Dogs Of Peace Strike Again..

[Bald1]

No buddy cares if the dog in the article is a crossbreed cousin of a pitbull.

It would and has been lumped into the pitbull family.

Lol. Amazing.

I don't care if they're APBTs, lets exterminate all APBTs anyways.

You don't work in the justice system I hope.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

buy a cat.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

I been following this and I saw a lot of local Virginia people are convinced that she was attacked by a Black Bear and that apparently others in the past have been attacked in the same location when walking their dogs by Black Bear. I don't know what the truth is, but hopefully they will do DNA testing and full profile to find out the truth. Could just be local pitbull owners desperate to always defend the pitbull.

This happened less than 5 miles from my front door , and while there are a few bears around , I haven't heard of anyone being attacked by one . Its pretty domesticated , lots of big money horse farms . Hell Capital Ones HQ is a stones throw from where this went down.

 

[bubbleboyjones]

No matter how much tegulation you add, it wont solve the problem.

It doesn't have to solve the problem. It just has to lessen attacks by the outlined breeds. Germany already has extremely strict rules around this topic that has lessened attacks from those dogs by a tremendous amount.

 

[Bald1]

It doesn't have to solve the problem. It just has to lessen attacks by the outlined breeds. Germany already has extremely strict rules around this topic that has lessened attacks from those dogs by a tremendous amount.

Not good enough! Tiny won't rest until half of all dogs are dead and we all have cats.

 

[Tiny]

Not good enough! Tiny won't rest until half of all dogs are dead and we all have cats.

I said we start with pitts or breeds crossed from pitts. And then should people roll onto the next large dog to turn violent then we move onto that dog. And so on and so forth until people just can't have large dogs because apparently theirs a lack of respect for what they can do.

Theirs no constitutional right to own a dog.

And so far their hasn't been 1 realistic suggestion in this thread that would stop the type of people from owning pits to continue owning pits and being irresponsible with them. Especially your stupid suggestion of large fines and licensing fees and some other retarded crap that nobody illegally breeding these things is going to care or abide by anyhow.

Nevermind the fact that a pitt (or crossbreed of a pitt) should be considered a domesticated animal.

So until someone can suggest something that realistically makes this breed a rarity, to the point that if I see one I would know that the likelyhood of the owner legally allowed to own one is low so I could call the cops on them...I'm nuking them from orbit.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I noticed. Like any other Pitbull owner, you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you.

Once again, you're attempting to flip this around on me as if I'm the one that wants to change things.

This is about what you want to change, about what you want, reguardless of logic and reason.

Clearly enough to eclipse all other types of dogs in attack statistics despite not being the most popular breed to own.

No one is implying they're the most popular dog breed to own, but you've never posted any numbers of their total population in North America to compare to the number of dog bites, and therefore have an official statistic as to the actual percentage of pitbulls that have actually bite someone.

So, that statistic must not be favorable to your argument, so it must not be mentioned, or ignored if someone else brings it up.

"0.05% of all pitbulls in North America attacked a person in 2016, therefore we need to make them illegal and euthanize every pitbull on the continent."

Yeah, that doesn't sound very convincing.

Only after somebody's kid gets completely fucked up. Pitbull owners are not always held accountable for their dogs getting lose and killing people though. More misinformation from the "educated" crowd that will say anything to keep their dogs.

'May' is the key word in that headline of an article from 2014. Has there been a follow-up article in the last three years outright saying the owners of the dogs were never charged?

I would be okay with that if it meant we could get Pitbulls off the streets.

Of course you would.

But, thankfully, you're just going to imagine a world where you're the dictator and it'd be a paradise because everybody would agree with you and obey.

And also, thankfully, the rest of us live in the real world where we elect our leaders through a constitutional republic system, and it does a decent job of filtering out retards like you.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Once again, you're attempting to flip this around on me as if I'm the one that wants to change things.

Which one of us wants to change things and which one of us wants to keep them the same isn't really relevant.

This is about what you want to change, about what you want, reguardless of logic and reason.

It's about what I want to change due to logic and reason.

No one is implying they're the most popular dog breed to own, but you've never posted any numbers of their total population in North America to compare to the number of dog bites, and therefore have an official statistic as to the actual percentage of pitbulls that have actually bite someone.

