Pitbulls?Dangerous?

[Awesoma]

lol, of course they're dangerous. they've hurt/killed people. i feel like just by definition that qualifies as dangerous. of course, most animals/people fall under that definition. although, i feel like saying "all dogs can bite, a pit bull is no different." is like saying "all animals can bite, a bear is no different." the reason people are anti-pit bull isn't because they were bred for fighting a long time ago, it's because they're really really good at it now...
should people be able to own them? sure.
any animal can be well behaved. a pet grizzly bear could be raised as an amazing pet. i think everyone would agree that a grizzly bear is a potentially dangerous animal, just by their amazing killing power. therefore when mr bear escapes from his cage and mauls a person, you're ****ed. i dont care how great of a cage that was, you had a ****ing grizzly bear and it hurt someone. you took responsibility by owning it.
i really think it should be the same for a pit bull. when you have a great number of examples of attacks, it should be considered a potentially dangerous animal. people should be able to own them, sure, but the first time it hurts someone, your ass is on the line legally just like with your pet bear. if it's a good pet, has no tendancy for violence, then there is no problem at all. everything is A-OK. in most states here, the law says you're only responsible for something your dog does if you showed negligence. what i'm proposing is a "no excuses" sort of policy for pit bulls. i feel like saying "all dogs can bite, a pit bull is no different." is like saying "all animals can bite, a bear is no different."
also, a car is much more practical than a pit bull in the bulk of situations...i mean, i live in a pretty rural area, and it would be nearly impossible to function without cars here. it's very spread out, with nearly no public transportation. 99% of the population of west michigan can function just fine without a pit bull though...it's risk vs benefit, and the benefits from cars are nearly irreplaceable here.

[Jess]

also, a car is much more practical than a pit bull in the bulk of situations...i mean, i live in a pretty rural area, and it would be nearly impossible to function without cars here. it's very spread out, with nearly no public transportation. 99% of the population of west michigan can function just fine without a pit bull though...it's risk vs benefit, and the benefits from cars are nearly irreplaceable here.

That's my point exactly. Even with the incredible killing potential that motor vehicles have, the benefits far outweigh the risks in today's society. To say that dogs have no purpose and are just a luxury is simply ridiculous to me. Dogs play a big role in many families. They provide companionship to many, teach young kids responsibility and even offer a degree of comfort. Dogs save lives every day, whether they are trained for it or not. I have heard countless stories of families being saved by house fires due to the heroic action of the humble family dog. You can't say that because some people mistreat their animals, no one deserves to have one. It's inhumane to distinguish the breeding and eventually, existence, of medium-large breed dogs (including pit bulls obviously) because of reasons that don't validly affect most dogs or their owners. To be honest, the proposal of banned medium-large breed dogs sounds like some canine form of the holocaust. Discriminating against certain dogs based on something that has no affect over their aggression (that being size), and eliminating them from society because of it. To put it into human terms, it's kind of like saying... oh well a lot of blacks and mexicans commit crimes, so let's just throw them all in jail just in case! Obviously that would be completely groundless and unjust. To me, it's the same.

[SanjisDisciple]

FYI, I have seen accidents occur with other dogs, as well. German Shepherds also possess a feral bulk and I've seen many accidents with them.
Also, Siegfrid and Roy's tiger is another example of REMOVING IT from its habitat into somewhere it's not supposed to be and doing something it's not supposed to do. You arent supposed to "domesticate" a wild animal. You dont "domesticate it", you just basically repress their instincts. Of course that tiger would be destined to flip out sometime, and I am fairly glad he did. You can, however, domesticate a domestic animal, HENCE A PITBULL!!! It will only become dangerous depending on how it is domesticated.

A tiger living in the wild will surely attack you ONLY if you trespass its territory, or unless he is hunting.

However, a pitbull that has been living on the streets wont attack you unless you mess with him in the first place or do if you do something to provoke him. The line between wild and domestic by nature is not THIN, it is actually pretty big, or else you'd see cats and dogs attacking people everywhere because people would be "trespassing their territory". It's actually funny you haven't addressed this subject spoken by me in my other post, but whatever.

Like I said, there are no grounds for whatever you are remotely trying to state.

[Paradoxes]

To be honest, the proposal of banned medium-large breed dogs sounds like some canine form of the holocaust.

Dogs aren't people.

Like I said, there are no grounds for whatever you are remotely trying to state.

Like the fact that a large percentage of people have been mauled by dogs and we should prevent that. Yeah, I agree totally. Let's let the mauling continue.

[Mutzaki]

Now I don't know if something like this already is in motion, but I think that if someone has been attacked by a dog, the owner of that dog should be fined and if there's been especially many attacks from dogs of the same owner, perhaps even jail time should be issued. Maybe some rehabilitation should also be issued the dog(s) in question.

[SanjisDisciple]

A big percentage have been ran over by cars, a large percentage have fallen from buildings, a large percentage die of overdose, etc, etc.

Like I said, unless you bring out something to the table that has the most remote sense, then I will consider you being serious.

[Paradoxes]

A big percentage have been ran over by cars, a large percentage have fallen from buildings, a large percentage die of overdose, etc, etc.

Yeah, no big deal right. If these things aren't serious then just what is?

Now I don't know if something like this already is in motion, but I think that if someone has been attacked by a dog, the owner of that dog should be fined and if there's been especially many attacks from dogs of the same owner, perhaps even jail time should be issued. Maybe some rehabilitation should also be issued the dog(s) in question.

Agreed. My opinion is far more severe on the issue though. The question I'm asking is why do we risk it? Maulings from dogs? That's an asanine problem, especially since all they really provide is enjoyment.

