[esXXI]

Usually don't start stuff in the lounge but this is just so ****ing messed up:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/12/fat....ap/index.html

Originally Posted by CNN

"I put him down there, with a shovel on the door," Faibish said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "And I told him: 'Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me."

[Cipher13]

Messed up.

"It's Nicky's time to go," she said in the interview. "When you're born you're destined to go and this was his time."

She sounds disturbingly indifferent, though I'm well aware of the twists these people (CNN) can put on things. People who believe such things as fate so intensely are dangerous.

Either way, she should be charged. Locking her son in the basement? She should've taken him along. Either way, why not lock the bloody dogs in the basement, rather than her son? Talk about negligence.

Anyway, none of this needs to be said.

[Super Mario]

Stupid woman "It's her time to shut up," Super Mario said in the interview. "When you're born you're destined open your mouth and now it's time to shut up."

[ManOfSteal]

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Why wouldn't she locked the dog in the basement?

That's great parenting.

[Albert Pujols]

what a fn' nut.

[- - e r i k - -]

Pitbulls aren't illegal over there yet? Aggressive dogs for aggressive people.

[CalebsGarage]

What a creepy awful mother. That right there is the reason abortions should be legal

[JoshuaZ]

A weird situation, and sad.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Pitbulls aren't illegal over there yet? Aggressive dogs for aggressive people.

Read up on pit bulls before you post stuff like that. It actually takes tremendous amounts of time to train a pitbull to be aggressive. By nature, they are very docile to humans, because they were bred to help restrain bulls, not humans, so they had to be very trainable, and not harm their handlers.

Earlier in the 1900s, pitbulls were common family pets because they are so good around kids.

Remember also that most dog bites aren't by pitbulls. Many other breeds are FAR more likely to attack humans.

It's a shame that dog fighters have ruined this breed in the public eye.

tooki

[ghporter]

A properly bred and raised pit is the best friend your kid could have. They're even better than german shepherd dogs, which is saying something. As tooki says, they aren't bred to hurt people, and it takes some horrendously savage training to make them violent toward anything. They almost never bite humans. In fact the vast majority of dog bites are by small breeds including cocker spainels, and toy breeds like Chihuauas and toy poodles.

There is never any need to outlaw ANY breed of dog. What needs legal control is "back yard breeders" who let just any dogs breed and produce unstable, poorly bred, hard to train puppies. And a huge amount of effort beyond what is already being done needs to go into finding and stopping dog fighting and the evil people who perpetuate the unspeakaably cruel practice. Not that I have any strong feelings about the subject, but it wouldn't bother me much at all for a dog fight "trainer" to find himself alone and trapped with one of his "trainees." "Just a little old fashioned karma coming down." (Thanks, Willie!)

[zigzag]

Cocker spaniels, Chihuahuas, and toy poodles don't, in my experience, maul and kill people. Pit bulls do, and should be outlawed. The fact that it's due to some irresponsible breeders isn't the point - there will always be irresponsible breeders, who choose that breed for its unique ability to inflict bodily harm, and as long as that's the case, there will be maulings. The privilege of owning a particular breed of dog doesn't justify the risk - there are dozens of other breeds availbale.

Buy a Chihuahua. For that matter, buy a whole pack of them - I'll take my chances.

[Ghoser777]

I could have a son and do a terrible job of raising him so he turns into a serial killer - should all people be banned? Or maybe, just people with my same skin color?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

I could have a son and do a terrible job of raising him so he turns into a serial killer - should all people be banned? Or maybe, just people with my same skin color?

Life is generally a matter of weighing risks and rewards. The rewards of allowing people to own this particular breed for their personal amusement don't justify the risks - there are dozens of other breeds available that are just as amusing. We ban lots of things that pose similar risks. Banning people, on the other hand, would obviously require a much different and more difficult risk-reward analysis.

We're talking about dogs with a unique ability to inflict bodily harm, dogs that do not merely bite, but bite repeatedly, into deep tissue, hold on, and kill. That are only some 1% of the dog population but are responsible for most of the deaths. It's not worth it.

If we don't outlaw them altogether, which would be my preference, we should at least implement very stringent regulations that would discourage people from breeding them. The fact that some people are sentimental about them doesn't particularly interest me. I've owned a number of dogs and never felt any need to own a pit bull.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Life is generally a matter of weighing risks and rewards. The rewards of allowing people to own this particular breed for their personal amusement don't justify the risks - there are dozens of other breeds available that are just as amusing. We ban lots of things that pose similar risks. Banning people, on the other hand, would obviously require a much different and more difficult risk-reward analysis.

