Opinion Pitbulls vs Firearms

deviake said:
At a glance knife deaths are way lower than gun
Click to expand...

'At a glance' they are because suicides, self-defense, and shootings by cops are mixed in. Murders with a knife are actually quite comparable to murders with a gun.
 
GearSolidMetal said:
'At a glance' they are because suicides, self-defense, and shootings by cops are mixed in. Murders with a knife are actually quite comparable to murders with a gun.
Click to expand...
True, I'd have to go through a breakdown which I might do later.

www.statista.com

Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2023| Statista

Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 7,159 homicides in 2023.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

Pitbulls definitely seem to be the most lethal dogs, it looks like that's to do with the strength of their bite and aggression. The counter arguments to banning pitbulls that I see, interestingly, resemble pro gun arguments.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of people don't use their guns for nefarious purposes, it's just that the few that do can do a lotta harm.
 
deviake said:
Sincere question: Does anyone who thinks pitbulls should be banned think guns should be legal? If so, what is the reasoning?
Click to expand...
Might be the most retarded false equivalence I've ever seen. If guns could magically should people without someone pulling the trigger, there could be a discussion about it .
 
WklySportsMemes said:
There are plenty of people in the "every dog i don't like is pIT bUlL" threads who support 2A gun rights to the fullest but support things even more extreme than BSL.

The last tard I argued with blamed it on guns being " inanimate objects and not being able to go off by themselves. "

Edit*
See the tard below for text book example vvvvvvv
Click to expand...
Lol you're the resident pitbull apologist. Guns being inanimate is a valid argument. The dogs don't need someone to pull their trigger.
 
Deviant might just be the weirdest poster on sherdog. And that’s an incredibly low bar.
 
deadshot138 said:
Might be the most retarded false equivalence I've ever seen. If guns could magically should people without someone pulling the trigger, there could be a discussion about it .
Click to expand...
One is a dog the other is not, but the reality is a lot of people in the US are killed with guns. If it was only about the fact that technically guns don't kill people we could extrapolate that there'd be no issue with people owning nukes or high explosives. We don't allow that because of the potential for harm/misuse.
 
Fox by the Sea said:
Well you're the one coming up with these retarded examples, so...
Nice own goal.
Click to expand...
Danger, potential for harm/misuse, whatever, is why I can't own whatever weapon I want. Either you're a Dunning-Kruger boy or a 4chan troll (who likely really isn't a teen which is even more pathetic) cuz this isn't hard to understand. Either way I'm rapidly losing wood
 
deviake said:
Danger, potential for harm/misuse, whatever, is why I can't own whatever weapon I want. Either you're a Dunning-Kruger boy or a 4chan troll (who likely really isn't a teen which is even more pathetic) cuz this isn't hard to understand. Either way I'm rapidly losing wood
Click to expand...
Sounds like you don't have the ability to come up with examples which aren't gradeschool level.
Skill issue.
 
deviake said:
One is a dog the other is not, but the reality is a lot of people in the US are killed with guns. If it was only about the fact that technically guns don't kill people we could extrapolate that there'd be no issue with people owning nukes or high explosives. We don't allow that because of the potential for harm/misuse.
Click to expand...
deviake said:
One is a dog the other is not, but the reality is a lot of people in the US are killed with guns. If it was only about the fact that technically guns don't kill people we could extrapolate that there'd be no issue with people owning nukes or high explosives. We don't allow that because of the potential for harm/misuse.
Click to expand...
More bullshit. You can't hunt with a nuke or high explosives or use them recreationally in a confined space like a shooting range. The dog is sentient. The gun is not. How many gun deaths come from a gun that wasn't held by a person?
 
SuperAlly said:
He has a history of self-owning on his own threads on here. Its hilarious to watch
Click to expand...
It's seriously one of the dumbest arguments i've read around here, and that's something.
And the replies from multiple people are basically saying the same.
 
deadshot138 said:
Lol you're the resident pitbull apologist. Guns being inanimate is a valid argument. The dogs don't need someone to pull their trigger.
Click to expand...
Im the resident person who has more experience with ALL dog breeds.
If it's so valid why do child deaths by inanimate objects & other domesticated animals count for way more deaths statistically?
Nothing inanimate should be banned because it's inanimate???? I dont think that's sound logic at all.
 
Last edited:
deadshot138 said:
More bullshit. You can't hunt with a nuke or high explosives or use them recreationally in a confined space like a shooting range. The dog is sentient. The gun is not. How many gun deaths come from a gun that wasn't held by a person?
Click to expand...
Thats only defining the problem halfway. How many deaths happen from people moving their finger centimeters or less?
Would you say "sentient being" & not being "inanimate" implies a more controllable choice & mitigation?


Im a huge 2A person. I even started building my own last year. I think that's one of main similarities for certain breed owners & gun nut stooges. They constantly are trying to irresponsibly dismiss how dangerous both are. Which totally minimizes the concept of ownership & responsibility.
 
Somebody help me, my ticking time bomb has become possessed by The Exorcist, I'm doooooooomed!!!!!


FB-IMG-1737381333243.jpg
472503789-9249190491799455-7416480615882658651-n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I do think a lot of people should not be allowed to own them. Not sure if I agree with a general ban though.
 
deviake said:
One is a dog the other is not, but the reality is a lot of people in the US are killed with guns. If it was only about the fact that technically guns don't kill people we could extrapolate that there'd be no issue with people owning nukes or high explosives. We don't allow that because of the potential for harm/misuse.
Click to expand...
There ofc are opinions that certain breeds of dogs are more aggressive than other breed. While IMHO it depends from dog and owner. I didn't had bad experience with pits. Never. With other stuff yes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,651
Messages
58,307,837
Members
175,999
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top