Ban Pit Bulls (Dogs, Not Palin)

Despite Palin’s horribly sexist joke about Pit Bulls and lipstick (something I personally have no problem with except when Republicans do it), I do have a problem with people who insist on keeping those animals as pets.
“It’s all about how the dog is raised,” they repeat ad nauseum.
“My pit bull is a softy who would never hurt a fly!”

While there is something to that – a properly raised dog is less likely to bite than one who is abused, neglected or insanely trained to be vicious, the problem lies elsewhere.
I don’t much care if a toy poodle decides to go nuts and try to savage a child.  Toy poodles haven’t got the tools to inflict much damage beyond scratches and drool stains. 
Golden Retrievers, having been bred for a few thousand generations to have a soft mouth, are just not capable of ripping someone’s throat open.
PIT BULLS, on the other hand, have suffered from that same history of breeding, except that the traits selected were heavy muscles, thick necks, incredible power and stamina, and a bite that requires hydraulic jacks to pry open.  IF a pit bull, no matter how well raised, how gentle, kind and fluffy, takes a mind to attack someone, the result is guaranteed to be savage and gory.

Let’s imagine, instead, that people don’t keep dogs, but rather weapons.  Is it really the same thing to say, “Hey…you like slingshots, I like thermo-nuclear bombs.  So long as we both take care of our weapons properly, nothing to worry about”?
No.  It isn’t the same.  Slingshot accidents are not the same as A-bomb accidents.  Neither are pit bull attacks the same as poodle attacks.  And accidents happen. 
There are two facets to analyzing accident risk:  1.  How likely is the accident to occur, and 2. How great is the harm should an accident happen?
If the risk is low, and the harm is small (toy poodle), there is little need for government interference.
If the risk is high and the harm is great (pit bull trained for dog fighting), there is need for government interference.
However, even in cases where the risk is argued to be low (my pit bull is properly raised and very gentle), the potential harm in the case of an accident is so great that it must be avoided at all costs. 
It’s NOT about how you raise the dog, or how you care for the dog.  It’s about the potential harm that exists in the powerful coil-spring jaws and savage stamina that is a pit bull IF it’s having a bad day and a small child touches the dog’s toy. 

THIS child was playing in his own goddamn backyard.  Now in critical condition because some ridiculous fucktard thought it would be cool to have a gentle, well-raised, beloved family PIT BULL.


44 Responses

  1. Point of data: According to the vets around here, it’s cocker spaniels they worry about the most – they’re as a breed fundamentally unstable, there’s a thing known as “cocker rage” (that googles happily), our vet commented that they’re the breed most likely to attempt to bite him. There’ve been probably more attacks from cocker spaniels than pit bulls, with more total damage done to kids.

    Pitbulls get a bad rap because they’re tough, as you say – but they _are_ softies, as a breed, unless they’re abused, unlike some other dogs. They unfortunately make for great sensationalist news.

    (who found this out when attempting to rescue a cocker spaniel that was about to be put down (and did eventually get put down, due to being far too dangerous 😦

  2. That’s kinda misleading: “More TOTAL damage”
    I’d heard that cockers are the most likely breed to bite, and have known some nutbar inbred freaky cockers in my time (I’m a lab / springer spaniel fan)…
    While there might be a million kids present at the hospital due to cocker spaniel bites, and only 1000 who’ve been attacked by a pit (which may also be influenced by the popularity of the breeds…I’m betting there are more cocker spaniels as pets), I’m willing to lay dollars to donuts that if we look at which group spent more days in the intensive care unit, required skin grafts, needed massive blood transfusions…ie. measure severity of injury instead of frequency of injury…the pits “win” paws down.
    Cocker Spaniels might be snappy little bitches and wired too tight, but they simply lack the tools to really mangle someone. Of course any dog can inflict serious injury on an infant, but by the age of 10 or so, I’d imagine any kid could manage to fight off a cocker spaniel attack, no matter how determined. Which, in itself, is another point…a “Cocker Spaniel attack” (I imagine) is likely one or two bites. That’s just not how Pits attack, nor is it how they’ve been selectively bred to attack. Grab, shake, savage, don’t let go, never quit.
    Those are not good qualities in a pet, no matter how gentle or sweet they are most all the time.

  3. If you’d like to read a well researched, objective, journalistic treatment of this subject, check out the Washington Post’s article on the fate of Michael Vick’s pit bulls. The issue is not black and white, but perhaps by becoming more informed you can avoid some of the asinine “reasoning” that leads to opinions like the one expressed in the original post above.

  4. Asinine?
    If you have to get into the ring with either Mike Tyson or Peewee Herman, who do you choose?
    Are you suggesting that American Pit Bulls have been bred for qualities that diminish their ability to inflict harm?
    Vick’s dogs, indeed. One is moved to wonder why Vick was not training Dalmations for the ring. I bet a properly instructed Beagle would hold up just fine.
    Go back to the “asinine reasoning” in the first post and explain to me just what’s asinine about it, you lazy linking fuckwit. The WaPo article you provide does nothing to diminish the severe truth of my original proposition. Pits have been bred to be stronger, tougher, and to outlast in combat. YOUR pit might be charming. But if it ever snaps, you’ll wish it were a chihuahua.

  5. The hatred expressed, not just above, but throughout the world, and circulating the internet, is born from ignorance and incorrect generalizations. Comparing a pit bull to a nuclear weapon is simply hateful and fear-mongering propaganda. Dismissing the “it’s how you train the dog” reasoning as a fallacious excuse is just place wrong and, once again, born from pure ignorance. I would bet my life that three-quarters of the people who post hate-filled garbage, rhetoric and propaganda like that above have never owned a pit bull. They read shit on the internet and in the newspaper that just feeds into their little self-fulfilling prophecies about pit bulls. Just because one dog does more damage than another in the event of an actual attack is not cause for generalized BSL, ever. That would mean that we should have laws against people larger than 6’4″, weighing more than 220 pounds. They can certainly do more damage than someone at 5’6″, 160 pounds. Your logic is flawed, and I would venture to guess that you pit bull haters are also racists, openly or not. Your eagerness to generalize an entire species on the actions of a select few speaks volumes for your ignorance.

  6. That would mean that we should have laws against people larger than 6′4″, weighing more than 220 pounds. They can certainly do more damage than someone at 5′6″, 160 pounds. Your logic is flawed, and I would venture to guess that you pit bull haters are also racists, openly or not. Your eagerness to generalize an entire species on the actions of a select few speaks volumes for your ignorance.

    Does anyone else recognize the hypocrisy and stupidity in this post? First, Doc extends the notion of keeping dangerous pets to restricting humans based solely on size, then accuses me of being a racist – the precise sort of flawed generalization HE makes without reference to any evidence. Topping it all off, the braindead fuckwit is too stupid to recognize the difference between a SPECIES and a BREED within a species. In point of fact, you moron, were a particular group of HUMANS subjected to selective breeding over a few thousand generations for the sole purpose of providing qualities designed to assist them in being more savage and aggressive, it might THEN be a good idea to restrict their presence in areas populated by children. I think it would be a bad idea to selectively breed super-aggressive MMA fighters, keep them hopped up on steroids, and then let them out around average humans. Of course, we don’t selectively breed humans for savageness and powerful bite, do we?
    Conversely, there are plenty of BREEDS of dog that have the tools, but not the propensity – German Shepherds and Rottweillers come to mind – breeds that most certainly possess the physical ability, but having been “designed” for sheep herding, lack the savage intensity of the Pit – a BREED designed for combat and “ratting”.
    By the way…just to enlighten the degree of sheer stupidity you seem to enjoy flaunting in public…different SPECIES cannot mate. For example, cats and dogs = different species; Pits and Poodles = different breeds. It’s hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone dumb enough to fuck that up and think they’re making a reasonable point, you ignorant fucking imbecile.
    One might also note that Doc does not understand the notion of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”…
    Fuck, I wish we could let Pit Bulls wander free and just euthanize all the imbeciles. Sorry Doc – you are full of massive fail. Enjoy your blissful ignornance. It’ll be over soon enough, thankfully.
    As for your moronic ‘Big People’ argument: Some men are big and some men are small, but Samuel Colt made all men equal. That is, of course, why the Poodle fighting business is growing by leaps and bounds, you ignorant fucking twit.
    I don’t hate Pits. I just don’t think they should be kept around children. Go back and read the part about RISK versus POTENTIAL HARM again. Try not to let your love of the SPECIES get in the way. Bah. Nevermind. You’re too fucking stupid to bother with. Jebsus, I HATE stupid people.

  7. Whatever you want to say, buddy. Whatever makes you happy. Enjoy your ingorance and hatred if you like. I’m still willing to bet my life you have no first hand experience off of which to base your claims. Just propaganda and news clips to support your hollow claims. You, sir, fail miserably. Peace!

  8. That’s a heavy bet, Docc – especially without any evidence. I’ve owned blue terriers, wire-haired fox terriers, black labs and springer spaniels (and their mixed offspring), and have had pretty good relationships with shepherds, rotties, airedales, jack russels, beagles and beauviers (sp? Big, shaggy bastards that outweigh me).
    There have even been a couple of pits in there, although I never considered them smart enough to be properly trainable unless one wanted to enhance or exploit their natural BREED CHARACTERISTICS.
    That you consider my piece to be motivated by either ignorance or hatred merely reveals your inability to consider an opposing viewpoint – always the mark of a weak mind.
    That you engage in precisely the sort of behaviour of which you accuse me – making assumptions in the absence of evidence or experience (something you seem to quite easily do with regard to who I am) reveals you as a hypocrite.
    Stupid, ignorant and loud about it is no way to go through life, son.

  9. I wonder what Docc’s position is on keeping lions as pets.
    Mambas, alligators, 18-foot pythons…
    I guess when it comes right down to it, his confusion over SPECIES and BREED is understandable…and without rational justification. Wild – Not Wild? Dog – Not Dog? How about dingos and wolves?
    It has also occured to me that we, in point of fact, DO treat more dangerous humans differently under the law. While not banning boxers outright, the penalty imposed on a trained boxer who uses his greater skill in a street fight is more severe than for the untrained civilian. At law, those hands may be termed deadly weapons. Thus fails the shallow argument about restricting the more capable – a quality Docc related to physical size, but which is revealed when the term “ability” is properly applied. For that matter, one may reasonably suppose that a court would find distinction between the 220-pound man who assaulted the other big guy in the bar versus the one who attacked the 140-pound kid. Such things are called aggravating factors, all else being equal.
    It is an indisputable fact that Pit Bulls have been selectively bred to enhance certain qualities. It is precisely those qualities that led Michael Vick to choose that particular breed, rather than a lab, a shepherd, a rottie, or a Burmese mountain dog to compete in underground dog fights.
    These physical qualities are inherent in the BREED. Nurture is fine, as far as it goes. But accidents happen. And if a boxer’s hands can be considered a deadly weapon, then keeping a pit is certainly risky enough to warrant the same assessment.
    I think I understand Docc’s desire to defend a breed he loves. But it’s like that line from Tombstone, Docc (I couldn’t resist)…”No one is saying you can’t have a dog, and no one is saying you can’t have a pit. You just can’t have a pit where there might be other people.”

  10. While you have a point in that large breeds cause more severe damages when they bite, you are wrong in that a golden retreiver would cause less damage than a pit bull. Especially when biting a child.

    Any large breed have more than enough power in its jaws to kill a child or badly injure an adult. It’s not a matter of pitbull or german shepard, but with your logic if you ban one breed, you will have to ban all breeds that is larger than a toy poodle.