We're talking about dogs with a unique ability to inflict bodily harm, dogs that do not merely bite, but bite repeatedly, into deep tissue, hold on, and kill. That are only some 1% of the dog population but are responsible for most of the deaths. It's not worth it.

If we don't outlaw them altogether, which would be my preference, we should at least implement very stringent regulations that would discourage people from breeding them. The fact that some people are sentimental about them doesn't particularly interest me. I've owned a number of dogs and never felt any need to own a pit bull.

Hey, why stop there, other breeds can attack you as well. Just ban all dogs and make those crazy dog-folks get hamsters instead.

If we don't outlaw dogs altogether, which would be my preference, we should at least implement very stringent regulations that would discourage people from breeding them. The fact that some people are sentimental about them doesn't particularly interest me. I've owned a number of hamsters and never felt any need to own a dog.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Hey, why stop there, other breeds can attack you as well. Just ban all dogs and make those crazy dog-folks get hamsters instead.

Hey, why not pay attention to what I wrote and acknowledge that in an attack, pit bulls are much more likely to inflict severe bodily injury and death than other breeds and are responsible for a grossly disproportionate number of same.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Hey, why not pay attention to what I wrote and acknowledge that in an attack, pit bulls are much more likely to inflict severe bodily injury and death than other breeds and are responsible for a grossly disproportionate number of same.

It has been established in this thread that pit bulls are a gentle breed (they used to be known as "the nanny dogs" due to their kind nature), they just happen to be popular with the low lifes that breed dogs for fighting. If you ban pit bulls, those breeders will just find another favorite breed and nothing changes.

The problem is with the people, not the dogs.

[selowitch]

Only in this crazy world do people hesitate to get rid of a dog who is a danger to one's children. Before I lock my kid in a basement to protect him against my dog, perhaps I consider getting rid of the dog?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Hugi

It has been established in this thread that pit bulls are a gentle breed (they used to be known as "the nanny dogs" due to their kind nature), they just happen to be popular with the low lifes that breed dogs for fighting. If you ban pit bulls, those breeders will just find another favorite breed and nothing changes.

The problem is with the people, not the dogs.

That's not a reason to protect pit bulls - they present a unique risk. That's why some people breed them. I'd like to see one of you tell the dead kid that "It's the people, not the dogs." You can't, because he's dead, because pit bulls can inflict much more serious harm than other breeds.

If those people find another breed that is equally dangerous, ban those too. But, apart from perhaps Rottweilers, I don't expect that to happen, because other breeds simply aren't as deadly as pit bulls. A pit bull bite is quite a different thing from a Chihuahua bite.

Dr. James Betts, chief of trauma surgery at Children's Hospital Oakland, operated on Shawn Jones, who was 10 when three pit bulls dragged him from his bike in Richmond and mauled him four years ago this month. He's seen cases where a single, crushing bite from a pit bull has "taken out the whole side of the face.'' Betts says the hospital treats 100 bite cases each year, and he's passionate about the perils of pit bulls.

"I think,'' Betts says, "if you have a dog like that in your house, you are recklessly endangering your family. For people to say, 'That is not going to happen to me' is to pretty much put the blinders on.''

Betts says a pit bull can exert as much as 1,200 pounds per square inch of pressure with its jaws, while that of a German shepherd is more like 200.

"That kind of grip,'' Betts says, "is enough to fracture your femur, the largest bone in your body.''

The pit bull apologists, Nelson says, like to say "judge the deed, not the breed.'' But he thinks that kind of logic is like saying "there is no such thing as a bad kid."

"Look,'' Nelson says, "nobody can prove one dog is more likely than another to go off. The difference is, should a pit bull attack a person, they are much more likely to inflict serious injuries.''

. . .

"How,'' asks Nelson, "do you define an irresponsible dog owner? It is someone who owns a dog that attacked someone. So you can only call them irresponsible after the fact?''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by zigzag

That's not a reason to protect pit bulls - they present a unique risk. That's why some people breed them.

If those people find another breed that is equally dangerous, ban those too. But, apart from perhaps Rottweilers, I don't expect that to happen, because other breeds simply aren't as deadly as pit bulls. A pit bull bite is quite a different thing from a Chihuahua bite.

I'd like to hear one of you tell the dead kid that "It's the people, not the dogs." But you can't, because he's dead, because pit bulls can inflict much more serious harm than other breeds.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

So basically, you want to ban all dogs that can inflict a fatal bite?

