[TibetanMastiffMom]

Originally Posted by 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.

So your saying that every dog that can be classified as a "pit bull" should be destroyed? My neighbors lab looks like a pit bull, people have mistaken her for one. So she should be destroyed just because she looks like a pit bull?

And not just "thugs" have pit bulls you know, I'm a girl, and I don't like to think of myself as a thug.

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by Happygolucky

YOu mean this..........

Oh. My. God.

[JordanJP]

I won't deny that there is something different about the breed, but that is no reason to exterminate the breed or enact a ban against owners who have proven themselves responsible and have trained their pets.

[McBain II]

I have a good friend who is a big dog lover. He's always told me that "The first person to want a pitbull is usually the last person who should own one" and over the years I see just how right he is. They are "unique" animals as it is and not knowing how to deal with them is paramount.

A girl I know from high school just recently got herself a pitbull, and I'm literally counting down the days until it mauls one of the 3 people in her apartment. Not only is the dog already a rescue but she will leave it locked in her room for hours, doesn't exercise it like she should and tends to be too harsh when disciplining the dog. It's a ticking time bomb and she's completely oblivious to the problems and won't listen when you try to tell her.

My own experiences with pitbulls are not good either. I've nearly shot the same neighborhood pitbull twice now because it's moron owners let it run around unleashed and it comes in other people's yards with an aggressive demeanor.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I have a good friend who is a big dog lover. He's always told me that "The first person to want a pitbull is usually the last person who should own one" and over the years I see just how right he is. They are "unique" animals as it is and not knowing how to deal with them is paramount.

Wow - you got that right!

[tones]

Originally Posted by TibetanMastiffMom

So your saying that every dog that can be classified as a "pit bull" should be destroyed? My neighbors lab looks like a pit bull, people have mistaken her for one. So she should be destroyed just because she looks like a pit bull?

And not just "thugs" have pit bulls you know, I'm a girl, and I don't like to think of myself as a thug.

If we were fortunate enough to get a law in place for banning, and then determining if a suspected dog were in fact a pit-bull -then yes the dog in voilation of the ban should be destroyed. Of course such a law would have a vetting process based on several factors to be administered by a veteranarian or other professional so as not to confuse other breeds -- a lab would be easily distiguished from a pitbull by the teeth. Birddogs have what's called "soft mouth" -- rounded teeth so as not to destroy game in the field -- a pitbull however has sharp teeth - for ripping flesh. If your friends dog were infact a lab, the teeth would tell the real story.

You may not "think" of yourself as a thug, but if you own pitbulls, have piercings and/or tattoos, and skull stickers on the back window of your car then perhaps you should reevaluate your self-classification. (I don't know if the latter two apply to you personally, but they tend to go with pitbull ownership).

[SunshineSanity]

Originally Posted by tones

If we were fortunate enough to get a law in place for banning, and then determining if a suspected dog were in fact a pit-bull -then yes the dog in voilation of the ban should be destroyed. Of course such a law would have a vetting process based on several factors to be administered by a veteranarian or other professional so as not to confuse other breeds -- a lab would be easily distiguished from a pitbull by the teeth. Birddogs have what's called "soft mouth" -- rounded teeth so as not to destroy game in the field -- a pitbull however has sharp teeth - for ripping flesh. If your friends dog were infact a lab, the teeth would tell the real story.

You may not "think" of yourself as a thug, but if you own pitbulls, have piercings and/or tattoos, and skull stickers on the back window of your car then perhaps you should reevaluate your self-classification. (I don't know if the latter two apply to you personally, but they tend to go with pitbull ownership).

Excuse me but if your "classification" of "thug" is by what you listed above then you need your head examined.
*I* have piercings AND tattoos and I have a skull sticker on my back window - I do not own a pit bull BUT I have friends that have all three and let me assure you that I nor my friends are thugs.

[tones]

Originally Posted by aerahrtlu

Excuse me but if your "classification" of "thug" is by what you listed above then you need your head examined.
*I* have piercings AND tattoos and I have a skull sticker on my back window - I do not own a pit bull BUT I have friends that have all three and let me assure you that I nor my friends are thugs.

My apology to you and your tatooed, pierced, skull imagery adorned, and pitbull owning friend. My statement was not an absolute, I was just merely listing a few things that "may" be an indicator of such a lifestyle or the gravitation to said lifestyle.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by aerahrtlu

Excuse me but if your "classification" of "thug" is by what you listed above then you need your head examined.
*I* have piercings AND tattoos and I have a skull sticker on my back window - I do not own a pit bull BUT I have friends that have all three and let me assure you that I nor my friends are thugs.

If you and your friends aren't thugs, why are you trying so hard to look like thugs?

[Calvinist]

I've also heard the argument that guns don't kill...but merely the people holding them. But there is a limit to the type of gun that I can buy (and/or carry) in a civilized society. Regardless of my intentions or past history, I simply would not be allowed to walk down the sidewalk carrying certain weapons.

Simply put, this particular type of dog has shown that WHEN it attacks it causes major damage. Would it not be common sense to put aside our "rights" to own such dogs in order to benefit the public as a whole?