I don't need to. The information we have indicating Pitbulls are not the most popular breed of dog to own is more than enough to indicate the attacks by Pitbulls are more likely and more deadly. You're just in denial because you want your pet at any cost.

So, that statistic must not be favorable to your argument, so it must not be mentioned, or ignored if someone else brings it up.

It is. You're just in denial.

"0.05% of all pitbulls in North America attacked a person in 2016, therefore we need to make them illegal and euthanize every pitbull on the continent."

Yeah, that doesn't sound very convincing.

What's your source on the "0.05%?" lol

'May' is the key word in that headline of an article from 2014. Has there been a follow-up article in the last three years outright saying the owners of the dogs were never charged?

The final outcome of that particular case obviously isn't important. The fact that Pitbull owners are not always held accountable for negligence is...

Of course you would.

But, thankfully, you're just going to imagine a world where you're the dictator and it'd be a paradise because everybody would agree with you and obey.

And also, thankfully, the rest of us live in the real world where we elect our leaders through a constitutional republic system, and it does a decent job of filtering out retards like you.

Name-calling is always the mark of the "high-rent" crowd and people coming from a position of strength in an argument.

Hopefully the constitutional republic wises up real soon and puts these animals to sleep.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Which one of us wants to change things and which one of us wants to keep them the same isn't really relevant.

Its very relevant, since you said...

"you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you."

And what you want, is a change to something that's always been the way it is, and you're lacking the argument as to why it needs to be changed.

So, you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you.

It's about what I want to change due to logic and reason.

No, you want what you want, and that's all that is relevant to you.

I don't need to. The information we have indicating Pitbulls are not the most popular breed of dog to own is more than enough to indicate the attacks by Pitbulls are more likely and more deadly. You're just in denial because you want your pet at any cost.

Lol, right, I'm the one in denial here.

And that 'Pitbulls are not the most popular breed to own' study may be in conflict to what you consider to be a pitbull.

'Pitbull' isn't a breed, but a classification of several breeds. So when you add all those breeds together, add in the breeds with other pitbull-like features, pitbull-mixes, and then add @Tiny's suggestion of making every breed that's capable of harming a person onto the 'illegal breeds list,' you're no longer talking about a few million dogs throughout the continent, but a sizable percentage of the dog population throughout the continent.

Oh wait, but this is about what you want.

It is. You're just in denial.

So, post the estimated pitbull population of the continent.

What's your source on the "0.05%?" lol

It doesn't matter to you if the actual percentage is 0.05%, 0.5%, 5%, or 0.005%.

You want what you want.

The final outcome of that particular case obviously isn't important.

Yeah, it is. The headline says they 'may' not face charges, but they might have.

So, your deflection of the subject implies the final outcome doesn't add to your argument, so they were charged.

The fact that Pitbull owners are not always held accountable for negligence is...

And that's on the police and district attorney for not enforcing the laws on the books.

Name-calling is always the mark of the "high-rent" crowd and people coming from a position of strength in an argument.

It is when its accurate.

Hopefully the constitutional republic wises up real soon and puts these animals to sleep.

'Hopefully.' Yeah, I'd love to see a politician run for public office on that one.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Its very relevant, since you said...

"you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you."

My statement is true, and it does not make who wants change and who wants to keep things the same relevant to the discussion. It's not important.

And what you want, is a change to something that's always been the way it is, and you're lacking the argument as to why it needs to be changed.

Oh, no. I definitely have a valid argument for wanting that change.

So, you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you.

True. But, it is worth noting that what I want puts people (especially children) less at risk and what you want puts people (especially children) more at risk.

No, you want what you want, and that's all that is relevant to you.

When Pitbull owners deny my reasoning, it always comes across as child-like selfishness.

Lol, right, I'm the one in denial here.

Without a doubt.

And that 'Pitbulls are not the most popular breed to own' study may be in conflict to what you consider to be a pitbull.

'Pitbull' isn't a breed, but a classification of several breeds. So when you add all those breeds together, add in the breeds with other pitbull-like features, pitbull-mixes, and then add @Tiny's suggestion of making every breed that's capable of harming a person onto the 'illegal breeds list,' you're no longer talking about a few million dogs throughout the continent, but a sizable percentage of the dog population throughout the continent.

Oh wait, but this is about what you want.

