Family Pit Bulls Killing Own Kids!

Quote:
A percentage of gun owners that have semi-auto rifles snap and go on shooting sprees at malls, schools and churches. This has happened at all three places just this year. It's nothing new. Remember Patrick Purdy? Is it the owner or the rifle?



Weasel,
I can understand what you are saying, but isnt it a streatch comparing a completely inanimate object to a dog who knows when to eat, sleep, scratch on the door to go out, beg for food, know commands like heal, sit, stay. They may not have a conscience, but can act on instint? Just a thought.
 
I believe it's the owners responsibility. A properly socialized, trained and controlled dog shouldn't be a threat. We control the muzzle of our guns, don't we? If an owner doesn't have sense enough to control his dog and ensure that it isn't put in a situation where it can hurt somebody, they need to have the dog taken away. We wouldn't take a gun to the shooting range if it kept accidentally discharging. You fix the gun just as you should fix an unpredictable dog (whatever that may take). Folks that don't have sense enough shouldn't own dogs, guns and in some cases even vehicles or sharp objects. They can all be deadly if not controlled. The dog may have a mind of it's own, but the owner should be smarter.
 
Quote:
I believe it's the owners responsibility. A properly socialized, trained and controlled dog shouldn't be a threat. We control the muzzle of our guns, don't we? If an owner doesn't have sense enough to control his dog and ensure that it isn't put in a situation where it can hurt somebody, they need to have the dog taken away. We wouldn't take a gun to the shooting range if it kept accidentally discharging. You fix the gun just as you should fix an unpredictable dog (whatever that may take). Folks that don't have sense enough shouldn't own dogs, guns and in some cases even vehicles or sharp objects. They can all be deadly if not controlled. The dog may have a mind of it's own, but the owner should be smarter.



well said Weasel.You have to be smarter the the dog. Unforchanly in most cases its the other way around.
 
You also need to be smart enough to understand that there is no comparison between an inanimate object that must be directed by man in every task it performs and an animal capable of thought and independant action.
 
While it's true that the owner and the dog's training are big factors in how a dog turns out, what about all the cases you hear about where a "good" dog suddenly turns on it's owner or family member with no warning. The vast majority of those I've read about involved pit bulls. I still hate'em. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Every pit owner who looses a kid or the neighbor girls arm in an attack always talks about how sweet and loving the dog was and how they cant understand what happened,think it cant happen to you?THINK AGAIN.
 
With all due respect Weasel, your comparison of gun to dog just isn't accurate. As pointed out, the gun must be directed at all times by the owner. Therefore, the operator is at all times responsible for the outcome of the device. Though a dog owner is, in general, responsible for the behavior of the dog, he/she doesn't directly control that animal at all times. Does the owner tell the dog to eat every time? No. Does the owner direct the dog to crap every time? No. The dog does things of his own accord because it's in his nature. A firearm has no inherent nature or breeding, it simply sits there until operated by a human. The same absolutely cannot be said about dogs. If that were the case, my dogs wouldn't have the yard all dug up when I get home from work because they'd lay down and go into stasis while I wasn't there.

My one and only personal experience with a pit cross was a negative one. A college roommate of mine had a pit cross that for the first year I lived with him was a wonderful, loving, cuddly, little beast that we enjoyed. One night, I came in from work at about midnight like I had for the past year. Puppy is sitting in the middle of the floor like usual. I walk by the dog (just like every night), reach down to pet the dog (just like every night), dog freaks out and latches on to my left hand. Luckily, I'm right handed, so I dropped what I had in my right hand and came down on that dog's snout with all my weight behind my fist. I thought I broke my hand. Dog lets go of hand, shakes his head a bit, then starts wagging his tail like nothing happened. I clean the blood off myself, disinfect the wound, and then wake up my roommate to tell him that if his dog so much as looks at me again I'll kill him and leave his body in the living room. Dog found a new home.

I won't begudge anyone the right to own one, but I won't be around them, nor will I let my kids be around them. I refuse to trust one, and would have absolutely no trouble killing one for looking at me sideways.
 
Quote:
Save the electrons excuse makers. I've typed all I have to say. I do not care if you have owned pits all of your life with no incidents. There are many other people out there just like you. Your claims are not relevant....



Gee thanks. Neither are yours then, just because I say so. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Well, I admit I was reaching with the gun/dogs comparison. I'd still rather see bad owners put down and only qualified, responsible adults able to own dogs.
 
We also have a certain percentage of the human race that kills. So do we now eliminate the entire human race because of the actions of a few?

Caucasians statistically go on murder sprees more than other races. Should we curb this horror by eliminating the Caucasian race? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Just hold every pit owner responsible for manslaughter when their dogs kill and mame,pit owner numbers will drop and irresponsible slobs who let their pets attack children can rot in prison where they belong.Any dog owner of any breed should be held responsible,there is no excuse.
 
The great pit bull/rot debate always brings out these statemetns:

1. Kill them all.
2. It's not the dog, its the owners.
3. My (insert dog here) is lovable and wouldn't hurt anyone.
4. I'd hurt anyone trying to hurt my dog.

I would never advocate going onto someone's property with the expressed purpose to kill a certain dog unless that dog had already bitten or attacked someone. I do realize the owners play a huge role in a dog's behavior, but how many times have we heard "My dog has never displayed that behavior before."

I also know there are a lot of good and bad dogs out there in the world. The trick is when a pit, rot, german shepard, etc. comes wandering up in my yard how am I supposed to know the good from the bad? Especially when my seven and five year old are out playing. Same thing goes if I'm in public and a dog is loose. How do I know the good ones from the bad ones? Sorry, I won't risk my kids health or life trying to decide.