    Oh, and by the way – when I walk my American Staffordshire mix, we never ever get attacked by large breed dogs. They are trained well because their owners know they otherwise might become a problem. Thus they have stable minds. Smaller dogs though – chihuahuas, dachshounds, spaniels – are at the very least barking like mad, and sometimes going completely insane just upon sighting another dog. Most small dogs (at least here in Sweden) are completely unraised and thus unstable. What happens every now and then is they trigger a larger dog which leads to a fight in which the small dog always is completely slaughtered and it ends up in the news: “Murder dogs attack”. Yes, they are actually called murder dogs by the tabloids over here.

  11. Also – what most people fail to see in this debate is the scope of the ban. Which breeds should be banned?

    American pit bull terriers – most of you seem to agree about this.
    American staffordshire terriers – basically the same breed
    Staffordshire bull terriers? Weighs just 11-17 kg (24-37 US pounds). Can’t do much damage, can they? Let’s band them just because their looks and their history.
    Bull terriers? Looks dangerous, let’s ban!
    Cane Corso?
    Akita Inu?
    Fila Brasileiro?
    Dobermann pinchers?
    German Shepherds?
    Golden reterivers?

    Both German Shepherds and Rotweilers are dogs that are more likely to attack a human than a Pit bull, because of their guarding instincts. A pure bred, healthy pitbull has no such instinct. Do you seriously think a pit bull makes more damage than a german shepherd or a rotweiler?

    Like I said, the logic is flawed. There’s more to it than this.

  12. Wow. Just when you think you have read every unfounded piece of poppycock possible you come across an article like this. At first I thought it was meant to be humorous.
    As people have stated before me, you claim that large dogs are capable of causing more harm then smaller dogs. Well yea that’s pretty obvious but how does that justify banning pit bulls? If you had done any kind of real research instead of just talking shit you’d know pit bulls are one of the few breeds that were bred to be NON HUMAN AGGRESSIVE. All dogs are potentially dangerous in the wrong hands, just like automobiles and keyboards. What’s your point?
    No small children have been torn to pieces by any of the breeds commonly dubbed ‘pit bulls’ by the ignorant – which is more than you can say for the number one killer in Canada, the so-called ‘husky’. Why bother with facts though, when you’re on such a roll.
    What if removing infants from their homes could prevent just one child from being abused and killed by their own parents (a child is over 1,000 times more likely to be killed that way than by a dog)?
    As everyone has pointed out, your logic is flawed. Your entire argument is based on IF’s.

  13. The POINT, JACKSON, since you obviously can’t read, is in the potential harm that exists in the qualities for which the breed has been selected and bred to enhance: Powerful bite, stamina, aggression.
    Sure – Huskies are the most dangerous and savage breed…that’s why all those morons in the illegal dog fighting game are training HUSKIES, you fucking moron.
    No children have been torn to pieces? Did you read the LINK provided? No. You didn’t.
    And reductio ad absurdum arguments won’t get you anywhere around here…except a rebuke for being too stupid to engage in proper argument.
    Bred to be “non human aggressive”? Oh for fuck sakes, how stupid can one person be? Are you suggesting that they’ve been bred to be aggressive EXCEPT towards humans? Are you suggesting that a breed selected and bred to enhance power and bite can be trusted to make that distinction? The statement itself reveals that you know absolutely fuck all about genetics. You can breed for aggression. Choosing where to direct the inherent power is a matter of NURTURE, you fuckwit, not NATURE. And frankly, I don’t trust idiots like YOU to train your animals SO PERFECTLY that there is never any risk of that enhanced power being MISdirected.

    As for your automobile anaolgy, let’s just take a look…slowly, so you can get your weak brain around it.
    Cars that spew excessive amounts of toxic fumes are not permitted on the road. Cars without seatbelts are not permitted on the road. Cars that have no brakes, no tail lights, or otherwise pose a safety hazard to responsible, innocent citizens are NOT PERMITTED ON THE ROAD.
    Dogs that have been BRED TO BE AGGRESSIVE (not trained, mushbrain…BRED), selected for traits that pretty much ensure ANY accident will be horrible, ought not be in the neighborhood. This makes the distinction between Pit Bulls and Chocolate Labs pretty fucking clear. And, yes…ANY breed of dog that has been bred to enhance qualities that make it dangerous ought to be restricted or banned. It’s a question of degree. And anyone who says there is no difference between a Pit and Poodle; an Akida and a Lab; a Doberman and a Jack Russell, is either obtuse or just plain stupid.
    Sure…all cars and all dogs are inherently dangerous. Only ridiculous fuckwits like YOU take the obstinant, foolish and ridiculous position that no distinctions can be drawn between puttering down the road in a Honda Civic and flying along in a tractor-trailer with no lights or brakes.
    Removing babies, indeed. What if removing brain dead fuckwits like you from the internet would save one person the trouble of having to read the sputtering, brainless shit that dribbles off your computer in comment form? Well, I’d still have to go with banning Pit Bulls (and select other breeds and species) as pets kept in areas where contact with innocent civilians would be likely…but you’d be a close second. Savage…Stupid…both pretty dangerous.

  14. I wish more people like cousinavi would get involved with banning pit bulls, because with his retarded logic they would never be banned anywhere.

  15. I’m not involved with banning any damn thing.
    But just for the fun of it, why don’t you make an effort at explaining just how my logic is retarded. I’ve no doubt we’ll all soon see you haven’t got much of a hold on the subject. I look forward to your reply, fuckwit.

  16. calling me a fuckwit you must be a classy guy. To get started first off you used an anology with a pit bull and a thermo-nuclear bomb. Second you said that a toy poodle wouldn’t do more than scratch or drool on a child. Go to the website A toy poodle alomst ripped off an infant’s genitals while it was sleeping with his mother. In my opinion having my genitals almost ripped off is a little more then a scratch or drool. but to you with your retarded logic it must mean the same thing. But I’m sure I’m going to read some name calling and tough guy on a computer responce from you. Just please don’t try to come off sounding like an emotional teenage girl on her period, because you have been doing a good job of that so far.