[Ghoser777]

Ban people with large muscles - they could hurt me.

[selowitch]

I think it's fine if people want to own a dangerous dog, but they had better be responsible in caring for it. And if they're irresponsible and stupid and somebody subsequently dies, then it's criminally negligent homocide. End of story.

I think you regulate breeding and require that the human go to obedience school (the dog too).

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Hugi

So basically, you want to ban all dogs that can inflict a fatal bite?

No, I want to ban pit bulls because they are intrinsically much more likely to inflict severe bodily injury and death when they attack.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by zigzag

No, I want to ban pit bulls because they are intrinsically much more likely to inflict severe bodily injury and death when they attack.

Most dogs over 70-100cm in size have the ability to inflict severe bodily injury and death when they attack. Ever watch a cute little springer spaniel go at cracking open bones from sheep legs with it's jaws? Looks can be deceiving.

I see where you're coming from, but I honestly don't think you'd be solving the problem by banning just one breed. I know it's been tried in some locations, do you know if there have been fewer dog related injuries there?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Most dogs over 70-100cm in size have the ability to inflict severe bodily injury and death when they attack. Ever watch a cute little springer spaniel go at cracking open bones from sheep legs with it's jaws? Looks can be deceiving.

Let's be serious: given a choice between an angry pit bull and an angry springer spaniel, I'd take the spaniel every time, and so would you.

I see where you're coming from, but I honestly don't think you'd be solving the problem by banning just one breed. I know it's been tried in some locations, do you know if there have been fewer dog related injuries there?

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/05/4...ioBans4.05.htm

"Winnipeg animal services chief Tim Dack affirmed to Canadian Press that pit bull attacks in Winnipeg have dropped from a peak of 29 in 1989 to zero in recent years."

I don't know what the numbers are in Western Europe or Asia, where the dogs have been banned for years. I'd say it's worth a try.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Let's be serious: given a choice between an angry pit bull and an angry springer spaniel, I'd take the spaniel every time, and so would you.

Probably - but doesn't change the fact that a spaniel could probably easily kill a 12 year old child if it wanted to. But even the spaniel was an extreme example, of course. Rottweilers, Schäfers, Irish Setters, Labradors, Great danes, Dobermans, Saint Bernards: This is just a tiny portion of the list of dogs that I find equally frightening as the pit bull if they have been raised specifically to be fighters.

Should we ban'em all?

"Winnipeg animal services chief Tim Dack affirmed to Canadian Press that pit bull attacks in Winnipeg have dropped from a peak of 29 in 1989 to zero in recent years."

Of course pit bull attacks have gone to zero - pit bulls are banned there. I'm talking about the total number of dog attacks. You seem to have completely missed my entire point, that if pit bulls are banned, fighting-dog-breeders will just use other breeds.

I'd say it's worth a try.

I just don't agree. It's scapegoating - like banning only McDonalds, because most obese people eat there, but allowing every other junk food chain. Do you think that would reduce obesity?

[vinster]

I'm happy to live Denver, a pit-bull-free city. Hopefully other cities here will follow suit.

They're still making the suburban news though, see - http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...868531,00.html

EDIT: Here's another one from Thurdsday, same city - http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...864886,00.html

"They came with nothing on their minds but killing my dog," Castrodale said reliving the attack. "(Tucker) is a big baby. He thought they were playing." ... Castrodale said he took out a knife and stabbed one of the pit bulls in its side. "It didn't even phase or stop him," said Castrodale.

Hugi, it's not about the people. These dogs need to be regulated IMO.

[:XI:]

My family has owned two border collies. One Aunt owned two english sheep dogs, the other some mutt (you couldn't guess at what breeds he was composed of) and my sister owns a Bull Mastiff. That's six dogs I've known in 26 years. Nothing beyond a nip and barely broken flesh and no visits to the doctors or hospital.

I held a ferret once for less the five minutes. The blood! OH! THE BLOOD! Cue one trip to the doctors to get my face taped up. Bastards.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Probably - but doesn't change the fact that a spaniel could probably easily kill a 12 year old child if it wanted to. But even the spaniel was an extreme example, of course. Rottweilers, Schäfers, Irish Setters, Labradors, Great danes, Dobermans, Saint Bernards: This is just a tiny portion of the list of dogs that I find equally frightening as the pit bull if they have been raised specifically to be fighters.

Should we ban'em all?

