Another Good Reason To Carry

First off, I'm a dog lover and always have been. So is all of my family.

That said... I can't stand pitbulls. And I can't stand 99% of pitbull owners more so. I don't mean to offend the good pit owners, but 99% of people that own pits are trailer park dirtballs that only have one because it's 'cool' and they feel tough because they have one.

I don't care what pit lovers say, pits are instinctively aggressive, especially towards other animals (like any terrier). I can show you a 100 dog bite cases in my area that involve pits for every one of another breed. I'm sure the owners played a big part in many of those cases but if they had collies instead of pits there would have been a lot less attacks...

A few years ago a pit was running loose near my home. It killed two other dogs and someones pet goat before it was caught. Not sure if it was put down or not.

I was attacked by a german sheppard two years ago while walking my BC...go figure. Haha.
 

But I did know the stereotypical pit bull was a american staffordshire terrier.

You realize Pitbull is not a nickname for another dog right? There a mix of multiple bull breeds. Mainly the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (not to be confused with the AmStaff) and bulldogs. Then people mix others in to change the bloodline which is why the fighting dogs have more muscle and are more aggressive.
 
My dog its just over a year old, so I have about that much research in this...I learn quite a bit from my vet...point me towards your research and I'll gladly read up more from your sources, learning is never bad...

Pitbull is a generalization for many dogs that are fought...be it terriers, rots, dobs, mixes....if you have a problem with true pitbulls then you must be near a dog fighting ring which is a whole other problem.

The research I've done in true pitbulls though still contradicts their reputation, real pitbulls owners kill their dogs if they are disobedient or attack anything other than other dogs (not always the case, but a majority).

I will never change others opinion in this forum, but I will never stop defending this awesome breed from the experience with my uncles 2 dogs, and now my own.

The more I learn about these dogs the more I love them. Loyalty, intelligence, obedience, beauty, power...just a few words to describe my baby girl.

The one who doesn't like pitbulls because of the owners...don't judge a dog breed based on some bad owners...an individual dog sure, but to say my dog is like "trailer trash" version is unfair and it does offend me. We as gun owners don't like being judged based off of some bad and irresponsible gun owners, and we definitely don't like them saying guns are bad and evil because of the owners. Irresponsible dog owners should not have dogs, irresponsible gun owners should not have guns.
 
I don't discriminate. Dog attacks me, it's open season. I don't care if it's a freekin toy poodle!

My wife and I ride bicycles out in the County roads. Worst hazard we face are dogs loose, in spite of fence/leash laws. Part of the "trip kit", water bottles and pistol (each).

GG
 
My young son has a pitbull who is soooo beautiful. Sonny boy takes care of my house in Melbourne (Australia) and at least once a year I will pay my kids a visit. Dwaggie as he is called is so cute and playful. And he will always obey me. I love dogs --- but will not trust ANY dog that I do not know...I had trained rotties and german shepherds for 8 years. You cannot just dislike a person who has a pitbull or any other breed. It is those who has untrained ones that we should be careful of...so much to say for the owners of them.
 
I'm genetically predisposed to be a dog lover, but if my dog, my wife, my step-daughters or my granddaughter were in danger from a vicious dog, I would not hesitate to put a JHP in the offending canine. End of story. I've read too many accounts of kids/adults being mauled by dogs, having their lives ended in horror, or having to live with disabling injuries or disfigurement.
 
1. Yes there are more, so there would be more attacks...but does that excuse the poor handling of these dogs? No, it does not. I stand by my personal experience, that other more common breeds are worse.

2. Anything that warrants 911, be it emotional crisis, or physical (ie lacerations or broken bones)

3. PD found the bull dog to be unfit for duty...some departments believe citizens shouldn't carry either...my uncle is a police officer who owns 2 staffordshire terriers, swears by their loyalty and obedience...

Dogs do have tendency, just like humans who were brought up in different environments. A dog brought up in a responsible environment well have less tendency to be randomly violent than any dog brought up in a violent environment. I believe violence to be a learned trait, not an inherited one.

I don't disagree, a firearm is great for defense against any threat, animal or human. I just disagree on the opinion I read in this thread about pitbulls.

Why are pitbulls, which represent a tiny fraction of the dogs in this country, by far and away responsible for more fatal attacks on people than any other types of dog??
2010 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Statistics - DogsBite.org - DogsBite.org
Link Removed

Apparently 44% of fatal PB attacks since 2005 involved a member of the family. So much for loyalty.

And with all due respect, your assertation that violent tendencies are not an inherited trait in specific dog breeds is just plain ridiculous. Why do you think pits (and others) were bred in the first place....to be lap dogs??