  17. As predicted, no grasp of logic. In point of fact, fuckwit, I compared a nuclear bomb to a slingshot in order to make the point that not all weapons are equal in the event of an accident.
    I did so in order to compare Pits – a breed selected and manipulated for heavy muscles, stamina and a powerful bite – to Poodles.
    Arguing by anecdote accomplishes nothing. While it is likely that every breed has committed some act of aggression against humans at one time or another, there is no doubt that Pits are responsible for far more attacks on people than poodles, and far more severe attacks. The argument that Pits are no different than poodles in terms of the threat they pose to innocent passersby and other pets is just amazingly stupid, and precisely the sort of foolishness that earns you the title “Fuckwit”, you brainless cretin. There’s a reason why Pits are the preferred choice for those who engage in illegal dog fighting, and why they generally eschew POODLES.
    It makes little difference that those animals are horribly abused and trained to be violent – that was not the point. The point is that the physical qualities that make them popular for fighting are inherent in the breed and, therefore, Pits are more dangerous than other breeds in the event of an accident.
    You’re like the twit who say “All cars are dangerous…do you want to ban all cars?” Asshole. No…but I do want to ban the ones with no seat belts, no tail lights, no brakes and no horns. THEY’RE DANGEROUS (like you when you jam your mouth into gear and leave your brain in neutral).
    I want to restrict the ones that can only turn left and go too fast to the oval track where your Momma hangs out on weekends, and the ones that burn rocket fuel to the Bonneville Salt Flats, you willfully blind mushbrained imbecile.
    Your welcome to try again when you learn how to think. But why wait? Embarrassing yourself in public seems to be something of a hobby for you.

  18. HAHAHAHA.. I knew your emotional teenage period would kick in to make you look like an idiot. I like how you started to insult my mom like we are in 5th grade. You still made an anology that included pit bulls with thermo-nuculear bombs, or do you understand what an analogy is? I understood that the poodle is like a slingshot and the pit bull is the nuculear bomb, thats called an analogy big guy. Your just straight up a fucking idiot!! And according to you my pit bull has coil spring jaws and savage stamina(even though he gets tired playing fetch after 20 minuets. ) The reason your so fucking stupid is because you have to overexaggerate all your points because all your points are so fucking stupid to begin with. You live in a fantasy world you inbred retard. My favorite of your points is when you talk about the pit bull having a bad day like it’s a human rationalizing what a bad day is, how fucking retarded is that logic, dude I know your uncle is also your dad but please stop letting people know how fucking stupid and retarded you are!!!

  19. It’s you, fuckwit, that does not understand an analogy. You think you do, but being stupid doesn’t make you shut the fuck up or even pause for reflection, much less try to learn anything. What a surprise.
    I did not compare pit bulls to nukes – I compared them to poodles; nukes were compared to slingshots. It’s an analogical comparison of scale in terms of relative danger. Now, slowly for you: Nukes ARE TO SLINGSHOTS as Pits ARE TO POODLES.
    Can you see the difference? Read this part slowly – keep reading it until you understand. Pits are compared to poodles, not bombs. Get it? Still want to insist I compared your cuddly-wuddly, overweight, out of shape pit bull to a nuke? Imbecile. I might have said, “Pit bulls are to poodles as guns are to knives.” Now get it through your thick, useless head – that analogy does not compare animals to weapons…it compares one dog to another, and one weapon to another. FUCKWIT no longer suffices in your case. Amazingly stupid, stubborn and proud of it FUCKWIT.
    I suggest you look up analogies before attempting to critique one again. You won’t find them in your “Argumenting Skillz For Dummies” or your “Big Boys Illustrated Read Gooder With Pikchers”.
    Back to middle school English with you.

    Speaking of middle school English, I wonder if you made it that far.
    “Overexaggerate” is not a word…and as a made-up term, it’s redundant. I bet you voted for Bush – notice both you and he have the same problem with the word NUCULEAR (it’s nuclear, Mr. President)…pronounced almost like your Alaskan mental equivalent needs it spelled in order to utter it: New-Clear. You misunderestimate your fuckwittery. Nuculear, indeed.
    With regard to your dog getting tired after twenty minuets – hell, I’d be tired too. Those French social dances for two in 3/4 time are, frankly, complex and a little boring. After twenty of them, I’d want a break as well. Does your dog tango? Foxtrot? Maybe if you varied the musical selections, he’d show more interest. Or maybe he’s just tired of dancing with biggest fuckwit at the ball.
    You’re obviously too stupid to know how stupid you are. Just chock full of surprises, ain’t ya?

    No surprise, either, that you own a pit – the pet equivalent of buying a Porsche – a substitute for something lacking; a way for you to be manly you can’t manage in other, normal ways, no doubt. Oh shit! Now you’ll post again and accuse me of comparing a pit bull to a Porsche.
    In point of fact, I didn’t insult your Mom. I merely suggested she hangs out at the track. I have no evidence for that except for how stupid her son turned out. It bespeaks parental neglect that you go out in public and yammer like an uneducated moron, revealing fundamentally poor logic and grammar skills. That said, it might not be the track – it could equally well be the bingo hall, some fundamentalist church group, or your local pig-sticking club, eh Cletus? Wherever she was, it’s pretty fuckin’ clear no one was making you do your homework.
    You’re pathetic but thanks for playing. Now, go fetch something.

  20. WOW!! You like to jump off topic big time when you are proven wrong don’t you. Like I said before you overexxagerate everything because your points are so fuckin stupid to begin with. According to you 20 minuets of playing fetch is like french social dances in a waltz.. That was the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read. And now I am being accused of voting for bush, even though here in hawaii(where Obama was born) I have been working for the obama campaign sending out flyers, and by the way my first time voting was for Al Gore and I voted for Kerry in 04. so there you go again spewing stupid shit out of your ass accusing me of voting for dumb fuck Bush!!!! And it’s sad because I have read your political views on this website and you make good points in that arena, but when it comes to pit bulls you feel the need to make them out to be satan possesd killing machines, when you don’t know the first thing about one. I have owned pit bulls all my life and never once had a problem. So to tell me I shouldn’t owne one because it could possibly be dangerous is an ignorant statement, and makes sound like a dumb fuck conservative talking about the iraq war.

