I was watching one of those Animal Police commercials and was struck by something

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZombieHunter

Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Maryland...A Brady Bill Top 5 State /puke
All those people trying to outlaw owning/breeding Pit Bulls. It really has a lot of similarities to the anti-gun movement. People use the same arguments and people do the same thing...a small minority ruins the breed for everyone. A small minority feed the anti's and get everyone's panties in a bunch.

Blah.
 
I agree for the most part. The character and disposition of a Pit Bull (or any dog, for that matter), depends largely on its' owner. However, dogs have the ability to think and act independently, and guns don't.
 
Fair enough analogy in that the dog is a product of its owners; however, the dog is animated and even a good pit bull can act out in an unexpected manner. This is not such an issue with, say, a pomeranian but with a pit bull there is quite the destructive force by itself. While the gun being inanimate can only be used by a rational actor.
 
Last edited:
Actually, dogs have a tendency to do what they were bred to do, people often forget that genes are the foundation in which the house gets built on.
 
I used to buy into the OP's argument. I've just seen and heard of too many incidents involving the "aggressive" breeds to remain unswayed.

I don't think they should be outlawed, but I'm definitely on guard around pit bulls, chows, etc.

Attacks by breed.
 
I am sure this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because the people most likely to buy pit-bulls because of their "badass" image (i.e. rap-listening, bling-bling, "gangsta" savages) are also the same people most likely to be horrible owners to their dogs and raise them with bad tendencies, or encourage them to be aggressive.

I have known many pitbulls owned by normal human beings and none of them were any more aggressive than any other kind of dog.

The fault is completely that of the morons who own the pitbulls, and not the dog.
 
I've never known a Chow to be owned by a "gangsta". My only experience with them is through responsible breeders who breed for show. And about half of those dogs have bitten people inappropriately.

At this point, all the words in the world won't dissuade me from believing that there is a genetic component to canine aggressiveness. I don't doubt that "badass" owners are a factor, but I don't believe it's the entire picture.
 
Pitbulls are bred to fight though. However banning them is just stupid. If they can't have a pitbull they'll get a mastiff or a rott or just some mutt. Maybe there should be a background check for dog owners.
 
Yes, chows are definitely protective, very one-person dogs. It is a breed trait.
Those who own them need to be aware and responsible so that other people don't get hurt.

Taking chows out in public is like letting people with no firearms training handle your loaded firearms - irresponsible and stupid.

Still, it is the small breeds, like miniature poodles, that are responsible for the majority of dog bites and visits to emergency rooms. But everyone gets upset about the evil big black dogs, just like they get excited about the EBRs.
 
Guns vs Agressive dogs

I've been around many breeds of dogs,I had a paper route as a kid.The only dog I got bit by was a sneaky stock dog.That said ,Dogs also sense when they should'nt mess with someone IE .45 auto etc.I hate it when People move to the country and suddenly think Fifi can now be loose at night.You should always keep a good varment rifle and shotgun close to the door.
 
My pit is the sweetest dog I've ever encountered. One thing you are forgetting is that there is a difference between people aggression and dog aggression. If a dog is aggressive towards people it is the owner's fault. Just as they were bred to fight, they were also bred to be friendly to humans as they are in the pits with the dogs and couldn't run the risk of being attacked. They're nickname is nanny dog. That being said, the owners, not the dogs should be punished.
 
Here's the difference between evil black rifles and evil pit bull terriers...imo.

The idiot owners of those pitbulls think it's cool to have the meanest most dangerous dog on the block, but then deny responsibility when the dog goes off and rips some poor little girl to shreds.

IF the idiot tried that excuse with an assault rifle(the rifle just went berserk, I've never seen it do that before) no one would let it fly WOULD THEY! So why the %^&* people let those scum get away with it with their worthless $%&ing pitdog is beyond me.

This is why people are now trying to ban certain dog breeds. They are fed up with the excuses. It's too bad. I personally think the scum should rot for their dog's violence. and that the breeds should remain legal.

I feel the same way about assault rifles too, btw.
 
i have owned pits, they are a very strong bodied and minded breed, the truth of the matter is they were bred for this, and love to kill things, and its not just the evil owner who beats his dog, its the neglectful owner, not just the fat guy too lazy to feed the dog, also the guy that doesn't show attention. alot of dogs have problems from this overly common bad habbit, but ankle biters and constant barks dont catch the attention of news crews as much as old ladys getting legs ripped off.
 
In all fairness, a gun can't decide to kill someone. A pitbull can. Not that I support anti-pitbull legislation, but it is not the same thing as gun control.
 
now the problem with guns, a crazy guy walks in a theatre with a knife.. hes likely to kill someone, maybe a few people. but theres such a higher chance of him getting taken down, now with a gun.. well we all know the stories, so what do we do.. we all need to bite the bullet and understand that while we rant and rave YES! keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, a ton of shootins happen from respected gun owners like us who snap.. get cheated on or whatever.. its just a war. gotta ride it out and enjoy em
 
The whole argument, concerning both firearms and dogs, comes about because of responsibility, and those who accept personal responsibility and those who want someone else to be responsible for them.