[Awesoma]

Now I don't know if something like this already is in motion, but I think that if someone has been attacked by a dog, the owner of that dog should be fined and if there's been especially many attacks from dogs of the same owner, perhaps even jail time should be issued. Maybe some rehabilitation should also be issued the dog(s) in question.

in most states here, if your dog gets out and hurts someone, there has to be evidence that you were negligent. like, if you have a fence, and the dog has gotten through that fence in the past, you knew it wasn't a good fence, and therefore you messed up by not taking precautions. If a dog has never escaped, never attacked, never given any indication that there could be risk, usually the owner is NOT responsible, as long as they made an attempt to take care of their dog, ie kept it penned up, used a leash when taking it out, etc.

usually it's more of a civil matter...like you have to pay the medical/vet bills for whatever damage the dog did. in some cases, fines for sure. i have never heard of someone being jailed for something their dog did, although that's not to say it hasn't happened...i'm just not aware of a case. HOWEVER, i do have an uncle who did jail time for killing a dog, when his neighbor's dog came onto his property, got into his garbage, and ate some anti-freeze...he must've had a terrible lawyer.

[Mutzaki]

Agreed. My opinion is far more severe on the issue though. The question I'm asking is why do we risk it? Maulings from dogs? That's an asanine problem, especially since all they really provide is enjoyment.

Didn't people go through this already? Dogs provide great services, as guide dogs or as police dogs for example. Jess also mentioned some other things, "They provide companionship to many, teach young kids responsibility and even offer a degree of comfort". A pet can also mean the world to a person, it can even be like a child to some. I know things would be a lot more boring without my two kittehs around.

Sure, I've had some bad experiences with dogs myself, been attacked by two in my days but nothing severe. I know that there's a risk with dogs and that some seemingly innocent ones can rapidly change and attack someone, but that's not too likely, really, especially not to the point of prohibiting them. Nevertheless, the owner should be fined and the situation should be taken care of.

[Jess]

Dogs aren't people.

lol... I'm aware. That's why i said canine-form.

Instead of banning the ownership rights of pit bulls (I won't even go into the potential banning of any dog that isn't minuscule because it's absurd), make them harder to get a hold of. You could impose laws that require a special breeding license. To buy a pit bull, a license would also be required. In order to get one, the applicant would need to go through a background check. This way, it won't stop abusive owners from getting their hands on pit bulls. But it will certainly make it much more difficult, and constrict the flow.

[Paradoxes]

Didn't people go through this already? Dogs provide great services, as guide dogs or as police dogs for example.

Dogs do nothing technology can't do. Therefore they are dispensable to those services. Needless Risk.

Instead of banning the ownership rights of pit bulls (I won't even go into the potential banning of any dog that isn't minuscule because it's absurd), make them harder to get a hold of. You could impose laws that require a special breeding license. To buy a pit bull, a license would also be required. In order to get one, the applicant would need to go through a background check. This way, it won't stop abusive owners from getting their hands on pit bulls. But it will certainly make it much more difficult, and constrict the flow.

I can agree with that. The real point I am attempting to make is that we should take that issue far more seriously. I acknowledge there are a lot of terrific owners and they should get their due regard. My target is the bad ones and their lack of limits. If we could tighten up on them a bit more, perhaps maulings wouldn't occur. Been chased 8 times over here, by all types lol.

[Jess]

Dogs do nothing technology can't do. Therefore they are dispensable to those services. Needless Risk.

That's not true because technology will always be missing one thing--that being instinct. A dogs innate sense of smell may help find the man that is trying to smuggle a bomb aboard an airplane that the metal detectors missed. A dog may find a person trapped in an avalanche that would not have been possible without the aid of a furry friend. Dogs can perform much more efficiently than any machine when it comes to aid dogs for people constrained to wheel chairs due to disabilities or ailments. Not only do they help their owners carry out tasks that they would not be able to do on their own, as well as help make judgement calls with simple activities like crossing the street, but they also provide the much needed companionship--friendship--that some of these disabled people so desperately need. A good dog, the majority, will always provide it's owner with love. Something a machine will never do.

[Aiko]

I think pitbulls are necessary. That is all.

[Paradoxes]

That's not true because technology will always be missing one thing--that being instinct. A dogs innate sense of smell may help find the man that is trying to smuggle a bomb aboard an airplane that the metal detectors missed. A dog may find a person trapped in an avalanche that would not have been possible without the aid of a furry friend. Dogs can perform much more efficiently than any machine when it comes to aid dogs for people constrained to wheel chairs due to disabilities or ailments. Not only do they help their owners carry out tasks that they would not be able to do on their own, as well as help make judgement calls with simple activities like crossing the street, but they also provide the much needed companionship--friendship--that some of these disabled people so desperately need. A good dog, the majority, will always provide it's owner with love. Something a machine will never do.

That is well said. I agree that they are superior to technology in that they are cost effective. But technology advances everyday, that gap is becoming shorter. Eventually technology will overtake instinct/intuition. Perhaps also it is more convenient to purchase a dog instead of employing a nurse or an aid. So on this point a dog is preferable. However my stance is the same in regards to who should own them. The afflicted hold a specialized purpose.

[Jess]

That is well said. I agree that they are superior to technology in that they are cost effective. But technology advances everyday, that gap is becoming shorter. Eventually technology will overtake instinct/intuition. Perhaps also it is more convenient to purchase a dog instead of employing a nurse or an aid. So on this point a dog is preferable. However my stance is the same in regards to who should own them. The afflicted hold a specialized purpose.

As much as technology advances, I just don't think we'll ever be able to program intuition, make a computer that chip that installs gut feelings. It's not something you can create artificially. And like I said before, technology can never truly exhibit or show love, not like a dog or person can. I don't think technology will ever overcome flesh and blood. Unless we don't stop the terminators. Then we're screwed.