Do a little research. Start reading some of the newspaper articles that chronicle PB attacks. You'll find that most of these attacks were by dogs that had never done anything like this before. If you talked to these dogs' owners the day before the attack I'm sure they'd tell you how sweet and obedient their dogs are and that their pups would never do something like jump a fence and attack somebody. Of course the reality of the situation is much different. Remember - most dogs involved in violent attacks on innocent people usually don't live long enough to do it again. They get euthanized. These are almost all first time offenders.

Like I said before - all dogs are obedient and well-behaved. Until they're not.
 
Why are pitbulls, which represent a tiny fraction of the dogs in this country, by far and away responsible for more fatal attacks on people than any other types of dog??
2010 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Statistics - DogsBite.org - DogsBite.org
Link Removed

Apparently 44% of fatal PB attacks since 2005 involved a member of the family. So much for loyalty.

And with all due respect, your assertation that violent tendencies are not an inherited trait in specific dog breeds is just plain ridiculous. Why do you think pits (and others) were bred in the first place....to be lap dogs??

Do a little research. Start reading some of the newspaper articles that chronicle PB attacks. You'll find that most of these attacks were by dogs that had never done anything like this before. If you talked to these dogs' owners the day before the attack I'm sure they'd tell you how sweet and obedient their dogs are and that their pups would never do something like jump a fence and attack somebody. Of course the reality of the situation is much different. Remember - most dogs involved in violent attacks on innocent people usually don't live long enough to do it again. They get euthanized. These are almost all first time offenders.

Like I said before - all dogs are obedient and well-behaved. Until they're not.

First off, thanks for taking the time to say "With all due respect," I just want to clarify I do not mean to offend anyone here, and I do not take offense over internet forums. So there are no hard feelings.

I read the CDC report, and looked through the website you provided. Here is a website I think you should read over Truth about Pit Bull Terriers, Training Help, Pictures, Resources | PitBulls . Here are some things I would like to point out in the article you provided:

1. "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem, other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at a higher rate."
2. "Fatal attacks represent a small portion (0.00001%) of dog bite injuries to humans and therefore, shot not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs"
3. "We collected data from The Humane Society of the United Stats (HSUS) and MEDIA ACCOUNTS related to dog bit attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies"
4. "Second, to the extent of attacks by 1 breed are more news-worthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed"
5. "Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive."
6. "Several interacting factors affect a dog's propensity to bite, including heredity, sex, early experience, socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and supervision, and victim behavior.

The article was a good read, but they repeatedly stated there was not enough breed specific evidence to come to a solid conclusion. They admit multiple times that other breeds may have a higher incident. They provide other studies that show German Shephards and Huskies have a worse statistic on dog bites. The CDC admits in recent years Rott's lead in fatalities (why again are rotts allowed to be K9 units and not pits?)

The fact that the CDC is using media statistics, gathered using methods from previous studies, just pushes this study even further into an anti-pitbull bias. How many anti/pro gun debates were won by using media based statistics? None, because the media hates guns and they hate pits.

Also, the CDC does not, and can not, determine what a Pitbull is. Just pitbull TYPE's. Every vet will tell you, pitbulls are closer to a terrier breed now. But the CDC has a terrier (Not otherwise specified) category. What is their criteria for the dog to be included into this TYPE. Further, they rarely do any DNA testing, so there is no positive way the CDC could have labeled them any type of pitbull.

To them not being loyal comment. Pitbulls have a great reputation in the dog world for being fiercely loyal, to the point of sacrificing their life, for their masters. This is hand in hand with the reputation that anti-gun owners give accidental deaths at home with children. It happens, but it doesn't prove anything because the number of cases the gun/pitbull was used to save the family is not recorded. If we are to base everything off of the one sided evidence, no one would own guns in this country.

You said, "what do you think pits (and others) were bred for in the first place...to be lap dogs?" This was a good question, and I never really looked into the origin of my dog. So I did. Bulldogs were bred for boar hunting, specifically baiting. When boar baiting was made illegal, they were bred with terriers for their size, aggression, and agility. They were also bred for human loyalty, so a person could jump into the ring and break up the fight. When they were imported with English and Irish stock, they were used in the US as hunting, herding, guarding, and companionship. They used to be an American icon!

So there is some more of my research. Now its time for you to do more research, read some unbiased articles/biased articles from the other side.

The last thing I would like to bring up is the heredity. I asked some of my close friends and family what they thought of this. They brought up a good point of herding dogs. A collie let loose in a field of sheep will begin to herd naturally...they will do a poor job until trained...but they will attempt anyways. I will agree, there are traits that are bred specifically for purposes of each breed. Speed, aggression, size, intelligence to name a few. Violence I do not believe to be hereditary. Aggression is not violence, can be easily trained into violence, but is not the same. So I will accept aggression being hereditary. That being said, the CDC claims multiple factors lead to a potentially violent dog, heredity just being one of a lot. A collie brought up in the city, trained to be a house dog, will not herd anymore. A pitbull brought up in a loving family, to be non-aggressive, will be just that.

