only point of reference is the material provided by that woman who works for litigators you best just STFU.

Watch your tone, son.

201

in response to all the back and forth:

my uncle owned pit bulls when i was growing up; they were well behaved, and good with us kids. he also owned rotts, german shepherds, dobermans and other “dangerous” dogs along the way, as did my parents, and we never had any problems with any of them. they were nice to people who came around the house, and when strangers came around they barked, but they always waited for a command before they got froggy on someone.

it’s all in the training. i agree that training any large dog to attack unprovoked is criminal, and i feel that the people who do it should be held accountable when their dogs maim or kill a person or someone else’s pet.

but i don’t believe in preemptive law. you can’t punish a tool or device; only the person who used it in the commission of a crime, and if it’s a dog that killed or maimed someone, then the dog as well. but that’s as far as it should ever go.

personally, i don’t particularly care for dogs much; i don’t like the way they feel, the way they smell, or the messes they make. but i still think they’re beautiful animals, and i wouldn’t suggest to anyone that any particular breed of dogs be destroyed or outlawed.

hats off to all the dog pics posted in this thread, and the owners that have the sense to raise them proper. to the guy in germany, you have a beautiful animal, and i wish you the best of luck dealing with the assholes that are making your life hard because of it.

as for october girl, i totally understand your fear, assuming that’s where your argument is coming from. i’ve been attacked and chased by dangerous dogs (including pits and rotts), but not all dogs are dangerous.

for every vicious animal i’ve crossed paths with, i’ve met a dozen beautiful and well adjusted pets. i even had a friend once whose mother owned 2 full-blooded wolves. they were better adjusted than most dogs i’ve met, despite all the crap we hear about how wolves are dangerously wild animals that can’t be trusted.

the statistics you provided are interesting, but breeding isn’t the bottom line, nor are the statistics representative of all dogs of a particular breed that has been labeled dangerous. those statistics only take into account pit bulls that have actually killed people, and i can guarantee that in all cases, they were either specifically trained to do so, or were traumatized or neglected in some way that damaged them, just like all the other "dangerous breeds of dogs that killed people.

just because 67% of all killer dogs are pit bulls doesn’t mean that all pit bulls are vicious and uncontrollable; it merely shows a preference for a particular type of dog people obtain for purposes of attack-training or abuse. the number of pit bulls that kill, maim or attack people is small compared to the total number of pit bulls in existence, as it is with any other type of dog.

my parents currently own a yorkshire terrier, which is a type of dog bred to hunt and kill rats in coal mines, but despite the reputation of that breed for neurotic tendencies, he’s good around babies, cats, and even pet rats. he’s well behaved because they raised him to be. he’ll kill vermin if he has to, but he knows not to mess with a pet rat. and he knows not to steal my food off of my plate until i put it on the floor for him.

202

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
So…what’d you think of the video?[/quote]

i’ll be honest; it brought a tear to my eye. they’re beautiful dogs. the last chick i dated had one, and she abused it. she was very friendly, but also very timid because she was constantly kicked in the gut and screamed at. her roommate ended up reporting her for animal abuse. i’ve seen some mean pits, but a lot more friendly ones.