Oh yeah, I love dogs, I just don't have a big tolerance for biting animals. I don't care if it is a teacup poodle or a grate dane. If it's aggressive I don't want it around me or my family.
 
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but ALL dogs are man-made creations. Domestic dogs do not exist in the wild, and few of them could survive there without their human masters/caretakers.

So, what's my point?

All purebred dogs were, or are, bred for certain desireable(?) characteristics for given tasks. Certain breeds, the pitbull being one, are bred for their tenacity and aggresiveness. Just because some pitbulls don't display these genetic traits does not mean that they aren't there, lurking under the surface. I'll grant you that it's not the dog's fault he was bred to manifest certain behaviors, but denying what went in to making up the breed is foolhardy, especially when children are involved.
DAL
 
DAL, you're absolutely right about the breeding angle, but the same can be said for about 10 other breeds, and nobody is calling for their extermination. Breeding goes beyond the physical traits of aggressiveness, tenacity, and powerful jaws. Part of the bad news one hears from pit bull attacks, besides the often (but not always) moral deficiency of their owners, is that there was little attention paid to their lineage (other than for their aggressiveness) in breeding them.

I'm 55 years old, and I can recall over the years going back to my childhood that several other breeds have been under the same kind of scrutiny at various times and for the same kinds of reasons as pit bulls are today. When I was a child, it was german sheperds. When I was in my teens, it was doberman pinschers. In my twenties and thirties, it was rotweilers. For a while in the 1980s, it was saint bernards. Later, it was pit bulls. In each case, the focus of public attention on the issue eventually resulted in the social redemption of the breed - partly through better controlled breeding programs, and partly through social pressures on the people who misused the dogs.

I completely understand why people feel the way they feel about pit bulls, but I do think that it is an over-reaction. I worked for 6 years in a level 1 trauma center back in the 1980s in a southern California city with a significant ghetto and all the problems that are associated with that. In those six years, I saw thousands of gunshot victims, stabbing victims, abuse victims, suicides, accident victims, and pretty much every kind of traumatic injury you can conceive of. In all those cases, I can recall only one dog mauling case, and the dog in question was a saint bernard. And yet, we had gangs, gang related crimes, and gangbangers who owned pit bulls.

I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but I AM saying that it is not nearly as common as people think, and that the scope of the problem is inflated by a media based on an "if it bleeds, it leads" ethic. It would be a real shame to exterminate an otherwise interesting breed of dog because of media pressure and public hysteria. All I am advocating is for is a more reasoned response, less fueled by anger, from people who don't like pit bulls. Because tomorrow, the focus of public anger could be the breed that you do like.
 
Quote:
Just because some pitbulls don't display these genetic traits does not mean that they aren't there, lurking under the surface. I'll grant you that it's not the dog's fault he was bred to manifest certain behaviors, but denying what went in to making up the breed is foolhardy, especially when children are involved.
DAL



There it is in a nutshell. Summed up very nicely. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
I probably should have stated that I am NOT in favor of outlawing this breed. My main intent is that people know the history, genetically selected traits, and purpose of this breed. If they still choose to have one of these dogs around their kids, so be it.

For those of you who would outlaw the breed, who would you have enforce it? Your friends in the government? Stop giving government such a big head and making it believe we need it for practically everything in our lives. This is NOT a problem government needs to be involved in. A government that can outlaw certain dogs can outlaw too many other things that are none of its business, and I think you know what I mean.

Yes, I feel sorry for the kids that this breed, et. al., will maim and kill, but looked at from a purely Darwinian point of view, this branch on the tree of human evolution will eventually (hopefully) die out because their progeny has been consumed by fifth-columnist canines.
DAL
 
Quote:
All I am advocating is for is a more reasoned response, less fueled by anger, from people who don't like pit bulls. Because tomorrow, the focus of public anger could be the breed that you do like.



Good point annoyedman. My Lhasa dragged this healthy goose out of the pond and I had to put it down with a shotgun! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Goose.jpg


I STILL hate pits.
 
Folks think of this logically, these dogs were bred as agressive fighting animals where only the most agressive ones lives long enough to breed. It makes no sense to focus your arguement on poor breeding. Fighting is exactly what these dogs are bred to do. To turn this around, a poorly bred dog, allowing calmer dogs to be bred into the line, might be far less dangerous than a purpose bred dog.

I think the darwin theory will eventually win out though. With dog fighting becomming far more illegal than it once was there is less and less reason to breed these dogs only for the fight. There will be far greater profit in gental domestic Pit Bulls and those breeders that are left will focus their breeding in that direction.
 
Quote:
My Lhasa dragged this healthy goose out of the pond and I had to put it down with a shotgun! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



The Lhasa, or the goose? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Heh, heh. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

BTW, that Lhasa looks like a fairly dangerous animal!
 
I just wrote a paper on bred specific laws and found some interesting information (Back in school at 36).I am not saying that this is true for this case but the problem that comes up is just because of a dogs phenotype (appearance) There is no way to in most cases to tell what the genotype (genetic make up) of a dog is. And many times "pit-bull" is used when in fact the dog is not a pit-bull. I have had people think my dogs are pit bulls just because they look bully. My heart goes out to the family and I hope I never have to go through that. Although I would not leave any kids near my dogs unattended even though my dogs are safe around kids the kids my not be safe around the dogs.They are a johnson american bulldog, a bull mastiff and then 1/2 johnson and 1/2 bullmastiff
IMG_0288.jpg

1/2 johnson 1/2 bull mastiff
king2.jpg
 
Back
Top