Those who feel in their hearts and souls that no one should own a firearm would also like to be hand held to the grocery store, and they want federally mandated round the clock monitoring, such as strategically placed security cameras up an down the street (much as Orlando is implementing now), and they want to believe that if someone breaks into their home the rapid response team will be there in seconds to save their dumb a... excuse me, I meant their unprotected selves.

These same people would love to see a world full of flower gardens, and well sculpted parks where other people only own fluffy little puppies that never grow up and would never bite someone.

Sorry, the tint on my glasses is peach colored to improve a condition called Scotopic Sensitivity, it's not a rose colored tint to improve my outlook on life. Like most of us here I live in the real world.

I live in a fairly nice condo, had to give up on the house because the seller had legal issues and I wasn't paying 200k for more headaches. We're in a nice location; the mall is blocks away and I can almost walk to do my shopping at either one of two local grocery stores. That being said, the huge stand of trees between me and the mall is the winter palace of the transients who get off I95 here in Melbourne. We have to have locks on the laundry room to keep them out so they don't break into the machines for coins, or use the sink as a toilet, and a few of them have threatened residents who've asked them to leave the property.

Many of my neighbors are completely oblivious and assume that because we live in a "nice area" we're all safe. Several of the elderly women who live near me, whom I've known for years, say they feel much more comfortable knowing that I live so close and carry a gun.

As for the dog breeds, the same argument goes. I have a Great Dane. We have a thirty pound limit here at the condo, but Indie's a service dog. You'd be amazed how many people have complained that I have this huge dog, but it's their jack russels, pugs, and poodles that cause the problem and bite people. Also, it's their dogs' mess that everyone steps in and complains to the office about. Most people never see or hear my dog unless they happen to be out when I'm walking her, and I always carry a plastic bag and clean up her mess. However, the office still gets at least one complaint a week because someone saw me walking my Dane.

It's about personal responsibility. Unfortunately as those who pointed it out said, many pit bulls are owned for the fear factor they create, but people who own a dog and make it vicious for that reason are the ones who should be outlawed, not the breed they have chosen to own. Get rid of the pits, and rotties and shepherds will be next. Just like banning assault weapons, they hold up an AK at the rally, and ban anything that holds more than five rounds. By the standards some of these jokers want I wouldn't be able to own my service dog, or my Nylon 66.
 
Seems to me post #19 is outa line and doesn't belong here. Post 20 is right on and near perfect. It's basically what i posted, but done a whole lot better.
 
now the problem with guns, a crazy guy walks in a theatre with a knife.. hes likely to kill someone, maybe a few people. but theres such a higher chance of him getting taken down, now with a gun.. well we all know the stories, so what do we do.. we all need to bite the bullet and understand that while we rant and rave YES! keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, a ton of shootins happen from respected gun owners like us who snap.. get cheated on or whatever.. its just a war. gotta ride it out and enjoy em
A few people who legally acquire guns will commit murders, but I believe that the reduction in crime caused by allowing guns more than makes up for any increased harm caused by a maniac using a gun instead of a knife.

a crazy guy walks in a theatre with a knife.. hes likely to kill someone, maybe a few people. but theres such a higher chance of him getting taken down
I don't think there's a good chance of him getting "taken down".
I think people wil be running, not trying to wrestle with him.


And, if people can carry a concealed handgun, the maniac can be stopped whether he uses a gun or a knife.
 
Firearms are only as safe or dangerous as the person holding them. Some breeds of dogs are, at best, unpredictable despite how they may or may not have been raised.
 
Back to the original topic, I feel that it's not a good analogy, because while guns are inanimate, pitbulls actually can, on their own, decide to attack.
 
They're both similar in the sense that the actual threat is reflected disproportionately through the media channels. Often a dog attack is initially reported as a pit bull when it ultimately ends up being another kind of dog. Similarly a lot of media people are more inclined to report any kind of rifle as an "assault rifle" regardless of whether or not any person who knew a single thing about said weapon could qualify it as such (i know i know some people don't use the term at all, but you get my point). Ultimately guns and pit bulls are no where near as dangerous as eating too much, smoking cigarettes or driving cars. In spite of this, the lazy (or stupid, either or) media can't make a legitimate thread interesting (or perhaps its too frightening) so they basically have to make stories up. The link .38 special gave showed that in a 19 year period 66 people were killed by bites from pit bulls. That's strange from what I've heard in various forms of media pit bulls kill all the time, yet the actual number shows that in this period there were less than 3.5 a year. Conversely, the media would make you think that people are gunning down each other will full auto street sweeping assault rifles with (gasp) barrel shrouds constantly, yet again the actual numbers tell a different story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top