All legal gun owning Americans are good people...until they snap and kill a bunch of people.
 
I've always been a retriever person myself.

Link Removed

I've started making a leather holsters as a hobby on my off days. I will start on my first dog collar holster immediately! How well does this holster stay on the collar the way it is? Anybody remember Dino-Riders?
 
First off, thanks for taking the time to say "With all due respect," I just want to clarify I do not mean to offend anyone here, and I do not take offense over internet forums. So there are no hard feelings......

Instead of quoting your entire post I'll just touch on a few points since it's obvious that we're just going to agree to disagree.

First, the CDC did come to the conclusion that the problem was breed specific. These are people paid and trained to study things like this as opposed to you, me, and others who simply rely on raw data from outside sources.

You pointed out that pits were originally bred as hunting dogs (hunting some pretty nasty prey). I asked why you don't see the police, military, etc. using pits. Now I'll ask why you don't see hunters using pits?? According to you and pretty much all pitbull owners, pits are marvels of the animal kingdom and outstanding in just about every way. If that's so, then why do so few "experts" (police, hunters, etc.) who use dogs in their line of work choose dogs other than pitbulls?? That's prety much a rhetorical question. I just wanted you to think about it.

Also, a number of people have compared the vilification of pitbulls to the vilification of gun owners. The problem with that analogy is that the people who bash gun owners are gun haters. There are an awful lot of dog lovers (myself included) who would like to see the pitbull as a breed be allowed to die out. There's a big difference in the two scenarios.

Anyway, please be a responsible dog owner (you probably are) and I genuinely hope your four-legged powderkeg never explodes.
 
B2Tall:208318 said:
Instead of quoting your entire post I'll just touch on a few points since it's obvious that we're just going to agree to disagree.

First, the CDC did come to the conclusion that the problem was breed specific. These are people paid and trained to study things like this as opposed to you, me, and others who simply rely on raw data from outside sources.

You pointed out that pits were originally bred as hunting dogs (hunting some pretty nasty prey). I asked why you don't see the police, military, etc. using pits. Now I'll ask why you don't see hunters using pits?? According to you and pretty much all pitbull owners, pits are marvels of the animal kingdom and outstanding in just about every way. If that's so, then why do so few "experts" (police, hunters, etc.) who use dogs in their line of work choose dogs other than pitbulls?? That's prety much a rhetorical question. I just wanted you to think about it.

Also, a number of people have compared the vilification of pitbulls to the vilification of gun owners. The problem with that analogy is that the people who bash gun owners are gun haters. There are an awful lot of dog lovers (myself included) who would like to see the pitbull as a breed be allowed to die out. There's a big difference in the two scenarios.

Anyway, please be a responsible dog owner (you probably are) and I genuinely hope your four-legged powderkeg never explodes.

Agree to disagree.

My response to your last post. The cdc report, in their conclusion the first page, says twice that there are difficulties with determining breed specific problems. That other breeds could have more bites and fatalities. The pinckeny and Kennedy study, which the cdc report mentions, showed shepherds and huskies to be the more violent breed.

That does get me thinking why are shepherds and rotts used for k9 units, and not pits. It's hard for me to go by a few police officers words, especially when I work closely with them and I believe a majority of police are absolutely not professional. Police have a hard enough time being professional in conducting enforcement, and remembering what laws are real, the k9 officers really only know the dog they are assigned. So I looked it up...and pits are used by police across the nation. They are also narcotic dogs and search dogs as well. http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html.

As far as hunters, I don't hunt...but I believe many big game hunters take along pitbulls for tracking and defense that a weaker retriever breed would not be good at. I will look up what hunters use if you want me to.

Throughout this site, there are threads and posts everywhere, where one person believes his opinion trumps all, and everyone else who disagrees should sell or lock their guns up until they think just like him...I'm glad we aren't biting at each others throats here...but even gun lovers will vilify other gun lovers based on biased opinion (is there even a thing as unbiased opinion?).

Unless someone has first hand experience with pitbulls, they don't have grounds to demonize this breed. My personal experience as a paramedic responding to dog incidence, and owning labs, pomeranians, terriers, poodles, pitbulls, being around collies, akiras, and huskies, bring me to my opinion on the pitbulls.

I am a responsible dog owner, and I believe anyone irresponsible that let's any dangerous dog out, which eventually will be killed (hopefully before it does damage) should be held completely accountable for their irresponsibility.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,527
Messages
610,761
Members
74,965
Latest member
Roosince1911
Back
Top