Since 1982, pit bulls are responsible for 68 percent of dog attacks and 52 percent o

When I was a kid in hte 1970s, German Shepherds were the mean dogs, followed by Dobermans and Rottweilers. Pit bulls are too often,raised to be mean. I've met a lot of nice pit bulls and mixes. We should criminally charge the irresponsible owners. The other problem is definition. What is the legal definition of a pit bull?

 

Maybe pitbulls are at the top of the line when it comes to dangerous dog breeds, but why is getting rid of them the answer? If they didn't exist, some other dog breed would be in the top spot.

 

It came from an article in this same Atlanta newspaper. I followed the link they cited. http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/

The same article noted this: More than 700 cities across the country have placed bans on the breed.

I would think there was a serious reason for 700 cities singling out the pit bull for a ban. Too many people are sympathetic to any animal and are more willing than I am to take the risk with serious injury or death to children than if those animals were not allowed to be kept around.

 

PBLM

Pit Bulls Lives Matter


Pit bulls are the dogs of choice of the Crips and Bloods.

Chihuahuas are the dog of choice of 18th Street Gang and MS-13.

German shepherds are the dog of choice of the deplorables.

Snowflakes are scared of all dogs.

 

But that logic is extremely backwards. "It is being done, therefore it is justified" simply doesn't work. One could just as easily argue that many, many more cities don't single out pit bulls for a ban, therefore it must not be that big of a deal. Some of the cities that institute this ban base their definition of a "pit bull" based solely on head shape, nothing else, and end up including dozens of breeds.

Looking at the dog-related fatalities on Wikipedia, I count about 7 deaths of children by pit bull, nation-wide in 2016. For comparison, balloons kill about 5 kids per year. Should we ban balloons too? There are millions of pit bulls in the US. Why should we demonize all of those millions based on the actions of less than one percent of them?

 

If you think that's my solution you don't understand what I'm saying.

As I mentioned earlier, your solution is not realistic, so we have to find a solution or solutions that deal with the ownership of those dogs. Professor Peabody offered one, and some communities are considering others:

Judge temporarily suspends Montreal pit bull ban
http://www.wmur.com/article/judge-temporarily-suspends-montreal-pit-bull-ban/4473630

I agree with you that it's a serious issue and something should be done about it. Individual responsibility is the solution, but how communities are going to enforce that is the question. One option might be to start charging owners with murder if their dogs kill someone.

 

You're not addressing the problem, you're simply ignoring the reality of responsible pet ownership. Small dogs do bite, and because the damage is less severe the bites go unreported. This is undeniable fact as admitted by every dog statistics organization on the planet.

Banning Pit Bulls (which is hilarious, I might add) does no good. Teaching and educating the public about responsible pet ownership is what does good. Looking at the statistics, most of the pit bull related fatalities include a large proportion of dogs running wild, which should be handled via state and local legislature.

Pit Bulls kill an average of one person every 21 days. Cops in America kill an average of 3 people every single day, possibly more. Should we outlaw cops?

The problem here is irresponsible public, not the dogs. Dogs can't be at fault. Responsible ownership solves this problem.

 

You can't charge them with murder unless there is intent.

Manslaughter, however, especially in the case of neglect or failure in your duty to care for animals in your possession, is certainly a reality.

Here's a simpeltons answer:

1. Require all dogs be kept on leashes when outside of a fenced enclosure at all times, within city/town limits.

2. Require all dogs be licensed upon purchase, as well as proof of training for each dog required, or seizure and impound until training is obtained.

3. Require all dog owners not allow pets to roam unattended for lengthy periods of time in an outside environment.

Fines work to a certain extent, but seizure works the fastest.

 

The problem with pit bulls, is irresponsible breeding. People who have bred the American Pit Bull Terrier for dog fighting would kill any of their dogs that exhibited any propensity to bite or attack humans. Because in a fighting ring, you have both dog handlers and a Ref. Once you let turned your dog lose, if he attacked one of the 3 men, that dog lost, and with it lots of money on the bets. So these people biters were culled out.

Then irresponsible breeders or owners got involved. They kept the dogs who would attack people, thinking it so cool, and even bred these dogs with other dogs would attack people. So, once again this is a problem created by irresponsible human beings. The breeders that I knew were pissed off about these irresponsible breeders and owners. I once visited one of these and were exposed to his stable of champion bloodline pits, and they were friendly dogs unless you were a dog. So, anyone who owns a pit that will attack people should be in jail. IF you want a dog for protection get another breed. One that has to be trained to be aggressive. An APTB who attacks people is a crazy dog, from inbreeding, so you kill them.

