HitsRus;1743703 wrote:But reputable animal experts insist that the dogs are not inherantly killers, just like people of "bad breeding" are not inherantly bad people. Are you suggesting that we kill people who are the products of rapists, murders, mentally challenged....or we should ban them. What kind of a monster are you?

gosh a ruddies I not am the kind of person who equate humans with animals. Not the kind of person who applies breeding concepts to humans as you and the Nazis do. I do not accept the preachments of self serving and self labeled experts who apply their own biases rather than primary source accounts of pits killing humans.

Sorry bud.... Humans are animals in every scientific sense, not that far removed from other mammals. You are suggesting that breeding ultimately determines one's behavior over everything else. Hence your argument that pit bulls need to be removed from society because of past breeding means that the offspring of murderers, rapists, thieves, should also be removed from society. I think you and I both know that is incorrect as do animal behavioralists.
pit bulls are not inherently "killers"... They may kill more than other dogs, but that's because they are popular and people are training them to be vicious on purpose. You could take away pits, and people would do the same with dobermans or shepards or Akitas.

As opposed to you and PETA, I consider humans a higher life form than animals. Because of their developing intellect they are much more effected by environment than animals. It is one reason why we should make sure our children grow in a nurturing environment. We domesticated and breed certain animals for specific purposes. Pits were breed to kill. You list these other dogs that you claim will replace pits. Those breeds have been around along time in large numbers. They have recorded kills, but not close to pits when they became popular. I have never claimed Pits are more aggressive than other dogs. They probably are not, what they are, is better at killing which they were breed to do.

Enviroment and "nurturing" affect animals the same way as humans.
The fact that you have more dog deaths is a reflection on society, in that more ordinary people are buying and training dogs for protection.

those that want an intimidating dog, pick a pit because it is breed to kill. others that select a pits are just fools.

I hope everyone goes to their local pit shelter and donates money. I will donate $10 for every post in this thread and $20 for every isadore post.

Currently $1,220 because of isadore and $940 for everyone else. Thanks isadore!

Bump

sleeper;1743971 wrote:I hope everyone goes to their local pit shelter and donates money. I will donate $10 for every post in this thread and $20 for every isadore post.

Currently $1,220 because of isadore and $940 for everyone else. Thanks isadore!

gosh a ruddies, you are welcome.

https://www.thedodo.com/pit-bull-breed-discrimination-826972739.html#pit-bull-breed-discrimination-826972739.html

pit bull bans are on the way out as scientific evidence acculminates that THEY DON"T WORK.

gosh a ruddies that is the most idiotic set of statements, all measuring the wrong thing, They argue about the number of attacks and dog bites. That has never been the problem with Pit Bulls. They do not bite more than other dogs, they kill more. Their attacks are much more likely to be deadly than any other type of dog and that is the reason for the limit. Garter snakes bite often, so what, many poisonous snakes don't. It is the deadly snakes or dogs that should not be around humans.

More recently, in August 2013, the Obama administration echoed the CDC’s findings: "We don't support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.

Yeah, that Obama....what *********

gosh a ruddies the politically correct position opposing a ban, will cost people's lives. The pit was created and bred to kill.

Funny... Bam wants to ban guns and not pit bulls. Stupid sh**, how are you gonna keep them from chewing off your leg if you can't shoot 'em'.
...And he wants us to trust him on this Iran deal...

gosh a ruddies in this world we are unlikely to agree with others on every issue and at time we find ourselves with strange allies. I might possibly agree with Ted Cruz on an issue. Mr. Obama is right about the Iran deal, he is right about gun regulation (he does not want to ban guns) but he is wrong about pits, in my opinion.

Mr. Obama is right about the Iran deal, he is right about gun regulation (he does not want to ban guns) but he is wrong about pits,

he doesn't want to ban guns????...somebody should tell the WH staff!...especially the VP!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/assault-weapons-ban_n_2919544.html

Now let me get this straight.... you think he's right on the Iran deal giving $150 billion to regime that shouts "death to America!" and pledges to wipe Israel off the map...allowing the development of a nuclear weapon in 10 years.....something that could kill millions, to a group who already have killed thousands. But you think he's wrong on not banning a scientifically proven non aggressive dog?

HitsRus;1744843 wrote:he doesn't want to ban guns????...somebody should tell the WH staff!...especially the VP!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/assault-weapons-ban_n_2919544.html

Now let me get this straight.... you think he's right on the Iran deal giving $150 billion to regime that shouts "death to America!" and pledges to wipe Israel off the map...allowing the development of a nuclear weapon in 10 years.....something that could kill millions, to a group who already have killed thousands. But you think he's wrong on not banning a scientifically proven non aggressive dog?

gosh a ruddies how tricky of you, making it seem from your statement, Obama wants to ban all guns, but then limiting the type of dog we are talking about to a "proven non aggressive dog." That sir is disingenuous. In fact it is only assault weapons that are they wish to ban not all guns. And my position is rather consistent, banning a type of deadly gun and the deadliest of dogs.
The Iran deal stops them from building a bomb for ten years, and in no way guarantees they will get a bomb afterward. We dealt with the Soviet Union, as much our committed enemy and infinitely more powerful than Iran. The sanction system will break down if we reject this agreement. And we will be left with two options, let them have a bomb or go to war.

