Pitbulls are for poor stupid people

• isadore

  bigkahuna;1175860 wrote:I quoted a few people to say this. My wife was brutally attacked by a CAT when she was about 4 months old. She was left in a bassinet or something at a friend's house, while the adults were in the next room drinking coffee. The cat jumped up and went to town on her. Her dad walked in and threw the cat against the wall, killing it instantly. She has some scarring on her forehead and had to get blood transfusions to stay alive; she literally almost died.
  
  So, I guess we need to ban domestic cats as well, because they can kill babies too. And just fyi, she's not some scarred up monster.

  cats may try but pit bulls do.
• isadore

  pnhasbeen;1175861 wrote:Ohio would have been much better off? There was one situation where a guy let his animals out and then killed himself(if i remember correctly). I don't think that outlier should be so strongly considered. I don't know anything about the Florida situation, but I've been to Florida every year for the last 4 and then a couple years before that. Haven't seen anything that made me think "overrun by pythons." I wonder what Fab's opinion on this would be.
  
  It should be considered and then it should be immediately turned down as it oversteps its bounds. If I want to own a pitbull, I have that right. And it shouldn't be taken away. If I choose to run the risk of letting it hurt my babies, I take that risk. Of course, I probably won't treat it to be aggressive so I wouldn't have that problem.

  Really the Pythons are a plague.
  http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/florida/howwework/stopping-a-burmese-python-invasion.xml
  As to
  “
  Both state and federal courts consistently uphold the constitutionally of breed-specific pit bull laws. “
  http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-constitutionality.php
  “
  For years, the pit bull lobby has claimed that breed-specific legislation (also known as BSL) is unconstitutional -- but now the Supreme Court of Ohio has joined courts in Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Kentucky in ruling that BSL is, indeed, constitutional when properly written. On February 19, 2008 the United States Supreme Court handed the pit bull lobby another defeat when it refused to hear their appeal from the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, August 1, 2007).
  http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/02/united-states-supreme-court-leaves.html
  　
  It would seem very likely that a ban would be constitutional.
  Gosh now there is an argument,

  Pnhasbeen wrote: If I want to own a pitbull, I have that right. And it shouldn't be taken away.If I choose to run the risk of letting it hurt my babies, I take that risk.

  If I want to have my babies wrestle rattlesnakes I take that risk. If I want my babies to sleep with plastic bags over their head, I take that risk. No, your babies take that risk. And the criminal courts would have the right to interfere.
• Glory Days

  

  pnhasbeen;1175861 wrote: Of course, I probably won't treat it to be aggressive so I wouldn't have that problem.

  pretty sure everytime a pitbull kills, this quote is somewhere in the article.
• BR1986FB

  DeyDurkie5;1175751 wrote:gosh a ruddie, BR is right. You are lumping pitbulls into one or two isolated incidents. Someone as smart as you knows how dumb, illogical that is:rolleyes:

  Hey Durk, I bet he's the same kind of idiot who thinks it's "guns that kill people" instead of "people kill people."
  
  As for isadore, I don't really NEED to respond as I've stated my case, like MOST of the majority on this thread, that it's how the dogs are trained by their owners.
• LJ

  

  BR1986FB;1175982 wrote:Hey Durk, I bet he's the same kind of idiot who thinks it's "guns that kill people" instead of "people kill people."
  .

  He does. He also thinks gambling is a right, but gun ownership is not.
• BR1986FB

  LJ;1175983 wrote:He does. He also thinks gambling is a right, but gun ownership is not.

  I have no issue with gambling but owning a gun is a right AND a privilege.
• Al Bundy

  How many of these killings of kids by pets would have been avoided if parents were watching their kids? It seems that in practically every case that I have read about, the child was not being watched.
• isadore

  what is obvious to anyone who has reading comprehension can understand is that many of these attacks come from family dogs with no history of aggression, right up to the time they rip some babies head up. And people are to blame for bringing killers into their homes.
• isadore

  LJ;1175983 wrote:He does. He also thinks gambling is a right, but gun ownership is not.

  another lack of reading comprehension or medium term memory. As i have said many times gambling and gun ownerships are both rights, just not unrestricted rights.
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1176009 wrote:what is obvious to anyone who has reading comprehension can understand is that many of these attacks come from family dogs with no history of aggression, right up to the time they rip some babies head up. And people are to blame for bringing killers into their homes.