  21. I really didn’t think you’d come back after your last thrashing. Sucker for punishment, eh?
    Minuets. You mean MINUTES. They are not the same word.
    Overexaggerate (with one X or two) is not a word.
    One exclamation point will suffice!!!
    Satan should be capitalized.
    I know plenty about pits.
    “Own” does not have a final E.
    Anecdotes are not helpful in formulating policy.
    Your life experience, however expressed, is even less so.
    I’m not off topic. It’s not my fault that you’re stupid.
    I never said pits were killing machines. I said they have an inherent physical ability to inflict more harm, should things turn sour in a dog/human interaction, than ought to be tolerated in civil society. I said they are more dangerous than poodles. I said they ought to be restricted to places where the risk of that accident is so low that the danger they pose to innocent small children and pets is rendered negligible.
    You’re an idiot.
    You’re also stubborn.
    As I said before, stupid and loud about it is no way to go through life.
    Now fuck off, fuckwit. I’m done correcting your grammar.
    I’m seriously done with trying to get you to shut the fuck up and think instead of yammer foolishly in public.

  22. I do still love your comparing playing fetch with a dog to dancing a 3/4 waltz. That was really out there!!! Also just because i’m younger than you doesn’t mean you have more personal experience with pit bulls then I do. I have had pit bulls since I was 9 years old. So if you have had experience owning a pit bull and actually experience them first hand as your own pet for longer than 16 years then I will shut up and be put in my place. IF not than stop being ignorant and believe everything you hear from the media, because half the time it’s not even a pit bull, it’s a dog that is a mix that the media claims is a pit bull to make better headlines. I also know your knowlege of pit bulls is very 19th century. A popular breed of pit bulls right now is the bully breed, which is bred for temperment and through generations has had the fighting trait bred out of them so they make good family pets. But a breed of pit bull that still makes me nervous is the real game dog american pit bull terrier which still has all the fighting traits it did in the 19th century. I don’t let my bully breed pit bull go anywhere near that breed of pit bulls. So I think you need to take your own advice and not be stuborn and do some more research on the differant personality traits of differant types of pit bull breeds before you close your mind and declare all of them dangerous through genetics.

  23. You said MINUETS, not me. Your dog gets tired after twenty minuets. FYI: A minuet is a French dance for two in 3/4 time.
    May also refer to the music to which the dance is conducted.
    Maybe your Bully prefers the BeeGees. Stranger things have happened. My lab/springer fucking hated bagpipes.

    I don’t need to research a goddamn thing. All I ever said was this: PITS possess, as a consequence of a thousand generations of selective breeding, physical qualities capable of inflicting severe damage in the case of an unforeseen “oops, my cuddly wuddly never did THAT before” accident; the sort of damage poodles, dachshunds, poms and shih tzus simply cannot manage.
    I believe that that is sufficient grounds to place restrictions on who may have them and where they can be kept – despite your assurance that YOUR DOG is a well-behaved softie. And it may be…but it still bites harder, shakes faster, doesn’t quit, and has more power in its neck that any fucking Dalmation ever born (and Dals were bred to run with horses and fight wolves! Coach dogs). Like a bored out straight-8 with no seat belts and a roll bar, it’s too fucking dangerous to have on the road where the rest of us are puttering around.
    I don’t need 16 years of pit ownership to disagree with your narrow, biased, stubborn opinion. I’ve owned many breeds for longer than you’ve been alive – see previous posts. I know DOGS, and I’ve known pits.
    My dogs are trained to walk off lead at my side; to stop at the curb while I check for traffic without being told to halt; to STAY…and if I don’t come back until tomorrow, the hound will not have moved for food, water or a stinky passing bitch; to freely go rabbit running – I sit and have a smoke with no worry whether or not the dog will return; to fetch, climb ladders, even had one that would answer the fucking phone. Sadly, he was unable to take messages.
    It’s not that there is no such thing as a good pit. It’s that the potential for SEVERE harm exists in the physical properties of EVERY pit – like speed is an inherent property in greyhounds, whippets and Rhodesian ridge backs..they only touch down in full flight to measure their distance off the ground.
    Anyone can have a gun. You need a good goddamn reason to have a bazooka, and you CANNOT have a bazooka inside the town limits where children might be playing.
    Yeah, yeah, yeah…your pit is a softie. They’re all softies.
    “Gosh…he was such a quiet neighbour…always kept to himself…”
    Michael Vick (and I KNOW already that you don’t mistreat your animals and provoke them to extreme levels of fight or flight viciousness) was not operating on a 19th century breed. YOU might be breeding Bully to Bully and raising them right…
    Not everyone is you. And there are enough unscrupulous breeders out there to make bazooka sales the sort of thing we need to restrict in areas commonly populated by children.

  24. I do agree with you that pit bulls are stronger than any other dog out there. If you ever have one as a puppy you will understand how strong they are even as puppys. I also agree with you that there should be regulations in owning these dogs. I think everyone should have a back ground check and show some form of proper housing for the dogs. I’m even willing to have a muzzle on my dog in public if that helps people become more comfortable with a pit bull in public and stray them away from banning this breed. I also get fustrated that people are so close minded about this breed and won’t come to some kinda compromise about putting restrictions on pit bull owners and their dogs instead of just banning them all together. It just sucks that pit bulls are the new fad for the drug dealers and loser gang members. I remember it was rottweilers in the 90s that they wanted, so all the bad press was towards rottweilers, but now that these idiots want to breed pit bulls to look bigger and meaner than they are intended to look.