The Iran deal stops them from building a bomb for ten years, and in no way guarantees they will get a bomb afterward

The first part of the statement assumes that they comply....did Saadam comply with the No fly zone? ....did the Norks comply?

The part of that statement in bold is so naive, it is beyond laughable to point of being almost pathetic.

Pit bulls kill more than other dogs because alot of people own pit bulls and they train them to be guard dogs....you want to ban them despite the overwhelming evidence from animal experts and scientific studies by the CDC that it is pointless to do so. But you'll accept dealing with people who are exponentially more dangerous, not only in temperment and attitude toward the United States, but with nuclear bomb development.

HitsRus;1744942 wrote:The first part of the statement assumes that they comply....did Saadam comply with the No fly zone? ....did the Norks comply?

The part of that statement in bold is so naive, it is beyond laughable to point of being almost pathetic.

Pit bulls kill more than other dogs because alot of people own pit bulls and they train them to be guard dogs....you want to ban them despite the overwhelming evidence from animal experts and scientific studies by the CDC that it is pointless to do so. But you'll accept dealing with people who are exponentially more dangerous, not only in temperment and attitude toward the United States, but with nuclear bomb development.

Gosh a ruddies, obviously you would prefer US troops in the Iran or Iran with a bomb. This treaty provides a way to prevent those possibilities. Reject that treaty and the sanction regime that has been established will collapse as Russia, China and other nations rush to trade with the Iranians. Iran will move to produce a bomb and then our options are to accept it or attack. Now with an agreement, if Iran begins to violate, the sanctions can be reestablished. <o></o>
You know that pit bulls are not the most popular type of guard dog in the US. German Shepherds for example are more used. Pit kill many times more people than Shepherds. They were created and bred not to guard but to kill.<o></o>

US troops in the Iran or Iran with a bomb. This treaty provides a way to prevent those possibilities

you buy that? It is as least equally as likely it will trigger an arms race and upset the power balance in the region, especially since we are seen as weak and spineless.

Getting back to dogs, I see that you really don't understand breeds very well .... shepherds are the most popular single breed 'guard dog' in the United States. But pit bulls are not a recognized AKC breed in the US because what is known as a pit bull is any one of 4 different breeds and/or combinations of those breeds as well as others. It is estimated that pit bull type dogs number between 5 and 8 million in the US....whereas the single breed of German shepherds between 750,000 to 1 million. Now apply those statistics to dog bite fatalities, read how experts classify their temperments and you'll soon understand why "pit bull bans" are about media hype, and have no substance.

Gosh a ruddies, no it is not equally as likely. The world wants an agreement. The sanction system will not survive a rejection of the negotiated settlement. A collapse of that settlement will trigger an arms race as Iran build a bomb and others in the region follow. Or there is another far bloodier war in the region with American troops having to bear the brunt of the fighting with few reliable allies.<o></o>
Gosh a ruddies your numbers are a little questionable. You have 4 breeds combined v the German shepherds. And their numbers equal 5-8 million while German shepherd are only a million. Gosh a ruddies the German Shepherd is the second most popular breed. And these 4 breeds who far down the list of most popular individually are 5 to 8 times more common? But you know what even if we take you numbers, the Pits kill at a much higher per capita rate than German Shepherds.

Wrong.
http://m.pitbull-info-and-training.com/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dpit%2Bbull%2Bbreeds%26a%3Dresults%26MID%3D2500&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitbull-info-and-training.com%2Fpit-bull-breeds.html

HitsRus;1745016 wrote:Wrong.
http://m.pitbull-info-and-training.com/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dpit%2Bbull%2Bbreeds%26a%3Drespeults%26MID%3D2500&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitbull-info-and-training.com%2Fpit-bull-breeds.html

now that is pathetic as a source, gosh a ruddies when deaths by killer dogs are listed boxers, presa canario, English bull and American bull dogs are all listed separately in the list of dog fatalities from pit bulls. and pits still are the leading killers by far.

... And your sources?
i've already put up the CDC , the AVA, testimony from animal experts.

http://www.akc.org/news/the-most-popular-dog-breeds-in-america/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

gosh a ruddies all those numbers of pit bulls and German Shepherd used in 168# has no citation

Just thought you like to see some history since you seem to be ignorant. You can see that pit bulls were a non factor until the turn of the century when they became popular and more numerous, partly because people began calling certain breeds and mixes "pit bulls". It is the reason dogs called "pit bulls" are blamed in fatal dog bite statistics.