  Once again, in how many of those cases were the parents not watching the baby? Most of the attacks that I have read about involve kids being left alone with the pet.
• LJ

  

  isadore;1176009 wrote:what is obvious to anyone who has reading comprehension can understand is that many of these attacks come from family dogs with no history of aggression, right up to the time they rip some babies head up. And people are to blame for bringing killers into their homes.

  
  "Family dog" never heard that used by a trainer or veterinarian as a way to describe level of training or overall temperment.
• LJ

  

  isadore;1176012 wrote:another lack of reading comprehension or medium term memory. As i have said many times gambling and gun ownerships are both rights, just not unrestricted rights.

  
  Nope, your obvious want of extreme gun control shows that you do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
• isadore

  no
• isadore

  LJ;1176022 wrote:"Family dog" never heard that used by a trainer or veterinarian as a way to describe level of training or overall temperment.

  gosh a ruddies, most people do not need a specialized trainer so their dog will not tear their baby's head off. the bull advocates always come on and write it just michael vick and those horrible drug dealers that make pitt bulls mean. No just supposed average family dogs turn and kill. And what breed overwhelmingly predominates in that killing pit bulls.
• LJ

  

  isadore;1176029 wrote:gosh a ruddies, most people do not need a specialized trainer so their dog will not tear their baby's head off. the bull advocates always come on and write it just michael vick and those horrible drug dealers that make pitt bulls mean. No just supposed average family dogs turn and kill. And what breed overwhelmingly predominates in that killing pit bulls.

  
  Please show me the official AVMA definition of "family dog". Thanks.
• LJ

  

  Btw, every dog needs training. Are you legit just that stupid?
• justincredible

  

  LJ;1176031 wrote:Btw, every dog needs training. Are you legit just that stupid?

  I'm guessing yes.
  
  We have a mini schnauzer and a schnoodle (mini schnauzer/toy poodle). I don't worry about the schnoodle, he's as gentle as can be. The schnauzer, though. No way in hell I'd ever leave her alone with a newborn in a swing.
• WebFire

  Poll:
  
  I'd rather happen upon a wild pack of:
  
  A. Pitbulls
  B. Golden Retrievers
  C. Schnauzers
  D. Yellow Labs
• WebFire

  BR1986FB;1175982 wrote:Hey Durk, I bet he's the same kind of idiot who thinks it's "guns that kill people" instead of "people kill people."
  
  As for isadore, I don't really NEED to respond as I've stated my case, like MOST of the majority on this thread, that it's how the dogs are trained by their owners.

  If my gun hopped up on it's own and shot me, then yes, guns would kill people.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1176043 wrote:Poll:
  
  I'd rather happen upon a wild pack of:
  
  A. Pitbulls
  B. Golden Retrievers
  C. Schnauzers
  D. Yellow Labs

  
  None
• WebFire

  LJ;1176046 wrote:None

  There is no "none" option.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1176049 wrote:There is no "none" option.

  
  Sorry, a "Pack of wild" anything is sometging I would like to avoid. So it doesnt matter.
• WebFire

  LJ;1176050 wrote:Sorry, a "Pack of wild" anything is sometging I would like to avoid. So it doesnt matter.

  I knew that's exactly what you'd say (which already gives me the answer). So let's change the question.
  
  Poll:
  
  A pack of domesticated dogs escapes from the nearest dog pound. Which breed would you least like to encounter?
  
  A. Pitbulls
  B. Golden Retrievers
  C. Schnauzers
  D. Yellow Labs
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1176052 wrote:I knew that's exactly what you'd say (which already gives me the answer). So let's change the question.

  The answer I gave is the answer

  Poll:
  
  A pack of domesticated dogs escapes from the nearest dog pound. Which breed would you least like to encounter?
  
  A. Pitbulls
  B. Golden Retrievers
  C. Schnauzers
  D. Yellow Labs

  
  A B or D
• rmolin73

  

  LJ;1176050 wrote:Sorry, a "Pack of wild" anything is sometging I would like to avoid. So it doesnt matter.

  This.