GAA star exposed as dog fight 'pimp'

[jebus]

but Rottweilers aren't bred to fight. American pitbulls are. The only reason they exist is to fight

I'm sure there's a few pussy pitbulls about, but in the main they're mocked and laughed at by the real American pitbulls.

Fair enough with the American pitbulls, but rottweilers have been lumped into this 'let's slaughter dogs' campaign that the media have taken on recently, and again, all this just masks is that the main problem lies with the owners, the trainers, the breeders, and the organisers of dog fights. People may think I'm joking or wumming or whatever, but I fully endorse dealing with these people in the same manner as people advocate dealing with their pets in, it may sound faintly ridiculous to suggest, but if people feel that dangerous animals need to be killed to safeguard the children, than surely even more dangerous humans need to be as well? Then again I'm so left wing that I think all animals that exist on this planet are equal, but equally so right wing that when my Option A of let's all live in peace and harmony fails I fall back on Option B of let's just have a series of mass murders :)

[Lionel Ritchie]

He has already pleaded (plead?) guilty to owning an illegal dog. He was fined

BUT the programme showed that he perjured himself in that trial. I think he claimed he was minding the dog for a friend. I say lock the redneck hick fcuk up for a few years and stick a few of his dogs up his ass for starters.

[kingdom hoop]

I agree with this, and I also think we should start banning particular types of humans, I believe the correct term is genocide? I mean knives don't randomly attack kids do they?

That's a very crude twisting of what I was saying. Taken out of context and used to propel your point in a mischievous manner.:)

If you'd read the rest of my post, instead of getting so excited;), you would have seen how I brought up personal liberty for people who, like LTID's friend, would really like to own a pitbull and would care for it in a conscientious manner, like a pet, and pose a microscopic threat to society. I wondered whether the removal of this right was worth it for the sake of reducing the risk to innocent children (who would not otherwise be attacked by the scumbag owners, hence the knives being better than dogs comment) from dogs who are owned and mistreated, and thus building a mean streak, by those scurrilous souls who see dogs as nothing more than a dispensable weapon.

These are the dogs most likely to go off the wall and randomly attack a child. Is the prevalence of this problem so apparent that we need to ban all the dogs? You would think not. But, in my opinion if one child's life is saved over ten years then the joy, companionship etc that the honest owner is missing out on is secondary. But having said all that, there is a good chance the problem is practically impossible to eradicate and so given it is not a massively widespread problem here I am not in favour of a ban.

[Lim till i die]

The argument is the same as Saying we should ban all fast cars because every now and again some muppet rolls over a child

It's pure red-top garbage no different to "hang-the-paedos" or "shoot-the-arabs" or whichever campaign they feel like starting next

Wont be a word about dangerous dogs once Maddy is found

Im surprised at some of the normally intelligent posters on here falling for it

As Chuck D said Don't Believe the Hype

[jebus]

It's pure red-top garbage no different to "hang-the-paedos" or "shoot-the-arabs" or whichever campaign they feel like starting next


I believe you'll find it's 'Torture the Teens' at the moment

[pete]

Any goggle search for "pitbull" brings back a long list of pitbull attacks. What makes a person choose a pitbull (breed for fighting) instead of a standard family dog. I have no doubt a Labrador can & does bit people but your chances of getting the dog to back down are a lot better.

The most recent high profile case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/6223897.stm)

For what its worth I think people who do not control aggressive dogs such as these should be jailed.

[Dodge]

Any goggle search for "pitbull" brings back a long list of pitbull attacks
And if Google says it, you know its true!

[jebus]

Any goggle search for "pitbull" brings back a long list of pitbull attacks.

Any google search for the word penis brings up a long list of people being attacked by them to, but I hear very few people saying we should ban them

[Lim till i die]

Any google search for the word penis brings up a long list of people being attacked by them to, but I hear very few people saying we should ban them

POTM :D :D :D

[Lim till i die]

Any goggle search for "pitbull" brings back a long list of pitbull attacks.

I suppose it's as good a reason as any for killing thousands of dogs :rolleyes:

[strangeirish]

Any google search for the word penis brings up a long list of people being attacked by them to, but I hear very few people saying we should ban them
Well that would depend on if you're Chuck Norris or David Norris.

[pete]

I suppose it's as good a reason as any for killing thousands of dogs :rolleyes:

Works for me.

[dcfcsteve]

The argument is the same as Saying we should ban all fast cars because every now and again some muppet rolls over a child



No similarity whatsoever - clutching at straws there Lim.

I wasn't aware of any cars that were trained/manufactured with the express purpose of knocking over small children.....?

Unlike PitBulls, who as a breed were created with the express intention of being fighting animals. Surprise surprise, therefore, when an animal breed to fight starts attacking things.

[jebus]

I wasn't aware of any cars that were trained/manufactured with the express purpose of knocking over small children.....?

SUVs? Maybe not manufactored to run over people, but they are certainly more of a hazard than necessary. Also shouldn't we ban cars that go over a certain speed limit if we're getting so worried about children's lives? I mean why have cars that can go over 80km/h if that's the limit?


Unlike PitBulls, who as a breed were created with the express intention of being fighting animals. Surprise surprise, therefore, when an animal breed to fight starts attacking things.

Then, once again, who's at fault here? The animal who is trained to kill, or the owner who is training them to kill? Still don't see how any of this makes it okay to destroy a breed of animal, possibly through phasing out or cross breeding, but not through putting down all bulldogs instantly. And I'm still worried about the inclusion of boxers, rottweilers etc. on the media list, what next a Scottish Terrier kills some kid so we wipe them out too?