MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Pitbulls should be banned

Pitbulls should be banned


Whenever you bring up the fact that pitbulls have certain traits that may make them dangerous you are called a dog racist.yet if you say a greyhound was bred to race, a retriever to retrieve, and an Australian Shepard to herd that is totally acceptable common knowledge and facts.

There are plenty of misconceptions about Pitbull's capabilities that are untrue. they for instance cant lock their jaw, and don't have the highest bite strength.

but what they do have is a long history of breeding to fight.
it first started off in England, where for hundreds of years they were used to bull/ bear bait (hence the name) and fight these large animals while ignoring the pain. When that was banned, dog fighting began, and someone had the amazing idea of mixing them with a terrier! This increased gaminess, which is to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury.

Hence the ignoring of pain, continued mauling despite attempts to stop. You will never find a video of a golden retriever or a Labrador going after a large horse, let alone being constantly kicked and not stopping. or the multiple videos of mailings where the dog is being hit or shot and won't stop mauling.

I can find the source if requested, but one expert on dogs remarked how he approached a pit on the other side of the fence. it gave all the indicators of friendliness, wagging its tail accompanied with a play bow. wen he got closer it tried to go for him through the fence. That seems to be the issue here. unlike there breeds, the line between fun and play and brutal attacking mauling is one in the same because they were literally bred for hundreds of years for that to be the case

Now before anyone says "its all the owners! it used to be German shepherds and rottweillers". well the top other 3 breeds known for attacking. if you combine all their recorded kills in US history, still do not equal pittbull kills ion the last 10 years. This does not mean if you own one you have a 100% chance of being mauled. but you bet your ass your odds are far higher.

there doesnt seem to be a good reason to own such a dangerous breed

reply

i would never own one especially around kids. get a black lab.

reply

My opinion on this has changed. I've met so many sweet pit bulls that are fun loving and socialized to get along with other animals but they need a responsible owner that wants that kind of dog. We have a golden. She's been attacked 3 times, all 3 were pit bulls. And a toddler was killed in our city when 2 pits ran out of a house and ripped the child to pieces. The child's mother and passerby tried to save the kid and got ripped up. It's a shame but they should be banned. I'm not sure how that works -- What about mixed pits? They can be very aggressive.

reply

Correction: Dumb owners should be banned.

reply

One of my exes had a pitbull; she was a total sweetheart. (The dog, not the girl.)

reply

oh for sure its not as if 100% of them will snap I have met nice ones too..

just vs other dogs, the likelihood if snapping and attacking is higher.

and if it does snap, the likelihood is also higher it will brutally maul you to death and no amount of hitting or even if you somehow managed to have a gun in your hand will likely stop it.

reply

I'm not familiar with the relevant statistics, but I would assume if there's a greater rate of pitbull attacks compared to other breeds, the fault lies more with the owner/trainer of the dog, rather than the dog itself.

Pitbulls are stereotypically known for dog-fighting, but without the associated brutal conditioning from owners I don't believe the dogs would be particularly vicious.

reply

they arent stereotypically known for dog fighting. it was a breed developed to at first bull/bear fight, then later dog fight

hot tip. its in their literal name

reply

Okay... But my point still stands. Regardless of what they were originally bred for, pitbulls are stereotypically known for dog-fighting.

reply

it really doesn't. its not a stereotype. its a fact and hundreds of years of their breeding was geared towards that. its like saying "lions are stereotypes as aggressive carnivore from Africa who largely hunt and eat gazelle and other roaming prey animals"

reply

Stereotypes can be derived from facts.

reply

either doesn't mostly rely on the owner/trainer.

its like saying "we had a lion and it attacked someone"

thats just the nature of the species/ breed and its characteristics

reply

Of course nature is part of the equation, but regarding domesticated animals, nurture plays an equal—if not larger—role in determining behavior.

Comparing a lion to any breed of dog is a silly exaggeration. Lions are not domesticated.

reply

so animals won't act in their nature? esp a pitbull bred for 200 years to do exactly what it does?

the numbers aren't just slightly different, they are insane. pitbulls, accounting for 8% of dogs in the USA, account for 75% of attacks and kills

reply

200 years is hardly a blink on an evolutionary scale. All breeds of dogs are still virtually wolves in terms of genetics. Any and all of them are fully capable of vicious behavior. The discrepancy in the numbers you've presented is more likely attributed to the differences in nurture (or lack thereof) and the culture of violence that human owners of pitbulls tend to impose upon their dogs.

reply

too thats why they don't use Australian shepherds to herd...

and don't use greyhounds to race

and don't use hound dogs to track

and don't use retrievers in hunting to retrieve birds

is that also why police refuse to use pitbulls? because they won't listen and continue to relentlessly maul? you know more though than professional police dog trainers right?

"its just how they are raised!"

you are a clown. stop saying such stupid shit. next up "a chihuahua and a great Dane have the same temperament! a few hundred years of dog breeding is nothing!! its all due to nurture!"

reply

Clearly your mind is already made up, and you are only here to provoke and argue. How sad.

Enjoy your crusade against pitbulls, or whatever it is that gets you off.

reply

you didn't provide anything other than to say "nah its all nurture!"

you dismissed the attacks statistics.

you deny the very clear and objective facts of breed temperament.

you don't accept reality. if you want to argue like a grown ass adult come back when you have sources to back you up rather than your feelings

reply

How did someone so young get to be so brilliant on so many different subjects? Oh, you didn't. You just Googled something and regurgitated something someone else wrote because it fit your narrative. Moving on, nothing to see here.

reply

I wouldn't necessarily say that as all dogs deserve a loving home in my opinion. It just depends on the persons capability to care for them, train them, and control them properly. But I DO think they need to be leashed when taken out in public.

I personally get scared of them so I'd never get one, but that's just me!

reply

LOL at dog racist

reply

California: 1 dead, 3 injured in dog attack at RV encampment. Guess the breed of dog responsible for this attack? Yep! It was a pit bull. Pit bulls are monsters!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-1-dead-3-injured-042217329.html

reply

It's surprising they haven't been banned in more cities.

reply

If you're okay with also banning people who participate in dog fighting rings in any way, then maybe I could be swayed on the ban on pitbulls, depending on what "banning" involved. Personally, I think starting with the eradication of the animals who still make money on dog fights will go a long way to undoing the harm done by the dogs themselves.

If you're not, then no to banning pitbulls because another dog will just replace them and then we'll have people coming after another dog breed that didn't choose to be bred and raised bad.

reply