 

I get so tired of these people who want to blame the owner of the pit (or whatever aggressive dog it was) after it attacked and ripped apart a child or innocent person. Yes, some owners are to blame, but the fact is some dogs, like pit bulls, are unpredictable and can turn on someone w/o any provocation - it's their nature.

Some yrs ago I listened to a veterinarian of 40 yrs say that pits, chows, German Shepherds, Rotts, etc are aggressive and unpredictable by nature....it may happened that your aggressive dog never did anything harmful thru the yrs you have it, but there is no guarantee w/those dogs that they never will - regardless of how much you pamper the pooch.

I love dogs. Had a GS when my kids were little and Queenie was perfect w/them, very protective. At that time I had no idea how lucky I was that she was always so relaxed w/their rough-housing w/her.

 

They were bred for dog fighting, are you sure on that statement?

 

I'm glad you brought this up.

I used to own a significantly larger and potentially more dangerous breed of dog than a pit bull, and I never took chances with my Rottweilers around other people and animals. Not only do you have to exercise control over the animal, you have to exercise control over who and what is around them (i.e., their environment). A responsible owner knows you cannot predict an animal's with a 100% degree of certainty and that anyone or anything could potentially alarm and/or trigger a violent defensive or offensive reaction out of any dog, regardless of the breed. As is the case with so many other things in life, it's when people make assumptions that things can go terribly wrong.

 

Not true. Terriers were originally bred to catch rodents and small animals, as well as blood sports such as bear or bull baiting, not DOG fighting. They were then changed to a dog fighting role when people realized it was cheaper to use them for dog fighting instead of baiting bulls and bears.

 

You're correct, of course. I was using the term murder in the broadest sense, which includes negligent homicide and manslaughter (where there is no premeditation and/or intent).

 

They were bred to grab bulls by the nose and hold them in place. It used to be a sport, called bull-baiting.
>>>MOD EDIT Response to Deleted<<<

 

Actually yes. Looked it up awhile back.

 

I take it you've never been attacked by one.

 

The OP should state 'the reported bites. Doubt you will need too go to the emergency room if your (*)(*)(*)(*)su bites you.

 

Sorry to some posters but my work is getting in the way of responding. But year after year it is the same story, pit bulls are by far the greatest danger. Something serious needs to be done to do away with this terrifying animal. (IMO)

And here is another informational and sad article about that dog. http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/

Statistics below from http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities.php
34 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2015. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 82% (28 ) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6.6% of the total U.S. dog population.

42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.

32 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2013. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 78% (25) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.

38 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2012. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 5% of the total U.S. dog population.

 

The addition of 100 cities banning them didn't seem to change the stats much....

The problem is the owners, not the dogs.

 

Yes and no. Dogs often act differently in a pact but Pitt bulls have a strong bite so can do more damage. Doubt you will be taken down by a pact of chihuahuas.

 

Its sad that pits get such a bad rap. I take my dog hiking and see a lot of pits. I can tell these dogs were raised with love and have never had an issue. In contrast, I grew up in a poor neighborhood and the pits always had their ears chopped, wore a spiked collar and had a tough looking owner. It was as if the dog was worn as an accessory and was part of a tough image. When I was a kid, I was attacked.

I am torn on this issue.

 

Pitt bulls tend to be bred in low income areas (according to my Vet sister). She claims it's a major factor why they are so dangerous. The owners tend to be violent and dogs tend to respond to that with violence.

 

That's just not true. Another breed that is known for being unpredictable and aggressive is a chow chow. I owned one from a puppy. It was always taken care of and had a great life. One day, it turned......... on ME. It did bite me but I was able to get out of the fenced yard quick enough before it came back at me for more. It then turned on my dad when he entered the yard and had to be put down immediately. If he would have done that to a stranger, they could've said what you are saying, that it was the owners. There are many cases of pit bull attacks that the owners, their friends, neighbors, and family say that dog never showed aggression nor was it trained that way. It's not always the owners.

And to add, I know of many others who had the chows turn on them. One attacked the families child because he didn't want them to leave. Leaped in the back seat of the car and latched onto the child's head. The child lived but had dozens of stitches.

 

I dogsat a couple of one of my friend's Pit Bulls (he was an ordinary White guy). They were very strong, but not overly aggressive.

Pit Bulls fill the need for dog fighting. They are among the best at killing other dogs in a fight.

They also are useful for scaring and attacking intruders, and showing others you might be a bad***.

However, Pit Bull owners need to be accountable when their pet predators harm or kill others. If they don't carry liability insurance, they should pay ALL the costs and damages, even if they are thrown into the street. Jail time is fitting in many cases.