Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
May 31, 2012 9:41am
lol again no comparison. There is no law and it's not criminal to own a breed of dog and raise them the right way.isadore;1185719 wrote:many acts have become criminal once people understood the threat. In this south carolina case parents were charged with neglect for having venomous snakes in their home.
http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/apr/26/7/greenville-county-man-charged-keeping-venomous-sna-ar-3681380/
hopefully they will be doing the same with parents who bring pit bulls into their homes.
You're a delusional loser.
rmolin73
Posts: 4,278
May 31, 2012 9:44am
Then come and perfom a citizens arrest. My pitbull will lick you to death while my wifes shitzu tries to tear your ass up.isadore;1185695 wrote:not as bad as I feel for yours, no one ever died from bad sentence structure. Bringing children around pit bulls is criminal neglect.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 31, 2012 9:47am
Neglect certainly can be a crime. In the case you listed there were additional circumstances which led to such neglect. Is bringing a pit-bull or snake into the house a crime on it's own? I think those types of laws are regional. Are they not?isadore;1185719 wrote:many acts have become criminal once people understood the threat. In this south carolina case parents were charged with neglect for having venomous snakes in their home.
http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/apr/26/7/greenville-county-man-charged-keeping-venomous-sna-ar-3681380/
hopefully they will be doing the same with parents who bring pit bulls into their homes.
A generalized statement such as, "bringing either animal into a household is criminal" just doesn't seem to be accurate.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 9:48am
I am sure that is what those people said aboout their snakes. bringing a type of dog that has a proclivity for killing children is worse than neglect, it is depraved indifference.Raw Dawgin' it;1185736 wrote:lol again no comparison. There is no law and it's not criminal to own a breed of dog and raise them the right way.
You're a delusional loser.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 9:50am
anyone who would, would be doing a great kindness to the infirm, young or aged in your home.rmolin73;1185739 wrote:Then come and perfom a citizens arrest. My pitbull will lick you to death while my wifes ****zu tries to tear your ass up.
rmolin73
Posts: 4,278
May 31, 2012 9:53am
Negative, keep failing its hilarious.isadore;1185749 wrote:anyone who would, would be doing a great kindness to the infirm, young or aged in your home.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 9:53am
if it isn't against the law it should be. they are at least expected to keep the snakes in the proper holding containers, they folks let killer dogs roam through their homes.Con_Alma;1185743 wrote:Neglect certainly can be a crime. In the case you listed there were additional circumstances which led to such neglect. Is bringing a pit-bull or snake into the house a crime on it's own? I think those types of laws are regional. Are they not?
A generalized statement such as, "bringing either animal into a household is criminal" just doesn't seem to be accurate.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
May 31, 2012 9:54am
Ahhh, so it was opinion. I get it now. Thanks.isadore;1185757 wrote:if it isn't against the law it should be. they are at least expected to keep the snakes in the proper holding containers, they folks let killer dogs roam through their homes.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
May 31, 2012 9:56am
His whole "argument" is based on opinion with a smattering of isolated attacks shown from story links.Con_Alma;1185758 wrote:Ahhh, so it was opinion. I get it now. Thanks.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 9:58am
failing nothing, just showing the kind of people who defend these killer dogs and find thisrmolin73;1185753 wrote:Negative, keep failing its hilarious.
hilarious.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 10:00am
proven fact they are the number type of dog for killing peopleBR1986FB;1185761 wrote:His whole "argument" is based on opinion with a smattering of isolated attacks shown from story links.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
May 31, 2012 10:11am
There are many types of isolated accidents that kids can die from. A child is much more likely to drown in his/her home than the child is to be killed by a dog. Should we eliminate liquids in a home because that would eliminate any chance of a child drowning. Water is much more likely to cause drowning than any other liquid, therefore we should ban water from every home in the best interest of children.isadore;1185769 wrote:proven fact they are the number type of dog for killing people
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
May 31, 2012 10:15am
Waits for Isadore to quote you, post the picture of the kid with the mangled face with the caption "water never did this to a child" in 3....2.....1.....Al Bundy;1185782 wrote:There are many types of isolated accidents that kids can die from. A child is much more likely to drown in his/her home than the child is to be killed by a dog. Should we eliminate liquids in a home because that would eliminate any chance of a child drowning. Water is much more likely to cause drowning than any other liquid, therefore we should ban water from every home in the best interest of children.
rmolin73
Posts: 4,278
May 31, 2012 10:18am
According to.isadores logic we should all avoid these.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 10:23am
gosh a ruddies it would of course be difficult to eliminate water from your home because it is a necessity of life. Pit Bulls are not. In fact their are untold possible substitutes for a Pit Bull, a type dog that kills more humans than any other. Gosh there are innumberable types of dogs that have no record of killing humans. Why should people bring these killers into their homes when there are so many safer alternatives, it is depraved indifference to do it.Al Bundy;1185782 wrote:There are many types of isolated accidents that kids can die from. A child is much more likely to drown in his/her home than the child is to be killed by a dog. Should we eliminate liquids in a home because that would eliminate any chance of a child drowning. Water is much more likely to cause drowning than any other liquid, therefore we should ban water from every home in the best interest of children.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 10:25am
as already has been stated there are so many safer alternatives to pit bulls that provide very similar set of services without anywhere near the danger.rmolin73;1185789 wrote:According to.isadores logic we should all avoid these.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
May 31, 2012 10:27am
That is a very bad comparison. Water is present in EVERY home. Water cannot kill a human without a human causing it.Al Bundy;1185782 wrote:There are many types of isolated accidents that kids can die from. A child is much more likely to drown in his/her home than the child is to be killed by a dog. Should we eliminate liquids in a home because that would eliminate any chance of a child drowning. Water is much more likely to cause drowning than any other liquid, therefore we should ban water from every home in the best interest of children.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
May 31, 2012 10:29am
Again, bad comparison. A good comparison would be that if car make A was statistically involved in significantly more fatal crashes than car make B. Car A would be considered more dangerous than Car B.rmolin73;1185789 wrote:According to.isadores logic we should all avoid these.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
May 31, 2012 10:29am
Just like a dog isn't likely going to kill someone without provocation.WebFire;1185799 wrote:That is a very bad comparison. Water is present in EVERY home. Water cannot kill a human without a human causing it.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
May 31, 2012 10:30am
Generally true. But they can. And have. You cannot use inanimate objects in any comparison to dogs.BR1986FB;1185803 wrote:Just like a dog isn't likely going to kill someone without provocation.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 10:32am
obviously you havent read the thread an seen example after example of pits attacking without provocation. talk about blame the victim. according to you it was that little girls fault.BR1986FB;1185803 wrote:Just like a dog isn't likely going to kill someone without provocation.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
May 31, 2012 10:34am
i hope it was your kid - stfu alreadyisadore;1185807 wrote:obviously you havent read the thread an seen example after example of pits attacking without provocation. talk about blame the victim. according to you it was that little girls fault.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 10:41am
I will continue to write the truth.Raw Dawgin' it;1185808 wrote:i hope it was your kid - stfu already
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
May 31, 2012 10:44am
can't continue something you haven't even started.isadore;1185813 wrote:I will continue to write the truth.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
May 31, 2012 11:03am
I am sorry for you, you can not recognize the truth. Rethink your priorities.Raw Dawgin' it;1185815 wrote:can't continue something you haven't even started.