Pit bulls still pose a significantly greater threat in an attack. They're more powerful and they fight to the death. Again, that's why drug dealers and dog fighters choose them.

Of course pit bull attacks have gone to zero - pit bulls are banned there. I'm talking about the total number of dog attacks. You seem to have completely missed my entire point, that if pit bulls are banned, fighting-dog-breeders will just use other breeds.

There will always be dog attacks and dog bites. Saying that other breeds bite more often (which I don't even think is true, but it doesn't really matter) is misleading - in a given attack, a pit bull is a deadly threat. That's why they're only 1% of the dog population but are responsible for most of the deaths. That's the problem. If other breeds pose a similar threat, we should ban them too, but that doesn't appear to have happened.

[Cipher13]

Pitbulls are like SUVs. Just because they have the potential to inflict more bodily harm than a mini doesn't necessarily mean they always will. That's up to the driver.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Pitbulls are like SUVs. Just because they have the potential to inflict more bodily harm than a mini doesn't necessarily mean they always will. That's up to the driver.

Pit bulls aren't like SUVs - SUVs aren't independently capable of attacking people when left in the garage.

No one said "they always will," just do often enough to make it a problem. Blaming the owner doesn't solve the problem.

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Pit bulls aren't like SUVs - SUVs aren't independently capable of attacking people when left in the garage.

No one said "they always will," just do often enough to make it a problem. Blaming the owner doesn't solve the problem.

Dogs don't kill people. People with dogs kill people!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In fact the vast majority of dog bites are by small breeds including cocker spainels, and toy breeds like Chihuauas and toy poodles.

Come on now. I, for one, would rather be attacked by a crazed Chihuahua than a Pitbull.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by zigzag

No one said "they always will," just do often enough to make it a problem. Blaming the owner doesn't solve the problem.

No, but neither do knee-jerk "ban the breed" responses. The fact is, this issue still isn't studied well enough: just how much more often is it that pit bulls attack, and how much of the time were these dogs trained specifically for that purpose? I'd imagine that in almost one hundred percent of the attacks, the dog was only doing what it had been trained for. I'd be all for requiring a license to own or handle certain breeds, but to actually ban the breed borders on outright inhuman.

Frankly, something smells very wrong about the mother's testimony. At the very least she's a complete dumbass, but I get the feeling it's worse than that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this is a case of deliberate murder, not accidental death. Such cases have happened before.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by :XI:

Dogs don't kill people. People with dogs kill people!

Over here, the breeds that bite most frequently are Golden and Labrador Retrievers, so looks can definitely be deceiving. The problem is that Pitbulls are strong enough to inflict fatal injuries when they do attack.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Come on now. I, for one, would rather be attacked by a crazed Chihuahua than a Pitbull.

Most people would. Does this make the breed inherently evil, such a monstrous thing that it must be wiped from the face of the planet? Do consider this: when you ban a breed of living animals, you are condemning it to extinction. Are you really prepared to do that?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by tooki

Remember also that most dog bites aren't by pitbulls. Many other breeds are FAR more likely to attack humans.

Most lethal attacks were in fact by pit bulls, and after a number of such cases in Norway the breed was banned. The back yard breeders then turned to the similar (to the extent of being impossible to differentiate) breed Amstaff. And now after another lethal case, that breed too was banned.

We are not talking about dog BITES here (a lot of dogs can bite), we are talking about criminals and dumbasses training big aggressive dogs that can actually KILL people.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, but neither do knee-jerk "ban the breed" responses. The fact is, this issue still isn't studied well enough: just how much more often is it that pit bulls attack, and how much of the time were these dogs trained specifically for that purpose? I'd imagine that in almost one hundred percent of the attacks, the dog was only doing what it had been trained for. I'd be all for requiring a license to own or handle certain breeds, but to actually ban the breed borders on outright inhuman.

Fine, make the regulations so stringent that only professionals would or could own the dogs.

I don't need studies to tell me that an angry pitbull is particularly well-suited to inflict severe bodily harm or death. Read what the doctor said.

The "but they were trained that way" argument misses the point. If we don't regulate or ban them, there will always be people who train them that way. That's because they're particularly good at inflicting damage.

Frankly, something smells very wrong about the mother's testimony. At the very least she's a complete dumbass, but I get the feeling it's worse than that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this is a case of deliberate murder, not accidental death. Such cases have happened before.

I'll assume you're not serious. Are we really going to deflect attention from the risks these dogs pose by suggesting that their attacks on 12 year olds and other children - members of the household - might be murders?