What I want? And what is it I want? You can try to dissect it however you like. I realize there are mixed breeds, but eliminating the threat from "Pitbulls" benefits human lives where keeping the threat benefits people who don't care about the risks.

So, post the estimated pitbull population of the continent.

To serve what purpose? If such a statistic exists, you post it and explain how it helps your argument.

It doesn't matter to you if the actual percentage is 0.05%, 0.5%, 5%, or 0.005%.

You want what you want.

So, it was an arbitrary number with no meaning then. And what is it that I want?

Yeah, it is. The headline says they 'may' not face charges, but they might have.

So, your deflection of the subject implies the final outcome doesn't add to your argument, so they were charged.

It is not. The purpose of me posting the article is because it states that the law doesn't hold the owners accountable unless they can be proven to be "negligent." That is not good enough. Whether or not that was the end result in this specific case doesn't matter.

And that's on the police and district attorney for not enforcing the laws on the books.

No. It would be on the legislators for making the law as written. The owners must be proven to be "negligent" under each case or they will not be charged. You should always be held accountable under leash laws if your dog gets lose, and the article explains that is not always the case.

It is when its accurate.

No, it is not. LOL

'Hopefully.' Yeah, I'd love to see a politician run for public office on that one.

Keep dreaming.

I'd love for them not to run on it, but then just stick that legislation up the asses of selfish Pitbull owners.

 

[Tiny]

Its very relevant, since you said...

"you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you."

And what you want, is a change to something that's always been the way it is, and you're lacking the argument as to why it needs to be changed.

So, you want what you want, and that is all that is relevant to you.


No, you want what you want, and that's all that is relevant to you.



Lol, right, I'm the one in denial here.

And that 'Pitbulls are not the most popular breed to own' study may be in conflict to what you consider to be a pitbull.

'Pitbull' isn't a breed, but a classification of several breeds. So when you add all those breeds together, add in the breeds with other pitbull-like features, pitbull-mixes, and then add @Tiny's suggestion of making every breed that's capable of harming a person onto the 'illegal breeds list,' you're no longer talking about a few million dogs throughout the continent, but a sizable percentage of the dog population throughout the continent.

Oh wait, but this is about what you want.


So, post the estimated pitbull population of the continent.



It doesn't matter to you if the actual percentage is 0.05%, 0.5%, 5%, or 0.005%.

You want what you want.


Yeah, it is. The headline says they 'may' not face charges, but they might have.

So, your deflection of the subject implies the final outcome doesn't add to your argument, so they were charged.



And that's on the police and district attorney for not enforcing the laws on the books.



It is when its accurate.



'Hopefully.' Yeah, I'd love to see a politician run for public office on that one.

Keep dreaming.

How's about you stick to mentioning me when theirs a versus thread. Because you are not changing my mind and you are too much of a pussy to solve this problem...

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I'd love for them not to run on it, but then just stick that legislation up the asses of selfish Pitbull owners.

And there you have it folks! Authoritarianism at its finest, like a typical liberal.

He admits he wants politicians to be elected under false pretenses and laws to be made that the voters, who put the politician in power, don't want.

I gotta say, whichever pitbull bit you as a small child did the world a favor.

Now you're typing on the internet about your fantasies of getting even with the whole breed of dog by making them extinct as a form of public service.

Oh boy, I wish I could pet that pitbull and say 'Good boy! You're such a good boy!!!'

Ya know Fonz, keep being exactly who you are. Keep what that pitbull did to you in the forefront of your mind until the day you stop breathing. That pitbull is a part of you, now and forever.

Jesus, you've really put a smile on my face. I'm not trolling, you really have.

Peace out bitch.

 

[Hyperglide]

Stuff like this is why they are banned in Ontario.

 

[Philo-Publius]

And there you have it folks! Authoritarianism at its finest, like a typical liberal.

He admits he wants politicians to be elected under false pretenses and laws to be made that the voters, who put the politician in power, don't want.

I gotta say, whichever pitbull bit you as a small child did the world a favor.

Now you're typing on the internet about your fantasies of getting even with the whole breed of dog by making them extinct as a form of public service.

Oh boy, I wish I could pet that pitbull and say 'Good boy! You're such a good boy!!!'

Ya know Fonz, keep being exactly who you are. Keep what that pitbull did to you in the forefront of your mind until the day you stop breathing. That pitbull is a part of you, now and forever.