  25. I’m really very disappointed in the discourse and lack of pertinent information here…It is true that American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire terriers, and American Pitbull terriers are very strong for their size, being a medium sized dog. However, being strong does not equal being significantly more harmful or destructive. They are terriers, and terriers as a group tend to be tenacious and independent. As such, they also, as a group, tend to be more difficult for an inexperienced handler. This is why so many Parson Russell terriers (formerly the Jack Russell), rat terriers, and bully breeds end up in rescues and humane societies. They are cute, and too many inexperienced dog owners aren’t equipped to handle a dog with a lot of energy and independence. This doesn’t mean that these dogs are automatically aggressive, it means that they may be more difficult to train, not listen, destroy things in the house, etc. (all the too numerous to mention reasons people give dogs up). These qualities of strength, independence and tenacity also make these dogs wonderful search and rescue dogs, cadaver dogs, tracking dogs, and police dogs. In fact, earlier in the 20th century, the bully breeds were revered as family pets and because of their faithful service to humans (think Pete from the Little Rascals and Sgt. Stubby [the most decorated dog of WWI]).

    According to the American temperament test society, the passing percentage of American Staffordshire Terriers is 83.4% (548 dogs tested), the passing percentage of am. Pit bull terriers is 84.3% (586 dogs tested)…to put this into perspective, Australian shepherd dogs have a passing percentage of 80.5% (589 dogs tested). (I chose the Australian shepherd as a comparison because they are widely recognized as a good family pet AND because the number of dogs tested is similar–the golden retriever who is listed in a previous post has an 84.2% [703 dogs tested]) If anyone is interested in learning more about the temperament test, or to check my statistics go to:

    Now, veterinarians have tested the jaws of the bully breeds, and have found no change in mechanics than other dogs…they do not “lock.”

    There is also the problem of the dog fighters, both in the cities and in rural America. Unfortunately, the use of bully breeds in this capacity is most of the reason why BSL is even an issue. But to ban bully breeds because of this is missing the larger issue. Are we to ban chickens because cock fighting is despicable? It’s missing the larger sociological issue of why people in the inner cities and rural areas of the US persist in this horrific practice. Now, if these sociological issues are going to be completely ignored, then there is a much less invasive way to handle the situations than the government attacking the personal property rights of the normal person. Enforce the law, as was done with Michael Vick. It’s going to be an endless battle, just like the battle with drugs, but as with that battle, banning or making a substance illegal doesn’t solve the problem, it just changes the problem and takes it further underground.

    Of course, there will be people who disagree with me, but I think there’s room for discourse without personal attacks.

  26. @ Susan
    Thanks for the post. Very nice, indeed.

    I do not ignore the sociological factors. In fact, I believe that pathetic facet of the issue contributes to the problem in very large degree – by poisoning the breed through selective breeding practices, resulting in the enhancement of those qualities which conflict with the notion of having a good family pet that is safe around other dogs.

    As I pointed out in my original post, there are two factors I see as pertinent in making this policy decision: 1. The potential for harm – which your temperament study suggests is equivalent to other breeds, and 2. The degree of harm should an “accident” occur.
    While a pit may be no more likely than other breeds to exhibit problem behaviour, in a worst case scenario, there is no equivalency between what a AST can inflict and what a Golden Retriever or Border Collie can inflict.
    Likelihood of an event = X
    Probable / Potential Harm caused = Y
    XY = Policy consideration.

    I’m all for properly raised dogs by experienced, loving handlers with the time, patience and correct attitude to adequately attend to the needs of Burmese mountain dogs, retired racing greyhounds, whippets, and AST’s.
    I’m not prepared to say that anyone, anywhere can have a pit just cuz they want to. The potential for catastrophic harm is sufficient to warrant some sort of policy…as regards ALL dogs…and especially ones that have been genetically selected for strength, stamina and bite force (whether their jaws lock or they’re just really, really fuckin’ strong and stubborn).

  27. I have to say Cousinavi, I’m really enjoying this…I don’t get a chance to have a good argument very often.

    Also, I had initially assumed you were in the U.S. since there was so much about our election on your site…however I noticed that the time I posted showed 2430, I posted at 1130…where are you from?

    I didn’t mean to insinuate that you were ignoring the sociological factors, but unfortunately, here in the United States at least they are largely ignored…but that’s a whole other post.

    Perhaps I need to further explain my interpretation of the statistics that I presented. I will agree with your first bit of logic: A= an acceptable/good temperament percentage (≥80%), B= Golden Retriever temperament (84.2%), C= American Pit Bull temperament (84.3%), D= German Shepherd Dog (83.5%)


    Equal footing here, right? Generally speaking, a golden retriever’s temperament is just a sound as an American pitbull terrier or a German Shepherd Dog.

    Ok, so the next bit of your logic is where I find fault. You have failed (from my perspective) to prove that IF one these breeds attack a person that the result would be different for any reason other than pure mass. A 110 pound German shepherd is going to have more potential than a 65 pound pit bull breed or golden retriever to inflict damage.

    According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) about 42% of dog bites in the U.S. involve children less than 14 years old. Of all the dog bites, about 98% are treated in the ER and released the same day, so serious bites are already a great rarity.

    So, let’s take the first CDC statistic: Children under 14 years old, these also tend to be the most traumatic purely because of children being smaller than adults, and most dogs. Unfortunately, with small children, even a bite from a small to medium size of dog is going to be more dangerous. When you combine this with the fact that it may be a 65 pound dog (like the golden or pitbull) or the 110 pound German shepherd, the potential for severe injury is there. (I did not see the link you posted, it was broken) But here again, it has little to do with the breed, since we’ve already established that these breeds are on equal footing for a potential incident. The only question is the potential damage, and more than anything this would depend upon the reason for the bite, the dog’s mass, and the individual dog’s stability.

    Ok, so A=B=C=D

    Or, to use your value: X=B=C=D

    You have not proved that Y is a value to be considered

    So, the only value that is proven is X, and can there fore be the only value considered in policy.