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I'll assume you're not serious. Are we really going to deflect attention from the risks these dogs pose by suggesting that their attacks on 12 year olds and other children - members of the household - might be murders?

Why not? I don't know if this as much a deflection as a reflection - did the kid get killed because the dogs should have been banned or because the mother was negligent? I think both paths need to be considered. Just because the other path takes away from the focus of your crusade doesn't mean discussing the other parts of the story are somehow illegitimate or invalid.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Why not? I don't know if this as much a deflection as a reflection - did the kid get killed because the dogs should have been banned or because the mother was negligent? I think both paths need to be considered. Just because the other path takes away from the focus of your crusade doesn't mean discussing the other parts of the story are somehow illegitimate or invalid.

Why not? Because it's patently ridiculous to suggest that the mother deliberately murdered her 12 year old son (he didn't say negligent - he said deliberately murdered) by leaving him at home with the family pets. I mean, really.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGKUD46S61.DTL

Negligent? Well, of course she was negligent. But as I keep saying, there will always be negligent owners. The sensible thing to do would be to deprive ordinary people, who are always negligent, of the privilege of owning animals that are considerably more dangerous than other animals. We already do this; pit bulls just happen to be dogs.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Pit bulls still pose a significantly greater threat in an attack. They're more powerful and they fight to the death. Again, that's why drug dealers and dog fighters choose them.

Misinformation there.

Here, pit bulls are bought by drug dealers as status symbols. The toughness they train them for is because they want to appear tough. It's all show.

Dog fighters choose them because pit bulls were bred to ignore pain and not let go -- two traits necessary to subdue rampaging bulls. But to get them to be aggressive towards humans takes tremendous effort, to overcome the breed's instinctive docility towards humans.



I think a perfectly suitable compromise would be for pit bull owners to have to register the dogs, and have them take and pass (at their own cost) a comprehensive temperament exam, upon which it would receive its collar tag.

I also believe that the penalties for dog fighting need to be substantially increased.

tooki

[kmkkid]

If pitbulls arnt inherently dangerous, tell me why several people in my town have been attacked by them and also explain to me why they are now banned in my city?



Chris

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Do consider this: when you ban a breed of living animals, you are condemning it to extinction. Are you really prepared to do that?

In this particular case: Absolutely and without hesitation.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by tooki

Misinformation there.

Here, pit bulls are bought by drug dealers as status symbols. The toughness they train them for is because they want to appear tough. It's all show.

Dog fighters choose them because pit bulls were bred to ignore pain and not let go -- two traits necessary to subdue rampaging bulls. But to get them to be aggressive towards humans takes tremendous effort, to overcome the breed's instinctive docility towards humans.

All of which is very nice but doesn't address the fact that they are, in fact, responsible for most of the fatalities, despite being a very small percentage of the dog population. Whether they're bought for show or not, they have a unique ability to inflict damage.

I think a perfectly suitable compromise would be for pit bull owners to have to register the dogs, and have them take and pass (at their own cost) a comprehensive temperament exam, upon which it would receive its collar tag.

I also believe that the penalties for dog fighting need to be substantially increased.

tooki

That would be a reasonable improvement but personally, I would just as soon ban them or restrict ownership to professionals. I don't want to have to figure out whether the pit bull that's heading towards me is friend or foe, or has the appropriate registration, nor do I want more public resources devoted to regulating them.

At least you're willing to concede that there's a problem that needs to be addressed in some fashion, if not by a ban.

People might think I blame the dogs. I don't - they're just being dogs, and I love dogs. But dogs and people don't always mix well, and I would err on the side of public safety.

[Superchicken]

The woman should get jail time. This was negligent at best. Sounds to me as if she shouldn't be raising anything. If my mother had told me as a kid your dog is behaving badly I think you should just stay out of it's way in the basement while I'm gone. I would have listened... probably. By the sounds of it she didn't know how to raise her son, and she didn't know how to raise her dogs.

[Albert Pujols]

http://www.ukcpitbull.com/flash/pitflashfinal2.swf

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

http://www.ukcpitbull.com/flash/pitflashfinal2.swf

To bad they chose to use such a poor sound track...

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

The real issue here is that gays are the ones that would make bad parents

[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

The real issue here is that gays are the ones that would make bad parents

Well that's obvious! Gays also shouldn't be allowed to have pitbulls... or sex...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zigzag

The rewards of allowing people to own this particular breed for their personal amusement don't justify the risks -

what is it about that statement that turns my blood cold?