Maggie’s ..they get a bad rep why?

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

usually it's the owners that i find more dangerous than the dogs.

train a dog, any dog to be nasty and it will be.

it's just that your more referenced "killer" dogs have more potential to do more harm than a purse dog that can be easily punted across the room.

i bet there's a statistic out there somewhere that will show the amount of anklebiter bites / attacks are greater than the "killer" dogs. just that a larger dog gets more publicity and can do more harm just due to it's size and potential to do more damage.

again, it usually comes down to how the dog was treated and trained, but the natural or bred in potential of a particular breed that can be exploited can't be ignored either.

 

[knockemdown]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

TP, I dont' think anyone with a brain would argue the potential of a powerful dog to inflict bodily harm is greater than that of a smaller dog.

But, let's keep with the gun analogy again.

A .50cal Barrett can potentially inflict significantly more damage than a .22rimfire can. That said, should that .50cal be legislated against, based on that potential alone? The vast majority of gun owners would say HE double hockey sticks NO.
Same goes for dog people.

No one is arguing a man aggressive 'pitbull' type dog can be very dangerous in the wrong hands, or in NO hands either. Dogs being "at large" is probably the main catalyst for fostering dangerous human/dog interactions.

But the point I've been trying to make all along is that one cannot ostracize a certain 'breed' of dog without opening the door for the next one to be targeted. This is why I'm playing counterpoint to the ingorant "only good one is a dead one" mentality. If those types had their way, 'pitbull' type dogs would be illegal. But after that, what breed would be next to ban? The statistically next most dangerous breed?

Sadly, that is exactly how shit works these days. We legislate our freedoms away, so that we can feel "safer".

That is BULLSHIT, IMHO.

 

[lanwickum]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

Animals are animals. Dogs are dogs. They are protective. A freinds german shepard would not let anyone in his house without him inviting them. He never did bite anyone I know of, but I always gave him respect. When our dog came over that shepard would not let him betwen him and his owner, at all. Dogs are more dangerous than a gun IMO. That is because you can not predict what they will do. They have their own minds. Growning up we had a collie that attacked a cousin of mine. I have no idea why. Never hurt her bad, but scared all of us. He was protective. Wouldn't let strangers step on the front steps of the house. Loved to be petted and was just fine until they tried to step on that first step. Then the growling begen. Had a cousin that was stuck in a field at night while coyote hunting. He couldn't get to the door to ask for help. Sit and pet the dog, but couldn't get to the door.
Growing up on a farm I can go on with stories for hours about animals being animals. You have to respect them and know how to handle them. Know that some breeds are prone to certain behaviors. Example, a charlet bull gets much more agressive when it gets older than a herdford, simple fact.
I would never own a pitbull with my four kids. If someone showed up at my house with one I would tell them I will shoot it if they let it out of the vehicle.

 

[netranger6]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOP PREDATOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">than a purse dog that can be easily punted across the room.

</div></div>

rofl. Sounds like a good time.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: knockemdown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TP, I dont' think anyone with a brain would argue the potential of a powerful dog to inflict bodily harm is greater than that of a smaller dog.

But, let's keep with the gun analogy again.

But the point I've been trying to make all along is that one cannot ostracize a certain 'breed' of dog without opening the door for the next one to be targeted. This is why I'm playing counterpoint to the ingorant "only good one is a dead one" mentality. If those types had their way, 'pitbull' type dogs would be illegal. But after that, what breed would be next to ban? The statistically next most dangerous breed?

Sadly, that is exactly how shit works these days. We legislate our freedoms away, so that we can feel "safer".

That is BULLSHIT, IMHO.


</div></div>

yeah i hear ya. just to be the devil's advocate, keeping with the firearm analogy, perhaps owners should register their dogs, have a waiting period, and a back ground check.

it works with firearms and violent crime, right?

i say blame the owner, not the dog, for IMO humans are the most vicious, dangerous, unpredictable creatures on the whole planet.

kick a dog, it's either going to run away or bite you.

kick a person, it may say it's sorry, earn your trust, then kick you in the head when you are trying to help him / her up.

i'd trust in what an angry dog is going to do next over an angry person - anyday.

 

[Prairie Wolf]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

I believe you should be able to own any dog you want.

But I'd shoot the first pit bull that set foot on my property if it was running loose. Might be different if I knew the dog and the owner.

I believe they pose a risk that I am not going to accept. Doesn't matter why they kill so many people. The fact is they do.

I shot a Malamute last winter. I tried to get to leave, but it hung around. I think somebody dumped it. It would take off when it saw me, but it came back when I was at work. I would have shot that dog a lot sooner after seeing that Malamutes killed 16 people. They aren't that common.

 

[Engine 22]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

I wish I could understand what that poor guy was saying, well, other than "No"- kinda understood that. I can't figure out how the person filming wouldn't do anything to put a stop to that. Total BS! Any idea how the dog was killed or who did it?

 

[SquidHC]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

My 5 year old disabled son has a professionally trained and certified service dog, who happens to be a pure bred Pitbull. He is a fantastic dog. Unfortunately, due to the nature of stupid humans, the dogs get a bad wrap. Just like any living creature, if you put it in a horrible environment it will respond the way it has learned to.

That being said, my two labs tore a dalmation literally to pieces when it tried to attack me in a park. Dogs are dogs, Pits just get the short end of the stick.

 

[Bryan27]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

Pits kill people because they are so much more capable than most other dogs of doing so. Imo, there is no other dog as beautifully designed for the purpose as a pit, their athleticism is incredible. It comes down to capability versus culpability. All of us on here are capable of rape and murder, I don't imagine any of us are culpable. There will never be an accurate count of dog breeds, which is the one statistic that would put these numbers into perspective. Around here, I see as many or more pits than I do labs, so they are far from rare or few in numbers. I'd say that 118 kills in that time period is pretty low, I mean there has to have been at least a couple million pits walking the earth over that time span. Lot's of everyday items are much more dangerous than pitbulls.

 

[Tunanut]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

Dogs are a reflection of their owner.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOP PREDATOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: knockemdown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TP, I dont' think anyone with a brain would argue the potential of a powerful dog to inflict bodily harm is greater than that of a smaller dog.

But, let's keep with the gun analogy again.

But the point I've been trying to make all along is that one cannot ostracize a certain 'breed' of dog without opening the door for the next one to be targeted. This is why I'm playing counterpoint to the ingorant "only good one is a dead one" mentality. If those types had their way, 'pitbull' type dogs would be illegal. But after that, what breed would be next to ban? The statistically next most dangerous breed?

Sadly, that is exactly how shit works these days. We legislate our freedoms away, so that we can feel "safer".

That is BULLSHIT, IMHO.


</div></div>

yeah i hear ya. just to be the devil's advocate, keeping with the firearm analogy, perhaps owners should register their dogs, have a waiting period, and a back ground check.

it works with firearms and violent crime, right?

i say blame the owner, not the dog, for IMO humans are the most vicious, dangerous, unpredictable creatures on the whole planet.

kick a dog, it's either going to run away or bite you.

kick a person, it may say it's sorry, earn your trust, then kick you in the head when you are trying to help him / her up.

i'd trust in what an angry dog is going to do next over an angry person - anyday.
</div></div>

The gun analogy is fundamentally flawed and doesnt make sense. Firearms are an inanimate object that are truly reflections of their owners. They can be used for good or evil depending on the purpose of the person wielding them, and can be used responsibly or negligently.

A dog makes decisions. They reason and respond to their environment and senses and draw from experience and training if they have any but in the end they are not robots and do have a mind of their own. That mind is influenced by instinct, and instinct is tuned by breeding.

Any dog can be dangerous, that is true. But some breeds ARE more dangerous on the average because of their breeding. That is obvious. Pit Bulls have an instinctive ability to grip and kill and were line bred to concentrate that trait. Some will use that trait through fault of their owners and with little indication they were capable of such behavior. It is a risk you take on when you own any dog but it is exaggerated when you own a pit bull, and if you don't acknowledge or accept that you are putting others at risk.

I'm not saying we should ban them or restrict their ownership. I'm saying that owning one requires the owner to exercise special caution and consideration. Pit bulls kill more people than most any breed even though they are far fewer in number than most breeds. You may say that is because of irresponsible owners. My response to that would be the owners of most dogs are irresponsible. Most people I know don't have the first clue how to train a dog and turn it into a useful tool. I believe if every dog in existence was identical to pits in their ability and propensity to kill we would have many times more deaths than we do.

Saying you would shoot such a dog on your property is not the same thing as banning them. I don't automatically shoot anything, that is at best irresponsible. I would not support any kind of ban either. If I chose to shoot a pit bull on my property, it would be the owner that got the dog killed, not me.

By the way, everything you said about people being far more dangerous is absolutely right. I just think most people are far too trusting of their dogs of any type around children especially. Anyone with experience with the hunting breeds or other powerful dogs like GSDs or Rotts know that a REAL bite from most any dog is far more damaging than most people can really imagine. People think because they got a half-hearted little defensive nip once, maybe even one that drew blood, that they have really been bit. Most any decent sized dog can put you in the ER if they ATTACK, which is something other than a defensive little strike altogether. Pit bulls know how to do this. Not every dog has the grit to go all in, most pits do and can turn it on, which is the real reason even more than their power that they can be exceptionally dangerous.

 

[Mumbles]

Re: ..they get a bad rep why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: knockemdown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have zero use for them and like another poster said, "A good pitbull is a dead pitbull." </div></div>

Sir, that type of ignorance is frighteningly similar to those who wield it speak out against owning guns.

Think about the mindset for just a minute, then tell me I'm wrong.

Your attitude is <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">a manifestation of fear of what you don't understand</span></span>. It is obvious that you don't know what a 'pitbull' is. Real pitbulls aren't close to 60lbs, let alone 100. Nor are there teeth any sharper than another breed. While I'm at it, there jaws don't have a locking mechanism either.

Also, you <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">pick & choose 'facts' supportive of your fear to further your argument. Or embellish a fact to make it more 'factual'...</span></span>

AS to dog's DNA for aggression, what about dogs like beagles trained to hunt/kill rabbits?
Coons? B&Ts, redbones, Walkers, Plotts, etc
Bear & big cats? " " "
mice? small terriers like JRTs
lurchers & coursing hounds like grayhounds, wolfhounds, etc.

Isn't the <span style="font-style: italic">kill</span> instinct in their DNA, too?

And what about breeds that have been developed SPECIFICALLY to be man biters (protection dogs)?
One would think it safe to assume there is <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> in those breeds' DNA to drive them to BITE PEOPLE, no???

Your argument <span style="font-style: italic">sounds</span> good, but <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">it isn't based on logic</span></span>.

There is NO doubt that a man aggressive dog is a threat. But it is just that, a man aggressive dog, NOT a man aggressive BREED.

The simple fact is you cannot damn an entire breed of dog based on the actions of a few. Especially if that breed is misrepresented!

That is the same mentality of those who wish to take our guns away from us have.
And by quoting you, I'm not trying to single you out specifically. I just feel that point needs made...</div></div>

Well done Knockemdown. I expect ignorance driven hysteria from soccer mom's and CNN. I expect more from the average shooter, and supposed grown men. I've had this discussion a few times before on gun forums, and had planned on staying out of it this time, but it never ceases to amaze me how someone can ridicule hoplophobes one minute, and be wringing their hands about scary dogs the next.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Engine22</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wish I could understand what that poor guy was saying, well, other than "No"- kinda understood that. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">I can't figure out how the person filming wouldn't do anything to put a stop to that.</span></span> Total BS! Any idea how the dog was killed or who did it?
</div></div>

That is what we should really be discussing here. What the hell is wrong with people? How could you just stand there and watch that? I said it once already: if that guy died, his blood is on the cameraman's head.

The video says the dog was killed by two guards, doesn't say how, not that I saw anyway.