• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should pit bulls be banned?

Should pit bulls be banned?


  • Total voters
    52
I understand your point, but the pit bull mix next to me mauled a 12 year old girl, first bite in 8 years for that dog.

And, again, there are 'irresponsible' owners of all breeds of dogs, but somehow pits top the list of deadly attacks. They are bred to fight and kill. And there are 100s of dog breed choices. I guess I'm not sure why we should allow anyone with a pulse and who can afford dog food to own a breed that is so inherently dangerous and that has been genetically engineered to be dangerous.

Finally, I can't find the stats, but deaths are only part of the story. There are thousands of maimed people, like my neighbor girl, who had three surgeries to repair her calf from a pit bull attack.

The stats are very easy to find.

2014 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities - Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org

No, pits are not all bred to "fight and kill". Most are not bred to do either one.
 

But I referred to non-fatal injuries, and you pointed me to a page about deaths. The point was my neighbor doesn't show up in your death stats, but the three surgeries from a "sweet" pit bull mix are a big part of the problem.

No, pits are not all bred to "fight and kill". Most are not bred to do either one.

Sure they are - like labs have been bred to retrieve. It's in the gene pool.
 
If brought up correctly and not put in a position where it needs to defend itself, a pit bull will not cause harm to people. I had a pitbull for 8 years and it was the sweetest dog i have ever had to be completely honest.

Did you read posts 62 and 68? This dog was brought up correctly and had been trained professionaly. Yet, the pitbull was still extremely aggressive in common, everyday situations. I am sure there a few inherently docile pitbulls, and there are also some pitbulls that can trained and managed.

There are evidently also many that cannot be managed by expereinced or even professional owners, much less a total amateur simply looking for a "bad ass" status symbol.
 
No, pits are not all bred to "fight and kill". Most are not bred to do either one.

True, most are currently not bred to "fight and kill". This does not change the fact that they have many generations of selective breeding to bring out those characteristics.
 
But I referred to non-fatal injuries, and you pointed me to a page about deaths. The point was my neighbor doesn't show up in your death stats, but the three surgeries from a "sweet" pit bull mix are a big part of the problem.



Sure they are - like labs have been bred to retrieve. It's in the gene pool.

Your neighbor could have been attacked by any kind of dog. I know people who had stitches because of bites from Basset Hounds, Jack Russells, Labs, Cocker Spaniels, Greyhounds, and so on. That isn't a reason to ban any of them. I've known pits for decades and never knew one who was aggressive.

No, most pits are not bred to fight and kill. That is a fact. There are some who are owned by trash in the inner cities and trailer parks. Those are bred for dog fighting. Most pits are not bred to be fighters and will never be in a position to fight or feel a desire to fight. Being in their "gene pool" isn't relevant. You need to do some research before making false claims.
 
If brought up correctly and not put in a position where it needs to defend itself, a pit bull will not cause harm to people. I had a pitbull for 8 years and it was the sweetest dog i have ever had to be completely honest.


Well apparently bringing up a pit bull properly is a lot harder than bringing up a lab or a collie properly. Labs and lab-mixes are everywhere and have owners ranging from Ceasar Milan-esque to utterly neglectful, yet they don't come near to the stats for pits and rotts maiming, mauling or killing people.



And what some dogs consider "a position where they need to defend their self" really isn't. Dogs can develop fear based, territorial or predatory habits where they may bite when there is no reason, and since these habits are not usually directed at the dog's owner he may not notice until too late.
 
My youngest niece currently has a brindle-striped pit bull. He was a rescue dog but they got him as a puppy, he was quite young. She's spent a lot of time with him, training him and socializing him, and she does well at keeping him under control.


The problem is he DOES have to be kept under control. He's hyper and nervous, and small things can set him off into a paranoia of barking and threat display. She's not a big gal and has to use a control collar or she can't keep him from charging.


Small children apparently scare the crap out of him and he has tried to attack several. Basically he has to be kept leashed when small children are present, because even the few he's gotten used to (my middle niece's kids for instance) can set him off if they move too fast or yell or something. He's lunged at them more than once, and it is to the point that their mother tries to avoid having them around her cousin's dog as much as possible.


He's bad about attacking other dogs without provocation also.


Like most pits he is monstrously strong and has powerful jaws... IF he ever really decides to maul someone they are in for a bad day, and he's already demonstrated that it is a possibility.


I don't like it and frankly I wish she's get rid of that dog, but she's attached to him, so we deal with it.
 
Your neighbor could have been attacked by any kind of dog. I know people who had stitches because of bites from Basset Hounds, Jack Russells, Labs, Cocker Spaniels, Greyhounds, and so on. That isn't a reason to ban any of them. I've known pits for decades and never knew one who was aggressive.

Could have been, but pits are responsible for a way disproportionate share of serious maulings and deaths. But I'll admit to being biased by my two close interactions - one with a Rottweiler, and another with a pit mix. The eery and really troubling thing about both attacks was how calm the dogs were afterwards. It was like they did a job, were done with it, and now could go lay down. But the "job" was a serious attack, one on a human and dog, the other on a dog that didn't do anything at all to provoke it and had lived next door to it for YEARS. Very troubling up close, and it definitely affects my perception of the two breeds. I've never seen or been attacked by any other breeds, either. Lots of dogs nearby with huge barks, but they're chickens, bored. Been bit by several small dogs - it's an annoyance.

No, most pits are not bred to fight and kill. That is a fact. There are some who are owned by trash in the inner cities and trailer parks. Those are bred for dog fighting
Most pits are not bred to be fighters and will never be in a position to fight or feel a desire to fight. Being in their "gene pool" isn't relevant. You need to do some research before making false claims.

Yes, their genetic history is relevant. Most labs aren't "bred" to retrieve anymore - not much duck hunting going on in the nearby suburbs - but many generations of selective breeding nearly guarantee that a lab doesn't need to be taught to retrieve, unlike my two mutts who when you throw a ball look at me with amusement - as in "Yeah, good throw! Now what???"

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I approve of the local shelter putting them down because I don't want idiots in charge of raising pit bulls. If you want to foster them, I commend you, but given the opportunity I'd vote to require owning them carry with it proof of the ability to manage a dog that has a long history of deadly attacks and serious maimings, of family members, their owners, and innocent bystanders. I wouldn't allow any child I was responsible for anywhere near a pit bull not chained or fenced.
 
My youngest niece currently has a brindle-striped pit bull. He was a rescue dog but they got him as a puppy, he was quite young. She's spent a lot of time with him, training him and socializing him, and she does well at keeping him under control.

The problem is he DOES have to be kept under control. He's hyper and nervous, and small things can set him off into a paranoia of barking and threat display. She's not a big gal and has to use a control collar or she can't keep him from charging.

Small children apparently scare the crap out of him and he has tried to attack several. Basically he has to be kept leashed when small children are present, because even the few he's gotten used to (my middle niece's kids for instance) can set him off if they move too fast or yell or something. He's lunged at them more than once, and it is to the point that their mother tries to avoid having them around her cousin's dog as much as possible.

He's bad about attacking other dogs without provocation also.

Like most pits he is monstrously strong and has powerful jaws... IF he ever really decides to maul someone they are in for a bad day, and he's already demonstrated that it is a possibility.

I don't like it and frankly I wish she's get rid of that dog, but she's attached to him, so we deal with it.

That story is a perfect illustration of why I voted to ban the breed. I've just never heard similar stories about labs or golden retrievers or poodles or schnauzers or most mixed breeds. Having to worry even one second about a deadly attack is one second too many in my view.
 
My youngest niece currently has a brindle-striped pit bull. He was a rescue dog but they got him as a puppy, he was quite young. She's spent a lot of time with him, training him and socializing him, and she does well at keeping him under control.


The problem is he DOES have to be kept under control. He's hyper and nervous, and small things can set him off into a paranoia of barking and threat display. She's not a big gal and has to use a control collar or she can't keep him from charging.


Small children apparently scare the crap out of him and he has tried to attack several. Basically he has to be kept leashed when small children are present, because even the few he's gotten used to (my middle niece's kids for instance) can set him off if they move too fast or yell or something. He's lunged at them more than once, and it is to the point that their mother tries to avoid having them around her cousin's dog as much as possible.


He's bad about attacking other dogs without provocation also.


Like most pits he is monstrously strong and has powerful jaws... IF he ever really decides to maul someone they are in for a bad day, and he's already demonstrated that it is a possibility.


I don't like it and frankly I wish she's get rid of that dog, but she's attached to him, so we deal with it.

I would never let my kids around that dog... ever.
 
If brought up correctly and not put in a position where it needs to defend itself, a pit bull will not cause harm to people. I had a pitbull for 8 years and it was the sweetest dog i have ever had to be completely honest.
That's great. It really is. Doesn't counter the fact that they have proven to be far more unpredictable than pretty much every other breed, though.
 
That's great. It really is. Doesn't counter the fact that they have proven to be far more unpredictable than pretty much every other breed, though.



Apparently you need a PhD in Dogology to bring a pit bull up right, since I've seen many that were well-raised and still kind of problematic.
 
My youngest niece currently has a brindle-striped pit bull. He was a rescue dog but they got him as a puppy, he was quite young. She's spent a lot of time with him, training him and socializing him, and she does well at keeping him under control.


The problem is he DOES have to be kept under control. He's hyper and nervous, and small things can set him off into a paranoia of barking and threat display. She's not a big gal and has to use a control collar or she can't keep him from charging.


Small children apparently scare the crap out of him and he has tried to attack several. Basically he has to be kept leashed when small children are present, because even the few he's gotten used to (my middle niece's kids for instance) can set him off if they move too fast or yell or something. He's lunged at them more than once, and it is to the point that their mother tries to avoid having them around her cousin's dog as much as possible.


He's bad about attacking other dogs without provocation also.


Like most pits he is monstrously strong and has powerful jaws... IF he ever really decides to maul someone they are in for a bad day, and he's already demonstrated that it is a possibility.


I don't like it and frankly I wish she's get rid of that dog, but she's attached to him, so we deal with it.

Your entire post is what supports the "bad owner" problem. You say she can't control the dog, you say the dog is lunging at small children and he has tried to "attack several" small children, yet your niece insists in keeping the dog who is obviously not in the right environment. Not all dogs can be around children - and that isn't limited to pit bulls. But you will "deal with it" until one of these attacks you say this dog makes results in a tragedy, and you will blame the dog for it.

Regarding these attacks on small children, did anyone report this to the authorities, by the way? Because it's illegal to have a dangerous dog who is knowingly attacking children. And has she taken the dog to a behaviorist? What is your niece's expertise in dog handling specifically?
 
Your entire post is what supports the "bad owner" problem. You say she can't control the dog, you say the dog is lunging at small children and he has tried to "attack several" small children, yet your niece insists in keeping the dog who is obviously not in the right environment. Not all dogs can be around children - and that isn't limited to pit bulls. But you will "deal with it" until one of these attacks you say this dog makes results in a tragedy, and you will blame the dog for it.

Regarding these attacks on small children, did anyone report this to the authorities, by the way? Because it's illegal to have a dangerous dog who is knowingly attacking children. And has she taken the dog to a behaviorist? What is your niece's expertise in dog handling specifically?


I would agree with that. We adopted a cocker from a older woman ( it was so sad the old lady had to go live with her son and he wouldn't let her keep her dog :( ) and she was a very good dog but after we had our daughter it starte to show that the dog just could not get along with children. She seemed almost jealous of her and ending up biting me. As hard as it was we ended up having to give her to away to an environment that suited her best.
 
Well apparently bringing up a pit bull properly is a lot harder than bringing up a lab or a collie properly. Labs and lab-mixes are everywhere and have owners ranging from Ceasar Milan-esque to utterly neglectful, yet they don't come near to the stats for pits and rotts maiming, mauling or killing people.

That is because pits and rotts can do more damage when they attack. Labs and collies attack too, its just when they do, the person walks away in most cases.
 
That is because pits and rotts can do more damage when they attack. Labs and collies attack too, its just when they do, the person walks away in most cases.
Yes, labs and collies can attack... and some have done so... but it takes a great deal more to get them to that point, the numbers are far less than pits and rotts, and the damage is usually far less than pits and rotts. People who use their individual anecdotes to keep a blind eye to this are simply willfully head-in-the-sand naive.
 
Your entire post is what supports the "bad owner" problem. You say she can't control the dog, you say the dog is lunging at small children and he has tried to "attack several" small children, yet your niece insists in keeping the dog who is obviously not in the right environment. Not all dogs can be around children - and that isn't limited to pit bulls. But you will "deal with it" until one of these attacks you say this dog makes results in a tragedy, and you will blame the dog for it.

Regarding these attacks on small children, did anyone report this to the authorities, by the way? Because it's illegal to have a dangerous dog who is knowingly attacking children. And has she taken the dog to a behaviorist? What is your niece's expertise in dog handling specifically?



See, this is part of the problem.

No, my youngest niece is not a dog trainer or other canine expert. She grew up around dogs; she knows what most people know, which is to say not much.

If she owned a Scotty or a Collie or a Lab this probably wouldn't be an issue. They're typically a lot more manageable.

But it is a Pit so you're talking as if she's supposed to be The Dog Whisperer or else it is all her fault.

Take the dog to a behaviorist? Oh yeah, no problem she's just rolling in money and could easily blow a few hundred on a dog shrink... um NOT.


I've suggested that a new home be found for the dog. She wants to keep him. She does not live in my household, I cannot order her to do so.

No I haven't reported the dog's behavior to the authorities. Tell me do you get on with your family? Well I have this thing about wanting to get along with mine. My middle and oldest nieces (who are the only ones with small children) have been warned about the dog. That's as far as I'm going at this point. No one has been injured so far, and I'm hoping it stays that way, but my control over this situation is highly limited.


My youngest niece is not a "bad dog owner". She's an AVERAGE dog owner. Average dog owners should not own Pits or Rotts. JMO, but my opinion has already been heard and rejected.
 
That is because pits and rotts can do more damage when they attack. Labs and collies attack too, its just when they do, the person walks away in most cases.



Yessir, and that is why Pits and Rotts are more of a problem than labs and collies. That, plus the way so many owners either deliberately make them vicious, or don't keep them under control.
 
See, this is part of the problem.

No, my youngest niece is not a dog trainer or other canine expert. She grew up around dogs; she knows what most people know, which is to say not much.

If she owned a Scotty or a Collie or a Lab this probably wouldn't be an issue. They're typically a lot more manageable.

But it is a Pit so you're talking as if she's supposed to be The Dog Whisperer or else it is all her fault.

Take the dog to a behaviorist? Oh yeah, no problem she's just rolling in money and could easily blow a few hundred on a dog shrink... um NOT.


I've suggested that a new home be found for the dog. She wants to keep him. She does not live in my household, I cannot order her to do so.

No I haven't reported the dog's behavior to the authorities. Tell me do you get on with your family? Well I have this thing about wanting to get along with mine. My middle and oldest nieces (who are the only ones with small children) have been warned about the dog. That's as far as I'm going at this point. No one has been injured so far, and I'm hoping it stays that way, but my control over this situation is highly limited.


My youngest niece is not a "bad dog owner". She's an AVERAGE dog owner. Average dog owners should not own Pits or Rotts. JMO, but my opinion has already been heard and rejected.

You completely missed the point. Yes, your niece is a bad dog owner. She has no business having a dog she can't control around children, who according to you are being attacked by this dog. She wants to keep him. So? She shouldn't keep him. And when something happens, you will come on here and say that it's the dog's fault. Now you're saying the dog never injured anyone, which is not the case if the dog is actually attacking. You're contradicting yourself.

The dog is not the right fit. The dog belongs with someone who knows how to handle the dog and not let the dog attack children. If she can not control the dog, and the dog attacks children, and she has done nothing about it, she's irresponsible. The dog needs to be rehomed with someone else. It isn't the dog's fault that's he around children and according to you, he doesn't want to be around children. My husband and I had to rehome an Alaskan Malamute who we had since our college days because the dog was stressed by our children, and once went after my oldest son when he was a toddler and toddler near the dog. That's what responsible dog owners do, for the sake of themselves, others, and the dog.

Not all dogs adore children, and this one clearly doesn't. The dog needs to be rehomed, and if she choses not to do it and get a dog that is more suited to her physical abilities and her lifestyle, then yes, she is a bad dog owner.
 
Last edited:
You completely missed the point. Yes, your niece is a bad dog owner. She has no business having a dog she can't control around children, who according to you are being attacked by this dog. She wants to keep him. So? She shouldn't keep him. And when something happens, you will come on here and say that it's the dog's fault. Now you're saying the dog never injured anyone, which is not the case if the dog is actually attacking. You're contradicting yourself.

The dog is not the right fit. The dog belongs with someone who knows how to handle the dog and not let the dog attack children. If she can not control the dog, and the dog attacks children, and she has done nothing about it, she's irresponsible. The dog needs to be rehomed with someone else. It isn't the dog's fault that's he around children and according to you, he doesn't want to be around children. My husband and I had to rehome an Alaskan Malamute who we had since our college days because the dog was stressed by our children, and once went after my oldest son when he was a toddler and toddler near the dog. That's what responsible dog owners do, for the sake of themselves, others, and the dog.

Not all dogs adore children, and this one clearly doesn't. The dog needs to be rehomed, and if she choses not to do it and get a dog that is more suited to her physical abilities and her lifestyle, then yes, she is a bad dog owner.


Look, Mrs Borrachos... damn where do I begin.


I say "attacked" and you say I am contradicting myself when I say no one has been injured. Very well, perhaps I should have more accurately said "the dog has lunged towards children in an aggressive manner that appeared to be an attempt to attack, but was prevented from completing same by being on a leash with a control collar."


In that sense, I suppose my youngest niece has indeed kept him under control.... as far as what he's DONE, but not his behavior.

The dog has not been around children much until very recently. My youngest niece, the dog's owner, has none.

Because the dog behaves towards HER in an adorable, friendly, fur-baby like manner, SHE tends to think of him as harmless... an illusion many dog owners harbor of their canine. When I was doing utility work many times a homeowner would say to me "the dog will not bite." I'd look at them in mock-horror and say "You pulled all his TEETH??" Shocked, they'd deny this vehemently, to which I'd reply "If he has teeth, he may bite." That is true of any dog under the right circumstances.... but some dogs are more prone to it than others.

She doesn't want to believe her fur-baby is potentially dangerous because she is emotionally attached and he doesn't act dangerous TO HER. This type of mentality is common among most dog owners to some degree. She's also just gone through an ugly divorce and is a bit emotionally fragile, and is clinging to her attachment to the dog. Yeah I think I should go right out and kick that out from under her, don't you? (irony)

But NOW she's moved back into the area where the rest of the family lives (four households in walking distance and a fifth 5 minutes away), and my other two nieces both have children ranging from toddlers and up. This is where we've started running into problems. My youngest niece is trying to fix it by gradually socializing the dog to deal with children. She thinks it is going to work.

I don't. The dog is too twitchy and paranoid. I don't know if that is because of his circumstances before he was "rescued" or something her ex did to him, but he is prone to overreact to any sudden stimuli, and being a pitt that can be a serious matter.

Not my dog, not my call. I can render my opinion, but that's all.


You can call her a "bad dog owner" if you wish. In my experience she is very average in her self-inflicted illusion that HER fur-baby is no real threat to anyone.
 
Look, Mrs Borrachos... damn where do I begin.


I say "attacked" and you say I am contradicting myself when I say no one has been injured. Very well, perhaps I should have more accurately said "the dog has lunged towards children in an aggressive manner that appeared to be an attempt to attack, but was prevented from completing same by being on a leash with a control collar."


In that sense, I suppose my youngest niece has indeed kept him under control.... as far as what he's DONE, but not his behavior.

The dog has not been around children much until very recently. My youngest niece, the dog's owner, has none.

Because the dog behaves towards HER in an adorable, friendly, fur-baby like manner, SHE tends to think of him as harmless... an illusion many dog owners harbor of their canine. When I was doing utility work many times a homeowner would say to me "the dog will not bite." I'd look at them in mock-horror and say "You pulled all his TEETH??" Shocked, they'd deny this vehemently, to which I'd reply "If he has teeth, he may bite." That is true of any dog under the right circumstances.... but some dogs are more prone to it than others.

She doesn't want to believe her fur-baby is potentially dangerous because she is emotionally attached and he doesn't act dangerous TO HER. This type of mentality is common among most dog owners to some degree. She's also just gone through an ugly divorce and is a bit emotionally fragile, and is clinging to her attachment to the dog. Yeah I think I should go right out and kick that out from under her, don't you? (irony)

But NOW she's moved back into the area where the rest of the family lives (four households in walking distance and a fifth 5 minutes away), and my other two nieces both have children ranging from toddlers and up. This is where we've started running into problems. My youngest niece is trying to fix it by gradually socializing the dog to deal with children. She thinks it is going to work.

I don't. The dog is too twitchy and paranoid. I don't know if that is because of his circumstances before he was "rescued" or something her ex did to him, but he is prone to overreact to any sudden stimuli, and being a pitt that can be a serious matter.

Not my dog, not my call. I can render my opinion, but that's all.


You can call her a "bad dog owner" if you wish. In my experience she is very average in her self-inflicted illusion that HER fur-baby is no real threat to anyone.

Okay, let me start with this. You said the dog attacked children - I didn't say it. When you say a dog attacks, you need to understand what that means. Either the dog attacks, or it doesn't. There is no in between. If the dog is attacking children, and it is allowed to continue to be around children, then everyone who allows that to happen is irresponsible. It isn't the dog's fault.

I am sorry, but the emotional issues she has and her divorce and all of that is irrelevant. The dog neither knows nor cares about all of that. Once again, if the dog maims someone, or kills someone, everyone involved will say it's the dog's fault, when the reality is the dog does not belong in that environment and doesn't belong around children, and the excuse for enabling the bad situation is her being emotionally fragile.

That is what makes a bad owner. When people say there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, they aren't just talking about the asshole thugs in inner city Detroit. They're talking about the families that have these dogs and allow them to be around children because they're too sad to rehome them. If you research the deaths caused by pit breed dogs in the last 10 years or so, you'll see most of them were family dogs who attacked either family members or people close to the family who were visiting. These dogs can be very loving and most are, but what you have described is a dog who is a known problem, and you're justifying your niece having the dog.

A good owner can handle even the toughest pit or pit mix. A bad owner doesn't mean the owner can't handle another breed of dog. A bad owner is one who has no business owning a particular dog and refuses to acknowledge that she is in way over her head and who is putting the dog, her family, and everyone she knows at risk. A pit isn't for everyone, and nobody says a pit is for everyone.
 
Okay, let me start with this. You said the dog attacked children - I didn't say it. When you say a dog attacks, you need to understand what that means. Either the dog attacks, or it doesn't. There is no in between.


I disagree. If a dog lunges at me in an apparent attempt to bite, he attacked me... whether the bite was successfully completed or not. Many dogs have attacked me; few have succeeded in biting me. But in any case I am sorry if there was confusion, thus my explanation that I was referring to what I perceived as "attempts to attack".







If the dog is attacking children, and it is allowed to continue to be around children, then everyone who allows that to happen is irresponsible. It isn't the dog's fault.


I have no control over this. It is not my dog, nor is it in my household. I can advise and persuade and that is all.



I am sorry, but the emotional issues she has and her divorce and all of that is irrelevant. The dog neither knows nor cares about all of that. Once again, if the dog maims someone, or kills someone, everyone involved will say it's the dog's fault, when the reality is the dog does not belong in that environment and doesn't belong around children, and the excuse for enabling the bad situation is her being emotionally fragile.

That is what makes a bad owner. When people say there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, they aren't just talking about the asshole thugs in inner city Detroit. They're talking about the families that have these dogs and allow them to be around children because they're too sad to rehome them. If you research the deaths caused by pit breed dogs in the last 10 years or so, you'll see most of them were family dogs who attacked either family members or people close to the family who were visiting. These dogs can be very loving and most are, but what you have described is a dog who is a known problem, and you're justifying your niece having the dog.

A good owner can handle even the toughest pit or pit mix. A bad owner doesn't mean the owner can't handle another breed of dog. A bad owner is one who has no business owning a particular dog and refuses to acknowledge that she is in way over her head and who is putting the dog, her family, and everyone she knows at risk. A pit isn't for everyone, and nobody says a pit is for everyone.


"Bad owner" sounds a lot like "bad person", which is perhaps why this assertion runs into resistance. "Owner who is in over her head and doesn't realize it" would be cumbersome but more accurate and less accusatory.

And it is also more or less what I've been saying in the thread, or attempting to say: I don't advocate banning pit bulls as a breed, but I wish everyone was more fully aware of the potential dangers and realized that owning a pit bull is not for everyone, and you shouldn't own a dog if you're not sure you can manage him safely.

When it comes to Pitts, I am inclined by my experiences to err on the side of "don't".
 
I disagree. If a dog lunges at me in an apparent attempt to bite, he attacked me... whether the bite was successfully completed or not. Many dogs have attacked me; few have succeeded in biting me. But in any case I am sorry if there was confusion, thus my explanation that I was referring to what I perceived as "attempts to attack".










I have no control over this. It is not my dog, nor is it in my household. I can advise and persuade and that is all.






"Bad owner" sounds a lot like "bad person", which is perhaps why this assertion runs into resistance. "Owner who is in over her head and doesn't realize it" would be cumbersome but more accurate and less accusatory.

And it is also more or less what I've been saying in the thread, or attempting to say: I don't advocate banning pit bulls as a breed, but I wish everyone was more fully aware of the potential dangers and realized that owning a pit bull is not for everyone, and you shouldn't own a dog if you're not sure you can manage him safely.

When it comes to Pitts, I am inclined by my experiences to err on the side of "don't".

Bad owner and bad person aren't the same thing. I think that's what you are resisting.
 
Bad owner and bad person aren't the same thing. I think that's what you are resisting.



I am in part resisting laying it ALL at the feet of the owner. Some breeds are more dangerous than others. Some people are more aware of this than others. Some are in denial.
 
Yessir, and that is why Pits and Rotts are more of a problem than labs and collies. That, plus the way so many owners either deliberately make them vicious, or don't keep them under control.

I absolutely agree with you that their strength and ability when attacking make it a bigger problem than other breeds. I was only bringing up the fact that other dogs bite, pits and rottys maul. I know quite a few people who have been bitten at some point by dogs, very few by pits, but they needed a band aid not an ambulance.
 
Back
Top Bottom