Jesus, you've really put a smile on my face. I'm not trolling, you really have.

Peace out bitch.

Authoritarian = Preventing low-lifes from owning dangerous dogs that have ruined people's lives.

I gotta say, whichever pitbull bit you as a small child did the world a favor.

It's "liberals" who place animal lives over human lives. Those are your true colors...

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Stuff like this is why they are banned in Ontario.

Yes stupidity was the reason.The Ontario ban was a complete fail.

Pitbull bites are down but overall bites have gone up. Mainly because banning breeds doesn't resolve the issue of terrible ownership, terrible parenting skills and inbreeding. They would rather ban the dog and absolve themselves of responsibility which is catastrophic since they haven't addressed anything.

But then again we are talking about Liberals. They ban things when they get scared.

 

[Hyperglide]

Yes stupidity was the reason.The Ontario ban was a complete fail.

Pitbull bites are down but overall bites have gone up. Mainly because banning breeds doesn't resolve the issue of terrible ownership, terrible parenting skills and inbreeding. They would rather ban the dog and absolve themselves of responsibility which is catastrophic since they haven't addressed anything.

But then again we are talking about Liberals. They ban things when they get scared.

You can't control human stupidity though. They were just trying to regulate dumb people from buying a dangerous breed from entering their homes and causing mayhem, like what happened to the poor girl in the OP.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

You can't control human stupidity though. They were just trying to regulate dumb people from buying a dangerous breed from entering their homes and causing mayhem, like what happened to the poor girl in the OP.

Yea and it failed miserably. Maybe a better route would have been to meet in the middle and be fully aware of the pitbulls high prey drive and place a premium on smart ownership. None of this escapes the situation we are left with which is designer dogs used as lap dogs. Those things are even nuttier.

 

[smellmyfarts]

99.9% of dogs that attack their owners were mistreated by their owners.

Usually when a dog turns on its owner it is because they see the owner as having less rank in the pack or the dog is a bad apple.

People like to pull the "it's all how you raise them" bullshit with these lovable "nanny" dogs, but that simply isn't always true. That shit ain't even always true with people. How many of us went to school with a set of brothers that both came from the exact same upbringing, where one was was the type of guy that you would introduce to your sister and the other was a complete fucking psychopath? Unfortunately, genetic predispositions toward aggressive behavior exist in the animal kingdom. Just because you're a perfect puppy parent, doesn't mean your furbaby won't be a shithead.

There are ways to help prevent this type of stuff for sure. The fist being, don't buy a fucking dog that can kill you. If you are OK with owning a dog that can easily fuck you up, or you feel that you have the need for one, buy it from a licensed breeder that can provide paperwork proving it's not inbred. As another poster has pointed out, inbreeding dogs causes them to lose their traits. One of the things that pits have been bred for is to kill other dogs not attack people.

Unfortunately, a healthy purebred killing machine with papers to boot is going to cost you some real money. Being that anyone that wants one of these dogs is probably a bad decision maker and irresponsible in the first place, they're probably not going to be able to afford said killing machine, and since there is no rent to own centers for these killing machines, they will most likely be taking themselves and their shitty credit to the shelter or having a killing machine gifted to them by their neighbors that were too stupid or irresponsible the spay or neuter their own killing machine that fucked its cousin across the street.

 

[45ACP]

I think we should just ban anything that might hurt anyone.

I think swimming pools and ladders would be a great place to start. I personally have no use for those things and they kill people constantly, therefore they should be eliminated by any means necessary.

Everyone would be so happy if we just banned anything that was dangerous.

 

[Fedorgasm]

I think we should just ban anything that might hurt anyone.

I think swimming pools and ladders would be a great place to start. I personally have no use for those things and they kill people constantly, therefore they should be eliminated by any means necessary.

Everyone would be so happy if we just banned anything that was dangerous.

I can walk around my neighborhood without fearing that your ladder is going to chase down and kill my kids.

Everyone keeps saying "you can't blame the dog, the owners are dumb"

Well yes, people are dumb. And it's resulting in dog attacks. So you have 2 solutions.

1. Cure stupidity.
2. Ban the stupid people from owning dogs they can't control.

Both tasks aren't easy, but one of them is impossible.