Well said ive seen pitbulls who are very placid, it all depends on the dog owner/previous ownersQuote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
Printable View
Well said ive seen pitbulls who are very placid, it all depends on the dog owner/previous ownersQuote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
Seemingly Bertie is going to take a look at this following a complaint from Ian Paisley. Not before time.
And as for LTID and half fulls 'Placid Pitbulls'. Whatever ...though in my experience these examples are usually only 'placid' in the eye of someone who's used to pitbulls.
I could go far beyond pitbulls and just into the general realm of dog-owners for plenty of examples of people who think their ill-diciplined, dangerous animal is "harmless".
I'd say there's few enough on here who've not seen a genuinely frightened individual, be they adult or child, told "relax ...it's only an auld dog".:rolleyes:
Fcuk 'em. Round them up and shoot the lot ...(then put the dogs to sleep humanely;))
Invariably the same people who simply refuse to believe that their wee kids do anything wrong or bad, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
I suspect there's a strong correlation between bad parents and bad dog-owners....
Im not saying that pitbulls cant be vicious, but they are no worse imo than any other dogs if kept/trained/treated properleyQuote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Not true. American pitbulls are bred to fight. Thus they have tremendous strength in their jaws, so even if they were of a similar temperment to other dogs they pose a much greater threat if they do attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by half_full
But allied to that - like many purebred breeds - in-breeding gives them dodgy temperment; but in this case it is deliberate and American Pitbulls are bred to have a vicous temperment. [I'll post again with references to back up these assertions.]
Anyone who gets a Pitbull as a family pet probably has some serious child rearing issues. It could be argued they not fit to rear a child to take such a risk.
Edit: The GAA seem to be washing their hands of & saying its a matter for the civil courts. Obviously he has not been convicted but even allowing for the fact it was a TV programme he clearly not innocent.
RTE News
No it doesn't. Plenty of examples of mature, previous sedentry, well looked after pitbulls flipping suddenly and attacking and mutilating children and other dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by half_full
As mentioned above not only are they better equipped physically to cause injury but maiming and fighting is in their DNA. It may lie dormant for years but they are fighting dogs.
He has already pleaded (plead?) guilty to owning an illegal dog. He was finedQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
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? Someone has to be behind it, probably the same type of vermain that train these animals to be vicious killers. So why blame the dog when the fault is clearly with the owner? Give the scumbag who mistreats his dog heavy jail time, fine them quite a large sum of cash, or just allow vicious bulldogs to knaw at his/her genitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Just to condense my points, a) anyone who blames these animals for being the way they are has never raised a dog, I've never had experiences with a bulldog, but a friend of mine owned a rottweiler, who was a perfectly friendly dog, and b) it's time we started putting down humans. Thank you.
but Rottweilers aren't bred to fight. American pitbulls are. The only reason they exist is to fightQuote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
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.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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.
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
I believe you'll find it's 'Torture the Teens' at the momentQuote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
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
For what its worth I think people who do not control aggressive dogs such as these should be jailed.
And if Google says it, you know its true!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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 themQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
POTM :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jebus
I suppose it's as good a reason as any for killing thousands of dogs :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete