MSU Red Cedar Message Board

Unfortunately true. The problem is that the pibulls did show signs of aggression before, but the owners failed to recognize it. No well adjusted dog is just going to just snap one day, there are signs that people miss or just don't recognize and understand.

Just like everybody who gets caught by the cops was doing it for the first time. "No, I never drive drunk, just got carried away this one night".

What the hell else are people going to say, "yeah, he's been growling every time the kids got close but we figured it was OK".

For the OP, my opinion is they make damn fine kitty pillows.

All of them are extremely strong. Be careful.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-10/justice/pennsylvania.young.murder.defendant_1_juvenile-homicide-jordan-s-attorneys?_s=PM:CRIME

That 12 year old boy murdered someone. Granted, most 12 year old boys don't murder people, and he probably could have been a good kid if he was raised right and didn't have access to weapons, but we really can't take that risk. I will never trust another 12 year old boy, and we should probably get rid of them.

You're misunderstanding the argument. No one on here is saying that pits don't pose a danger if they're not cared for responsibly. But, most dogs pose some danger if not cared for responsibly. If a chow isn't socialized or trained, it could also bite. What the pit owners, and dog trainers, are saying is that if you care for a pit, they are the best dogs in the world. There is nothing wrong with the breed (once again, a misnomer, as there is no such thing a pit bull); it's what's wrong with the owners.

If we look at the OPs story, two puppies (akin to a 6 year old human) got into a fight. That happens - with dogs and with kids, and especially with puppies. Whether the pit was the aggressor or not (in this case it sounds like he was) the OPs problem was with the owner.

Here's a fun little experiment - next time you're at your vet, ask the vet what s/he thinks of pits. Ask the vet what are his favorite dogs to treat, and least favorite.

I see someone walking a pitbull like someone walking around with a gun holstered at their waist. Yea, I'm sure the guy is plenty nice, and I guess it's within your rights to do that. But, I'm scared and I don't care how much training you have, it still strikes me as a little dangerous.

I hold no negative opinion of pitbulls owners, go ahead and do your thing, just keep your dog away from me.

I simply don't buy the idea that if you loose 100,000 pit bulls on the world and 100,000 labs, the pit bull population won't be responsible for more damaging attacks than the lab population. Blame the fact that the pit bulls from that population that end up attacking people were raised by bad people, the fact remains the same: the more pit bulls, the more attacks.

P.S.: Do I really need to address the weakness of your analogy re 12-year-old kids? If our concern wasn't with the health and welfare of the human population, then I would agree with you: do away with the 12-year-old kids. The problem is, they're humans, not dogs.

If you raise the 100K animals with the exact same owners, I think the bite differential wouldn't be statistically significant. Moreover, the sheer addition of pit bulls DOES raise the number of attacks; but it's the same with any species. There isn't a single dog species out there that will never attack a human. So if you put out 100K more labs, the number of attacks will go up too.

As for my anthology - It was obvious sarcasm. You said, and I quote:

"Nuclear bombs can be handled responsibly, too, but I probably wouldn't want them to be freely available because, after all, not everyone in the world is responsible."

I responded with:

"That 12 year old boy murdered someone. Granted, most 12 year old boys don't murder people, and he probably could have been a good kid if he was raised right and didn't have access to weapons, but we really can't take that risk. I will never trust another 12 year old boy, and we should probably get rid of them. "

Even a moran could read that as satire based on your nuclear analogy.

From 67-2001, Pits were identified as a cause of death in 92 attacks. Falling coconuts were responsible for 5,550 deaths in the same time. 1480 people drowned in 5 gallon drums of water. 12,950 people drowned in their bathtubs. 18,500 people died from aspirin.

Are pits responsible for more than their share of attacks and fatalities? Almost certainly yes, and I doubt many people would argue that one way or another. Are pits dangerous? In the wrong hands, yes (just like a 5 gallon drum of water). In the right hands is a pit the best friend you'll ever have? Yes.

As I said in the first line - "If you raise the 100K animals with the exact same owners, I think the bite differential wouldn't be statistically significant."