    However, I’d like to suggest another consideration to policy making: Enacting dangerous dog legislation that considers all breeds equal and enables a city or county to take action whether the dog is a labradoodle or a preso canario. It also places an animal’s action on the shoulders of the owner, where it belongs, and forces personal responsibility of the owner.

    I’m copying and pasting our local ordinance which I helped to draft:

    Dangerous Animal Ordinance
    Any animal with the following characteristics shall be classified as dangerous:
    1. Any animal which has inflicted a severe or fatal injury on a human, on public or private property. The victim receiving severe injuries, or the victim’s parent or guardian, must provide the Police Department with a signed physician’s statement, documenting injury and treatment qualifying such as a severe injury, or sign an authorization for the release of such statement.
    2. Any animal which has killed or injured a domestic animal, livestock or poultry without provocation, while off the owner’s property.
    3. Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting.
    4. Any animal which has bitten a human being, without provocation on public or private property other than the owner’s.
    5. Any animal which, while on the owner’s property, has bitten, without provocation, a human being other than the owner.
    6. Any animal which, when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds, or private property other than that of the owner, in a menacing fashion or apparent attitudes of attack, regardless of whether or not a person is injured by said animal.
    7. Any animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals.
    8. For the purposes of this Chapter and the definition of dangerous animal, in determining whether or not an animal has been provoked, Law Enforcement Officers and the Public Safety Committee shall take into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the subject investigation to specifically include, but not necessarily limited to, whether or not the animal in question was guarding the property of its owner and whether or not the animal in question had been teased, aggravated or harmed by the victim or anyone with the victim at the time of the bite or attack. If it is determined that the animal in question was guarding property or had been hurt, teased or aggravated at the time of the incident, it shall be presumed that the animal was provoked.

  28. Nice bit of bylawing there. Someone went to law school.

    I don’t want to quibble with the way you represent my math – you seem to get the point. But for clarity’s sake it’s (X) x (Y).
    One must be cautious with equals signs.

    Neither do I want to parse statistics (spurious by definition, reporting, collating, and a few other factors) regarding which breeds are capable of what with regard to narrow demographics re: who, coincidentally, make up the bulk of ER dog bite admissions. Kids and dogs. Duh. Water is wet.

    I take it as a given that a Pit is more dangerous, solely as a consequence of physical potential, than a Dachshund.
    I have no problem extending my “If you want one, you must demonstrate to the town council that you have (a) the facilities, (b) the time and (c) the necessary experience to tend to a 1. German Shepherd, 2. Rottweiller (I KNOW…a gentle herding dog likes to lean against your knees), 3. retired greyhound, 4. pit bull….et al.
    No…you may NOT acquire, chain in the backyard on three feet of links and no water, any dog you like because it’s your RIGHT!
    For fuck sakes…we don’t let people DRIVE until they pass a test because driving, if done poorly, puts people at RISK.
    So does keeping a pit, or a shepherd, or a toy poodle for that matter….
    But there’s a world of difference between keeping a poodle and keeping a pit.
    When accidents happen, one is really quite demonstrably worse than the other. Reasonable policy restricting pits to those who can demonstrate the ability to meet the responsibility of having such an animal is not out of line.

    To be all sorites about it, shall we have lions strolling on leashes behind the local Little League Field?

  29. ‘THIS child was playing in his own goddamn backyard. Now in critical condition because some ridiculous fucktard thought it would be cool to have a gentle, well-raised, beloved family PIT BULL.”

    Exactly, and of course some kids have even been killed. Absolutely heartless.

  30. But you still have not proved why a bully breed is significantly more dangerous than another large breed of dog….or why it is a problem for the burden of responsibility to be put on the owner of the dog. If people are held responsible for the actions of their animal, then people have a reason to maintain their animal.

    And I’m afraid that you’re trying to slip into “emotional appeals” not rational arguments with your comment about the lions…we’re not discussing lions, we’re discussing dogs, a domesticated animal.

  31. Sharon,
    It’s a tragedy when a child is hurt, and I do not know what incident you are speaking about, but that dog could just have easily been a lab mix, a rhodesian ridgeback, or any other breed. And I don’t know what happened, was the owner of the dog letting it run at large? Was the child teasing the dog? Was it really a pit bull? I would hope that people would learn to question the media more…the news, for the most part, isn’t about reporting the news…it’s about what sells. Everything has to be questioned.

    When discussing any issue, whether it’s property rights, eminent domain, a women’s right to choose, gun rights…etc, it’s of the utmost importance that emotional appeals take a back seat.

  32. @ Susan
    You can leave the property rights, eminent domain, abortion rights and gun control on the curb.
    The facts are as the story presents them – go read the fucking link before you start yammering about questioning the source.
    Christ…”We can’t be sure we’re getting the truth” – an objection lacking the simple recourse of having bothered to read the fucking article linked in the original.
    How annoying. Blithering lipflap late to the discussion AND full of straw man arguments right off the top. Yeah…I’ve seen so many appeals to pure emotion when that hot button issue of eminent domain comes up.
    Jiminy Crickets. Imbecile.
    Was the child teasing the dog? No. The child was playing, alone, in HIS OWN BACKYARD.
    Some people are not only incapable of dealing with a hypothetical (oh, but that would never happen!), they refuse to address the fucking FACTS.
    “Everything HAS to be questioned.”
    And thus, there is nothing left to talk about.
    Moron. I wish there was some way to ban the stupid ones.

    PFFT! I think I’m getting confused here. It now seems like there’s TWO OF YOU, and I’m having a decent debate with one of them while the other one is pissing me off.
    (Note: I’m also sleepless and drinking rum. In this case, you must forgive the language and epithets if misdirected…except for where you’re being stupid – in that case, I totally mean it.)

