[TibetanMastiffMom]

Pit Bull bans are not going to stop dog attacks. A "Pit Bull" is not even a breed of dog, it is a name given to several medium sized, short haired breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Presa Canario, etc) Pit Bulls were originally bred to be dog aggressive, the owner definitely did something wrong if the dog is human aggressive. Any dog can be human aggressive if not properly socialized, let's remember people, dogs are descended from wolves. I have an APBT and a Tibetan Mastiff/Golden Retriever mix. The APBT is sweet as can be to everyone and everything, and the TM is the protective, territorial one, that is more likely to attack someone.

[TibetanMastiffMom]

Oh and no "Pit Bull" weighs 100 pounds, they are supposed to be between 35 and 65 pounds. If a Pit Bull is 100 pounds, it is a mix.

[JordanJP]

Originally Posted by tones

I have to laugh whenever pitbull defenders try to make the case that chihuahuas are more aggressive! It's not a matter of aggresiveness, its' a matter of danger to innocents. The bloody trail of broken children proves that pitbulls need to be removed from society!!!

The original point that you quoted still stands because pitbull defenders ALWAYS seem to say it's the owner's fault, not the breed's. Pitbull attacks do happen frequently. So it's not out of the question to conclude that bad owners are choosing to own pitbulls if you buy the line that it's the owners fault. -- I however, think it's a combination of the fact that the breed is inherently dangerous and it's that very danger that attracts low life people to own pitbulls. The results of that combination are all of the pitbull "mental snaps" and the bloodbaths that follow.

Not all people that like bull terriers are "low lifes." Pit attacks DO happen, but the point that I am trying to make is that pits get much more attention when it happens when other dogs do. The "low lifes" who own bull terriers to use for fighting are attracted to them because they are a very muscular breed that was originally meant to fight other dogs (which was VERY common when the breed was introduced.)

MY problem with breed specific bans is that
a) they make it seem like pits wander about aimlessly looking for people to maim; and
b) there are SO MANY people who can't tell the difference that other dog breeds get included as well- If your ineffective breed specific ban includes my cute, stupid Boxer, then I'm going to be awfully angry.

The people affected most by BSL are the RESPONSIBLE owners, not the people who use them to make money.. it's much the same with "gun ban" legislation.

[glass_of_merlot]

Why would anybody own a pit-bull!? The only people I ever seen with pit-bulls are "that kind of people". Street thugs that need some status symbol so they get a Pit-bull.

[tones]

Yes TibetanMastiffMom,

We've heard the "pitbulls aren't an actual breed" argument before. But the fact remains that when a ban is in place, attacks like the one that recently happened in La Vista decrease dramatically because even those who ignore the ban hide their "pits" away better so as not to get them taken away. The law could be written in such a way that any confiscated dog with "pitbull" characteristics could be evaluated by such predetermined characteristcs such as jaw to skull ratio, bite measurements, and temperment testing as such by an authority to determine if in fact the animal in question was in violation of the ban. Animals that were declared to be "pitbulls" could then be destroyed and the owners heavily fined as instructed by the new law.

Until such a law is in place children will be victimized by these monsters among us, and unlucky naive owners of these dogs will continue to be shocked when their beloved friend snaps into a pitbull attack frenzy and shreds one of their own family members.

[JordanJP]

Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot

Why would anybody own a pit-bull!? The only people I ever seen with pit-bulls are "that kind of people". Street thugs that need some status symbol so they get a Pit-bull.

Because they are sweet, loving dogs when they receive PROPER care? I often find that the people who are the most fanatical supporters of bull terrier bans are the ones who have never spent time around one that has been properly cared for and socialized.

[tones]

Originally Posted by JordanJP

Not all people that like bull terriers are "low lifes." Pit attacks DO happen, but the point that I am trying to make is that pits get much more attention when it happens when other dogs do. The "low lifes" who own bull terriers to use for fighting are attracted to them because they are a very muscular breed that was originally meant to fight other dogs (which was VERY common when the breed was introduced.)

MY problem with breed specific bans is that
a) they make it seem like pits wander about aimlessly looking for people to maim; and
b) there are SO MANY people who can't tell the difference that other dog breeds get included as well- If your ineffective breed specific ban includes my cute, stupid Boxer, then I'm going to be awfully angry.

The people affected most by BSL are the RESPONSIBLE owners, not the people who use them to make money.. it's much the same with "gun ban" legislation.

I never said that ALL pitbull owners are lowlifes -- but lowlifes do tend to be attracted to pitbull ownership for the reasons listed previously. There are some very responsible well intentioned owners of pitbulls out there as well, and many of them become victims/former owners who are left with lifelong physical and emotional scars when they are delivered rude awakenings at the jaws of crazed pitbull attacks.

[JordanJP]

Originally Posted by tones

I never said that ALL pitbull owners are lowlifes -- but lowlifes do tend to be attracted to pitbull ownership for the reasons listed previously. There are some very responsible well intentioned owners of pitbulls out there as well, and many of them become victims/former owners who are left with lifelong physical and emotional scars when they are delivered rude awakenings at the jaws of crazed pitbull attacks.

I'm pretty much done here, but I am just curious what it is about bull terriers and their owners that sets you off? You acknowledge that there are responsible and well-intentioned owners out there, but imply that pit bulls attack people all the time? If they were really that aggressive towards people, wouldn't they have been bred out a long time ago?

[tones]

Originally Posted by JordanJP

I'm pretty much done here, but I am just curious what it is about bull terriers and their owners that sets you off? You acknowledge that there are responsible and well-intentioned owners out there, but imply that pit bulls attack people all the time? If they were really that aggressive towards people, wouldn't they have been bred out a long time ago?

I'm tired of seeing maimed children. I don't like vicious dogs, I was almost attacked as a child. It was unprovoked, quite frightening, and I was lucky that there was someone else there who stopped the attack. There is a connection between pitbulls (bull terriers for breed book thumpers) and a thuggish element of society that puts people in real danger. The fact is that pit bans are happening with success, and I call that progress.

[tones]

Originally Posted by JordanJP

Because they are sweet, loving dogs when they receive PROPER care? I often find that the people who are the most fanatical supporters of bull terrier bans are the ones who have never spent time around one that has been properly cared for and socialized.

You just gave the justification for a ban in this reply. Raising a pitbull that won't snap and maim is a process that has to be followed like a recipe or else WATCH OUT. Every pitbull born is a ticking time bomb and the question remains to be answered of every living pitbull's owner, "Will they able to solve the rubiks cube of pitbull ownership? Will they diffuse the bomb?" That risk is justification enough IMO to ban the breed (or umbrella of breeds for the breed book enforcers).