  33. @ Susan
    You keep saying I have not “proven” that bully breeds are “SIGNIFICANTLY” more dangerous….
    I believe we have agreed that the breed has been selected over thousands of generations for physical qualities which render them (all else being equal) capable of inflicting far more harm than a Dachshund or a Terrypoo or a Golden Retriever.
    SIGNIFICANTLY? Loaded term, and I need not demonstrate significant anything. The degree of potential harm that resides in many breeds – Burmese Mountain dogs, Pits, German Shepherds, Dobies…no one ought to be permitted to keep these animals in proximity to children or public spaces except having demonstrated (much in the same way they we restrict drivers / make them pass a test before giving them the keys to a car) that they are circumstantially and experientially prepared to properly care for that animal.
    Yes, we’re talking about domesticated animals – not lions.
    We are also contemplating what can happen when the domesticated animal stops obeying commands.
    Dachshunds…go ahead.
    Pit Bull? Please step over here. We have some questions.

  34. Look. You want to have a gun, fine. Pass the gun safety course.
    You want to drive a car – pass the driver’s test.
    You want to play with explosives for a living? We don’t let just anyone go into the dynamiting business.
    If you want to open an ice cream shop, or keep a poodle, fill your boots.
    If you want to have a physcially challenging animal – whether it’s a pit, a python or a lion – in any sort of proximity to other people, you need to demonstrate that you are up to the task.
    To the claimant falls the burden.
    I need not prove anything except the potential for harm.
    That exists as a PREMISE.

  35. Ok…I was open to a pleasant debate, I pointed out in my very first post taht your link to the story was broken, thus I couldn’t read it. you fail to comment about an individual’s personal responsibility for their animal, and seem to fall back onto personal attacks when you have no data to support your position. I have given you a sound argument that you may disagree with, but you refuse to respond to that argument in any sort of meaningful way.

    I too hate stupid people…I say it almost every single day, multiple times…about the people who try to tell me how I should run my life, who are allowed to vote even though they don’t have a brain in their head, who think that I should believe in their god, or that kill me little by little everyday by robbing me of my time. And you sir, are doing that very thing.

    I’ve looked through the rest of your blog, and it’s really too bad that you can’t see how your ideas on this issue are completely incongruent with your ideas on issues such as a woman’s right to choose, Intelligent design, religion and racism. When you get down to the heart of all these things, reason wins out…but not here.

    Good luck to you, and enjoy that rum, I hope its as good as my gin I’m about to have.

  36. Aw.
    Rats. My sharp tongue.

    Hope your gin is delicious.

    The personal attacks were misdirected at your alter ego (which for some reason appeared to have replied to itself and confused me – I tried to explain…)

    As for not responding to your argument in any meaningful way…Pffft!
    I have done exactly that. See my immediately preceding.
    And Pfft again.

    Not much of a gin fan in any case, but even if I were can’t get limes in this country. Green lemons everywhere. Most Taiwanese think lemons are green. Tell them lemons are yellow, they look at you as if ducks can fly.
    I know. But in Taiwan, ducks cannot fly. Trust me.
    Chickens can fly a little bit,
    Ducks cannot fly.

    Pfft again.

  37. @ Susan
    “I would hope that people would learn to question the media more…the news, for the most part, isn’t about reporting the news…it’s about what sells. Everything has to be questioned.” I agree here except with the use of “everything”. Nothing would ever really get done if literally everything was questioned.

    “When discussing any issue, whether it’s property rights, eminent domain, a women’s right to choose, gun rights…etc, it’s of the utmost importance that emotional appeals take a back seat.”

    I have to disagree with this. While of course emotional appeals don’t have to be the centerpiece of an argument, we are animals of emotion as well as reason, so it can indeed play an important part.

  38. THIS is how I got fuckin’ confused last time! Susan and Sharon quoting each other. Jimmy and Johnny. Pfft.

    Appeal to emotion has NO place in discussions of policy.
    It’s one thing to USE it…it’s another still to argue that it’s PROPER.


  39. “THIS is how I got fuckin’ confused last time! Susan and Sharon quoting each other.”

    I figured that from reading your responses, sorry I inadvertently interferred in your very thorough discussion with Susan.

    “Appeal to emotion has NO place in discussions of policy.”

    I wasn’t talking specifically about policy. I was answering Susan’s post that it had no place in every issue. Issues are general until identified.

    As I mentioned above though, since humans do have emotions, they do play a large part whether we like it or not, hence why some start showing their “sharp tongue” as you point out.

  40. Playing a large part and being a legitimate factor bearing on the development of policy are two different things.
    In fact, I would go so far to say that there exists an inverse relationship between degree of passion and the weight to be accorded the opinion thereby produced.

  41. As for my sharp tongue, you may take that as a given whenever ill-considered, mostly thoughtless comments appear in my threads.
    Passion has long since ceased to have much to do with it.

  42. “Playing a large part and being a legitimate factor bearing on the development of policy are two different things.”

    Yes, I quite agree, it really shouldn’t. However, as I stated above, most likely it will be written into policies anyway since emotions can not always be controled by all involved in creating policy.

    Unless I am missing something, policy is created a lot of times to change or fix what is perceived to be wrong, wanting, or unnecessary. These should all be emotions since in the known cold universe, there really is no wrong and right. The sun will envelope this planet someday and the sun will do this with no known considered malice towards the planet’s occupants.

    An emotional response is at the center of this thread’s agrument. Emotions are used in order to even find value in dogs, whether for protection, for companionship, both or neither.

    I try to keep my emotions in check in public except to use it mainly as fuel in the pursuit of continual understanding.

  43. I’ve really only rarely encountered such a foolish proposition as “no right / no wrong”.
    You need to learn some things about argument and logic / false equivalency / straw man arguments.
    To leap from “The sun is not malicious” to “There is no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong'” is nothing more than evidence of a sort of silliness that doesn’t even earn refutation.

  44. I’ve been down this road before many times with others: the “You don’t understand” argument fallacy. McCain sure made heavy use of that tactic in the debates.

    I certainly am not asking for any resposes from anyone. So for now, I guess neither one of us is going to learn any further on this subject…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: