Pitbulls vs. Guns

TTAG reader DH writes:

I’m a dog lover. So are most of my family and friends, and the majority of that group has at least one dog that was a rescue. I mention that because many of the dogs that end up abandoned or in the shelter system have been labeled as “dangerous breeds”. I’m sure there is some well thought out, unbiased study (sarcasm here) to say that Pits or Dobermans, or any other “dangerous” breed has been involved in more attacks than say Chihuahuas, but in the end, all breeds do what their owner has trained them (or not trained) to do . . .

These “dangerous breeds” were selected to be working dogs because they possess qualities such as strength, endurance, loyalty. If they were naturally vicious, they would have been killed off years ago, instead of being trained to exploit the strengths they have for the desired role. This classification is has resulted in certain breeds being banned from municipalities such as Denver. DOD has banned certain animals from base housing. Not based on actual behavior, or how their owner has raised them, but on what they might do because of their breed alone.

So what do Pit Bulls have to do with guns? This story should sound too familiar. It’s about mind set. It’s too hard to hold violators accountable, so let’s ban stuff. It’s about to an AR being a much more deadly firearm than a M1A or a Mini-14, because it’s a scary looking…in other words…it’s breed. Anything can be made dangerous when misused or abused by its owner…car, knife, hammer, dog…firearm.

While there is no right to keep and bear dogs, this is the same mindset of pre-emptive action…all for the actions of a few, that is applied to law abiding gun owners. Media demonization focused at low information voters leading to arbitrary action by lower information politicians.

The irony is that the people who are standing up for the rights of the dogs, would most likely be on the side of those trying to limit the rights of gun owners.

comments

  1. avatar Scrubula says:

    Nice comparison.
    I guess this is a good way to show how gun control is racist (joking, but you get the idea).

    1. avatar teemoo says:

      Nice comparison.

      No, it’s a ridiculous comparison. Guns don’t randomly attack people on their own. Dogs – especially the dangerous breeds – do. Yes, we can all say that it’s the way they were raised or whatever. And yet the stories (plural) we read about the family Pit Bull killing the family child always relay how well behaved the dog has always been – until it tore apart their kid.

      Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, etc were creations of mankind, just like all other breeds to dogs. I think it’s high time we start thinning the herd. We don’t need to kill them (the cops can do that for us, amiright?), but we can just neuter them and let them go extinct. Alternatively, how about a $200 annual tax for the privilege (not right, btw) to own one of these dangerous dogs. And yes – the dogs are dangerous. Sure, precious little Fido may be all cute and friendly to its owner, but if little Fido comes near me or my kid, someone will have to go shopping for a replacement Fido.

      1. avatar PeterK says:

        Just like how Momma’s baby would never shoot nobody? Even though everyone on the block knows what he is into? People don’t blame themselves when crap goes wrong no matter how many mistakes they have or haven’t made, so take the rainbow fart stories with a grain of salt.

      2. avatar JeremyR says:

        It’s all about genetics. You can’t make a fish walk. All dogs are wolf hybrids. With some, the size is smaller, with others, it’s another set of traits that has been selected.
        Any serious gun lover would want to prevent the destruction of classic guns, but would support banning manufacture of firearms that were so cheaply made as to be dangerous in normal use. Seriously, who would want a 22 that might blow up in your hand? Who would buy ammo that would ruin their gun?

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Speak for yourself, mister. It is arrogant to assume that you know what everyone else thinks or wants. Besides that, there is no rational reason to attempt to “ban” anything, and nobody actually has legitimate authority to do so.

          If anyone uses an object to commit aggression, he/she is likely to suffer as a consequence of the victim’s rational action to defend themselves. Attempts to “ban ” things has not, so far, had much success stopping the aggression, but has definitely interfered with the self defense part.

          If someone buys an object that is so poorly made and engineered that it harms him/her… that’s too bad, but it is their problem. Nobody has either the “right” or the authority to protect someone from themselves, except those responsible for minor children and other such dependents. And, once again, all efforts to “ban” things can never guarantee freedom from accidents, and can’t seem to get much traction on the stupidity of individuals who make poor choices.

      3. avatar Kali says:

        So, were you born stupid, like pitbulls are born dangerous?

        1. avatar teemoo says:

          Perhaps 🙂

        2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          Clever retort.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          No, 60% is moronic owner/”trainer”.

          Chose a pitbull for a dog? Why would one chose a Nambu for concealed carry choice? That’s 100% owner

      4. avatar The Pit Boxer says:

        You sound like the cop type. Just itching to use your gun on a live target, so you figure a dog would be a good low-cost (legally speaking) option. Most dogs’ interaction with their owner is positive and playful, and it probably doesn’t think any different of other humans. It’s easier to read a dog than a human. If it’s aggressive it’s not going to try to hide it. You’ll know. If it’s not aggressive, you should be able to tell as well. Saying if a dog comes near you or your kid you’re going to kill it, is just ignorant. Use your brain before you engage.

      5. avatar Will says:

        You mean about how the kid couldn’t tell the dog didn’t like what Jr was doing and Jr wouldn’t get the picture, so the dog took a stronger stance of telling the kid to stop? Kids need to be taught about dogs, just like they do about guns. Not knowing how to read one, handle one, or when not to is dangerous on both accounts. There are many who THINK they can read their dogs, but in reality they can’t.

        There has been instances where a family has heard their kid complain their dog attacked them, but fortunately it was caught on surveillance AND it turned out the kid provoked the attack, then blamed the dog.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          I have a pack of 16 dogs. I will state, barring some external influence like rabies, a dog is too fucking lazy to attack something just because it feels like it . They are always provoked. At least mine, are. Either a dominance contest (in which case I win), or because someone violates the pecking order and tries to cut in line at the feeding trough. Provoked, or frightened – I’ve adopted some dogs only my mother could get near – they were so frightened of men and abused, you just couldn’t get near ’em.

          But I see the authors point – any of these big dogs, if provoked, they can kill ya just as dead as a bullet.

      6. avatar Tommycat says:

        Like Mickey the pit bull that tore up the kid here in Arizona. They claimed it was a great family dog… But it was on a chain in the back yard. If it was such a great family dog, why was it chained in the back yard for months in the Arizona heat? Because it wasn’t. Now that Mickey has been taken care of by America’s Toughest Sheriff Joe Arpaio he’s much more friendly than he was in their “care.” Those people need to never be allowed to have a dog again. They don’t treat them with respect, and you get what happened when you abuse a dog long enough.

        1. avatar michael says:

          I disagree that all dogs attack when provoked. Dogs are like people. Most have personalities that cause them to go about their daily business and avoid problems. However, some are just plain mean and will attack for no reason what so ever. Pitbulls, Rottweilers and other so called ‘bully breeds’ get a bad reputation not because of the number of attacks, but because of how much damage they are capable of when they choose to attack. I agree that much of how a dog acts has to do with the owners and how they’ve been trained and treated. Too often people get a dog they know nothing about, and don’t treat it as it needs to be treated. Terriers, such as a pit bull, are high energy dogs that need to burn off that energy, or else they become agitated. But that’s not always the source of their attacks.

      7. avatar MigNoche says:

        a $200 tax? You are not too bright….to say the least.

      8. avatar nmgene says:

        My children hadf 2 pitbulls that were trained by my daughter. They were the sweetest most loving dogs I have ever seen in my 63 years. Yes they were protective of me and my children, never once did they bite or attack anyone. Most children attacked by pit bulls are neighbor children, not the children of the owner. These children should never have been left in the yard with these dogs as they were strangers to the dogs and were probably not trained in how to treat dogs. My daughter would walk them down and around the orange circle in so cal and never had a problem.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          Tell that to Kara Hartrich or Braelyn Coulter. Maybe Summer Sears would agree, but she was in her own yard. Ten children have been killed in dog attacks this year. Seven by pits. Five Belonged to family. One was a family friend, another was a grandfather. That one a rotti.

      9. Maybe if there weren’t so many vapid, stupid, obnoxious children everywhere then dogs wouldn’t have to occasionally attack them and I wouldn’t be constantly tempted to.

        Hell, there are more than 7 billion people on the planet. We need more pits to eat kids to help us bring that number down.

        Sorry to be so snippy, but it really bugs me to hear parents complain about dogs. When I can make you as a dog-hater pay for my dog to go to school, then you can complain, but as it stands despite no plans to ever have children I still get to pay taxes to fund elementary schools.

      10. avatar Phillip D. Criqui says:

        I love when someone opens their mouth and all this stupidity just rolls right out, and what gets me is even though you have no Idea of what your talking about you actually believe your own crap. Some these breeds that are being targeted have been around from the begging of time,and they are gentle as a lamb it’s the people that make the change in the temperament of the dog.So do your research before you go trying to kill off these breeds.

      11. avatar Arc says:

        Teemoo, thats incredibly anti-american… really. (Inresponse to the original post)

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      Horrible comparison.

      Unlike a firearm, pit bulls (like chimpanzees, killer whales, tigers, etc.) have an instinct and will of their own.

      Unlike a firearm, pit bulls can “pull their own trigger” and seize upon innocent people. For pit bulls, they especially go for young children, women and a surprising number of their owners or house guests.

      A full 62 percent of human dog-bite fatalities are committed by pit bulls.
      DogsBite.org (Some dogs don’t let go).
      http://www.dogsbite.org/

      Why would a chimpanzee attack a human?
      http://tinyurl.com/ncj2nel

      Killer whale kills trainer at Orlando’s Sea World; whale Tilikum linked to two other human deaths
      http://tinyurl.com/kpteu4o

      Report Released on Roy Horn’s Tiger Attack
      http://tinyurl.com/lc3s8aw

      Guns don’t “go off” by themselves, animals do.

      1. avatar Will says:

        Funny. For years pitts were also known as nanny dogs…. protecting kids, not chewing them up. They didn’t hit the evil breed list until dog fighting rings were found abusing and training them to be very aggressive towards other dogs and people.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          Nanny dogs? Really? LOL!

          “They didn’t hit the evil breed list until dog fighting rings were found abusing and training them to be very aggressive towards other dogs and people.”

          You’ve got be kidding. Pit bulls were bred for that very purpose.

          There have been dog-fighting rings for over 100 years, and the breed was part of a sub culture of “dog men.” Unfortunately, the pit bulls moved out of the sub culture and into the main stream in the mid 1970s.

          “Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs” by George C. Armitage
          http://tinyurl.com/n9sp4pw (Google Books)

          “Originally published 1935, USA, this is a reprint of a fascinating historical document about fighting dogs. The original is very rare, expensive and much sought after by dogmen and collectors, both for its rarity and the information contained within. “Thirty Years With Fighting Dogs” is a look at the sport of dog fighting in the early 20th century through the eyes of George Armitage, an acknowledged master of the game. It contains 55 rare photographs including Galvin’s Pup, John Noonan’s Brandy, Tanner, Shipley’s Pearlie, Saddler’s Bozo, Dugan’s Pat and many more. Many famous battles are related. The contents also include articles on Schooling a Young Dog, Selecting a Dog for Pit Purposes, Armitage’s Rules, Sample Contract, Armitage’s Keep, Feeding and Breeding. A fascinating look at a vanished era.”

      2. avatar Tommycat says:

        Just a heads up. Using “Dogsbite.org” as a source is the equivalent to using Mom’s Demand Action as a source.

        Even the CDC decided that the breed of dogs makes no difference. And therefore stopped tracking that statistic.

        Media reports on types of dogs that attack are about as reliable as media reports on the type of firearm used. Many dogs reported as “pit bull” were in fact other types of dogs. Labradors and other “friendly” dogs are reported as a pit bull at first, and the retraction can be found ten days later in page A8 about halfway down. Then you have the fact that a pit bull attack is labeled as “Pit Bull bites kid!” where a Chow or Sharpei will be reported as “Dog bites man.”

        Then you have the wonderful “Family Pet” that has been on a chain in the back yard baking in the Arizona sun for months. They are actually called “resident” dogs rather than pets. They get no socializing of any kind. An actual loved family pet that attacks someone is far less common than you think. And considering that the sheer number of bad people with pit bulls takes up so much of the population now… Well… gee… Which dog is a thug going to pick for his pride enhancer. Is it going to be the floofy dog, or the one the media tells everyone to be afraid of. Gosh… Tough decision.

        You are aware that these dogs are naturally people friendly. Many of these attacks happen because someone broke them of their natural behavior, and MADE THEM DANGEROUS! Once they break their natural behavior, that dog will be a risk.

        At any rate, I best stop before I get angry.

        1. avatar Sian says:

          Pit Bulls are the ‘Assault Weapon’ of dog breeds. Whenever there’s a dog attack, it’s assumed by the media to be a Pit until decisively shown otherwise.

          That said, when Pits and other fighting breeds do attack, It’s potentially a life-altering event, so even if they’re less vicious than an insane little purse-dog, an attack from one is a lot harder to deal with.

          As with anything else dangerous, it’s up to the owner to be responsible. If you have a dangerous dog, even if they’re the sweetest thing and ‘would never hurt a fly’, you gotta supervise them around children and others with poor impulse control. Just like with guns.

      3. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

        Is a full 62 percent better than a half 62 percent?

        I think a quarter of 100 percent of statistics are cherry picked to provide evidence of the position you have already taken. Aren’t we here at TTAG trying to refute such actions by the population control crowd? Are you in the right place?

      4. avatar Richard says:

        “a full 62 percent”

        You’re a real thinker aren’t you?
        Side note: say “sixty two percent” or “62%”
        To the matter at hand, yes a “full” (as opposed to a partial?) 62% of bites may well be from pitt bulls… though this is like saying car wrecks are more common among demolition derby cars.

        Many people who are interested in the pitt bull breed seek out an aggressive dog, do not socialize it properly, and sometimes even actively encourage aggression. It’s not an inherent trait of the dog that makes it reach the 62%, it’s the purpose that the owners had in mind.

        Dogs must be trained and socialized. Dogs must be kept under control. The type of people to seek out pitt bulls are not the type of people who usually do any of these things.

        It’s really quite simple.

      5. avatar The Pit Boxer says:

        It’s amazing to me that we can be so good at picking out emotion-driven statements and doctored statistics when it comes to anti-gunners, but then resort to their very tactics on other subjects.

        Unlike a firearm, pit bulls (like chimpanzees, killer whales, tigers, etc.) have an instinct and will of their own.
        So you make the leap that because a dog has a will of it’s own, it is naturally going to turn aggressive and attack someone? The anti-gunners’ version of that statement happens to be very similar “Guns may not kill people, but gun-owners kill people, and anyone with a gun is a mass murderer waiting to happen.

        Unlike a firearm, pit bulls can “pull their own trigger” and seize upon innocent people. For pit bulls, they especially go for young children, women and a surprising number of their owners or house guests.
        Guns don’t “go off” by themselves, animals do.
        Wow. What fear and emotion. Worthy of an anti-gunner.

        A full 62 percent of human dog-bite fatalities are committed by pit bulls.
        Now you sound like Piers Morgan trotting out “The last 4 mass shootings involved an AR-15”. If Pit Bulls are banned the thugs will choose some other breed and we’ll be hearing of that one making up the majority of dog-bite fatalities.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          There’s no comparison between a firearm (an inanimate tool) and a living, non-reasoning animal.

          All animals are unpredictable to a degree, some more so than others. Ask any horse fancier if there’s a difference in temperament between a quarter horse and a thoroughbred.

          Some breeds of dog are more lethal than others. Just like some fish are more lethal than others.

          Would you rather let your child (or dog) swim in a pool with a bull shark or a nurse shark?

          Pit bulls are the bull shark of the dog world.

      6. avatar bozo says:

        Dogsbite.org is the biggest sham of a website this side of Mom’s Demand Action. Unwise reference.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          If that’s the case, PROVE them wrong. I researched most of the 2013 reports. Not many kills by pomeranians or teacup poodles.

  2. avatar Paul G. says:

    Our Peke-tzu can’t play with the Pit Bull next door anymore, the pit is too clumsy and smacks the little dog too much with her paws when she jumps around all excited. They play around just fine on opposite sides of the fence though. Fortunately, the kids’ Catahoula is much more careful around smaller animals, the big dog lets the little one crawl all over it. They remind me of DeVito/Schwarzenegger in “Twins”.

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    I’m so glad this article didn’t go in a different direction…

    “Blame the deed, NOT the breed”…

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Good post.

  4. avatar Mike says:

    This is absolute truth, I’ve been thinking about this similarity a lot lately as I’ve seen a bunch of Pitbull memes that read exactly the same as a firearm one would.

  5. avatar Taylor TX says:

    I have been training my neighbors Pit (American Staffordshire) since he was a pup and hes 1.5 now (trained dogs most all of my life), hes Scooby Doo in 110 lb pit form, as lovable as can be, but he has had humans to teach him how to be a relatively well behaved (he still has some of that pup energy).

    Its ALL about the owner 🙂

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      I hear that after every attack. As a service professional for several rental companies, I have had too many run in with pits. We are notified if there is supposed to be any animals on site, and since we are working based on tenant calls, they know we are coming. I have been attacked six times in the last ten years. All pits. I have also cleaned up one apartment where the guy got chewed to pieces. Supposedly he died before the dog chewed him to bits. With computers we say gigo, garbage in garbage out. DNA is the computer code of life. How many people are killed by papilions? How many are killed and or mauled by pits and rotties? It’s in their DNA.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Maybe it’s the owners that are attracted to the breed for it’s reputation as a vicious killer; and then they don’t train them properly. You know; what came first; the vicious killer; or the bad owner that created a vicious killer.

        1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          That, and the fact that the badass breeds like rot, pit and dobie are swarming with backyard breeders and puppy mills who have no idea what the hell they’re doing, no scruples whatsoever and who churn out one feeble, inbred, recessive-gene infested litter after another with all manner of defects of body and mind.

          Inveterate, responsible, sophisticated breeders are not going to sell to gangbangers and badass wannabes, after all, and certainly not at low overhead, out-of-the-trunk-of-the-car prices on Craig’s List.

      2. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

        Hmm,

        Pit bull is a breed known, advertised, marketed, and sought out as a guard dog.

        Imagine my immense surprise when a guard dog encounters an intruder (you), and acts just like a guard dog.

        Another case of operator error, where the owners did not deactive their security system (a dog in this case) before making a service call.

        Seriously, they are functioning exactly like they are supposed to. Don’t blame the dog for doing exactly what it was trained/aquired to do. Blame the owners that called you for service, and didn’t “de-activate” their K-9 security system.

        1. avatar KCK says:

          Doing what they are supposed to do, exactly. So outside the home, do you know exactly when the dog’s “protect” alarm is going to go off? Your statement proves the point.
          NO YOU DON’T, that the problem isn’t it.
          Yes operator error, but that shows there is a risk in a non-controlled environment
          Now that TV’s are so much lighter, my dog could/would help the burglar carry the damn thing out the door. He would bark on approach to warn us, but once they’re inside, they’re family.

        2. avatar JeremyR says:

          Run into plenty of shepherds and even a bouvie (sp). Never got bit although some did growl. Got attacked once in a parking lot by a pit. It wasn’t even supposed to be on the property. No, they are not securry systems. Security systems don’t kill toddlers.

      3. avatar Richard says:

        Ah, genetics expert are you?
        So I’m sure you know the exact part of “the DNA” that is the cause for aggression, right?
        Please, if you know this, let the world know. I’m sure you could have awards heaped upon you, for your advancements in canine neuroscience.

        Or could it be that you are running your mouth?

        I’m going to go with the latter.
        It seems to me, that someone in a job such as yourself, will run into the types of dogs that aren’t owned by the best of people. Renters coming and going at a moments notice. Transient trash who moves every time they get evicted. To human waste like that, a pitt bull is something of a status symbol. They perceive them as desirable because they want a dog that can be made as aggressive, much like the owners.

        If you will be honest with yourself… I bet you will be able to see a pattern. Those aggressive pitt bulls were all in low income inner city areas (the ghetto) or any other location similar to a typical “COPS” setting.

        1. avatar ScienceNerd says:

          Ever heard of the “Warrior gene?” It is a variation of a sequence in human DNA that controls the amount of MAO-A enzyme that is produced. People with the “Warrior gene” are generally more aggressive, are less prone to depression, and have an inflated sense of self-worth. MAOIs can give people without the warrior gene similar traits (with plenty of other side-effects).

          More on point… Belyaev’s silver foxes (Neat stuff. google it!) prove that selective breeding can express tameness in foxes. Pit bulls are a product of selective breeding. They were bred for bloodsports some time in the 1800s and aggressive traits were favored by breeders. Training can subdue aggressive tendencies, but genetic traits can not be “trained out” of an animal.

          TLDR: Aggressive traits can be expressed by DNA. Pitbulls were bred to be aggressive. Good trainers can teach them to be more tame. Most people are not good dog trainers. There are too many pit bulls in shelters. The rent is too damn high…

        2. avatar Richard says:

          Yes, that has been semi documented in humans. It’s hardly universally accepted fact, but it’s a pretty well documented.

          However, to my knowledge, they haven’t done the same testing on canines.

          I do know that DNA can have a huge influence an organisms actions, there’s no doubt.
          However, I don’t think it has been proven that pitt bulls, on average, have more aggressive genes than other breeds, on average.

        3. avatar nmgene says:

          It is not in the dna. It is in the training and handling. My childrens pit bulls loved people and especialy children. If I had one in my car and you aproached the car you would swear that the dog was going to eat you alive. But if I opened the door the dog wouuld jump out run up to you and lick your hand or face. If I hugged my daughter they would grab my pantleg and growl at me. Yes very protective but not aggresive and loved people!!!!

        4. avatar JeremyR says:

          College kids and military. Screening keeps the transient trash out.

      4. avatar kiljoy616 says:

        If your that scare of Pitbulls then you don’t want to meet a Cane Corso or Fila Brazilio (which I have owned) they will own you on the spot forget the bite they will maw you and take you down with there size and weight and aggression. This debate is as bad as AK vs AR. Its a dog it follows what humans set out for them. Breed them one way they are calm and in control, breed them another way they can be hyper and aggressive.

        I respect dogs even small ones they can bite you as much as the next dog but their size is less scary or dangerous. Still respect just like a weapon is imperative when dealing with reality. The issue is the sheeple are terrified of things that are not fluffy and passive which makes our society more histrionic every day.

        For me the problem is people who tend to be unpredictable and delusional.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Cane Corso, i.e., Italian Mastiffs, are guard dogs. They are not fighting dogs and they are not aggressive dogs. You don’t want to present a threat to the owner but even then the dogs first instinct is to pin you not eat you. The Fila Brasileiro is as much a hunting dog as it is a guard dog. It’s behavior is similar to a Plott Hound. Neither are aggressive dogs in the sense that they will attack just because.

        2. avatar Tommycat says:

          Yet, they will be called a “pit bull type dog” in the media if they do attack.

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      The “it’s all the owner” meme is a fabrication that refuses to acknowledge the inherent characteristics of the pit bull breed, and how even “good dogs” will attack their “good owners” (and their very young children).

      Pit Bull Myths
      http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        I hope you realize that quoting dogsbite.org about dog attack statistics is no different than quoting the brady website for gun violence statistics. They have a motive and they are bending the facts to fit that motive. Just like I can with honesty say that the AR 15 is used in more mass shootings than other rifles, therefore they are dangerous. Does that mean that every AR-15 needs to go away? How many pitbulls are there in the country? hundreds of thousands? Millions? How many dog attacks TOTAL are there? I could only find 2 dozen fatalities in all of 2014.

        It is both ironic and sad that people can use the exact same logic that they fight so hard against for a different cause.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          Please cite for me:

          * an instance where an AR-15 suddenly and without warning loaded itself with cartridges, aimed itself and pull it’s own trigger (all the while ignoring the commands of its master).

          * the biology of AR-15s and the deliberate breeding for certain personality traits.

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          1. AR 15s are specifically designed to kill people in a military engagement. They have been refined for 60 years for that very purpose. Pitbulls were originally trained to fight and kill other dogs but be completely obedient and passive towards all people. Since the end of organized dog fighting 80+ years ago, the pitbull has not be bred or trained to fight in large quantities and has been diluted to become a work dog/pet. So, by your logic (and raw data), AR 15s are actually MORE dangerous than pit bulls and are not fit for private ownership.

          2. Guns kill orders of magnitude more people than ALL dog breeds combined. If you are going to argue that dogs or even certain dogs are inherently dangerous and not fit for private ownership based on less than 50 deaths per year then you have ZERO (none zip nada nunca) moral, ethical, or logical high ground to argue in favor of gun ownership, regardless of what any dog or gun is capable of doing.

        3. avatar John Galt says:

          “Guns kill orders of magnitude more people than ALL dog breeds combined.”

          Really? “Guns kill?”

          Guns don’t kill. People who pull the trigger kill other people. The gun is a tool. You are falling into the anti-gun meme by infusing life, will and evil into an inanimate object.

          Certain breeds of dogs have a tendency to randomly “go off” by themselves. As such, we should recognize that reality rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

        4. avatar JeremyR says:

          You said it, now prove it. Show which of their stats is wrong with verifiable data. Ie, an attack labeled as a pit that was some other breed. Should be easy for you.

      2. avatar Will says:

        Lemme see….

        “Despite the fact that pit bulls were bred to fight with each other, early breeders took pride in producing dogs that were trustworthy and friendly to people. Handlers bathed their opponent’s dog before a match, stood in the pits with the battling dogs and often pulled them apart to end a fight. Any dog who behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Pit bulls typically lived in their owner’s homes, where they earned the nickname “nursemaid’s dog” because they were so reliable with young children. In fact, “Pete the Pup,” the children’s friend from the old TV series “Our Gang,” was a pit bull.” – http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

        You gonna say the ASPCA is wrong? How about this from the site of a well known trainer who works with difficult dogs (and can read them quite well.)

        “Would it surprise you to learn that pit bulls used to be America’s darlings? Before the mid-80s, stories of pit bull attacks are practically non-existent.” – http://www.cesarsway.com/dogbehavior/basics/How-Did-Pit-Bulls-Get-a-Bad-Rap

        Personally, I’ll put more faith and credence in what those sources say better than a site geared to destroy a breed because of a perceived fallacy.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          1909 Dog Bite Fatality: John P. Colby’s Fighting Pit Bull Kills Nephew”
          http://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/05/1909-fatality-john-p-colbys-fighting.html

          The Myth of “Culling” Man-Biters
          “Pit bull advocates must resort to lies to protect the breed. One of these lies is that breeders of fighting dogs culled biting pit bulls (also known as man-biters4). They even say that children are especially safe with pit bulls because “instant” culling occurred when any human aggression was shown. We know this is untrue about breeders of fighting dogs, both past and current, as well as by pit bulls today who are returned to their owners after an attack unaltered.”

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          Hey look, more baseless lies from the brady campaign to end dog violence.

        3. avatar Richard says:

          I can’t reply to john galt, or I would.

          I don’t think he is smart enough to follow a rational argument, it’s probably best to just give up, and try to ignore him.

        4. avatar Will says:

          @Richard,

          You’re probably right. He’s already got his mind set anyway.

      3. avatar paulWTAMU says:

        Given that Dog Bites relies primarily on media reports, I don’t trust them at all as far as what breed does what.

        I’ve seen the media confuse species (I once say a news caster refer to a bull snake as an anaconda FFS). I don’t trust them to ID breeds.

        1. avatar nmgene says:

          john gault; Pit bulls do not go off by them selves. Something has to set them off. A child pulling an ear will set any dog off to bite the person hurting it. If it was trained to fight and kill then that is what it will do to anyone hurting it. Chiuhas bite more people then any other dog. In the 70s I had 2 timber wolves that I raised from babies. If I told them to kill you, you were dead! They never bit anyone, but I never had to worry about my wife going anywhere as long as she took one of the wolves with her. When she would walk down the street with them the sheeple would cross to the other side. The people who understand animals and are not afraid of them would come up and pet them. It is all in the training and the treatment. You hurt any dog long enough it will attack you!!!

        2. avatar Will says:

          There is another point of visible bias straight from the website:

          About the founder

          Colleen Lynn resides in Austin, Texas and operates Lynn Media Group. On June 17th, 2007, she was attacked for approximately 5-seconds by a leashed pit bull while jogging in her former Seattle neighborhood. She was hospitalized for two days at Harborview Medical Center after undergoing surgery to repair a severe bone fracture. Four months later, she launched DogsBite.org. Learn more about Colleen Lynn by reading her four-year anniversary blog post about her attack.

          Read what parents, dog attack victims and advocates say about founder Colleen Lynn.

          Source: http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php

          How does revenge sound as a possible motive?

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      There is natural disposition as well. Our dog has the best natural disposition in the world. Plus, we have gone out of our way to make sure we trained her correctly. Everywhere we take her, everyone is super happy to see her. And she is super happy to see them. And she is incredibly gentle and submissive — even at the veterinarian’s office. More than one person has recognized her outstanding qualities and suggested that we make her an official therapy dog and take her to hospitals. Oh, did I mention she is a 55 pound Pit Bull? Did I also mentioned that she has never tried to bite anyone? And did I mention that both Yellow Labs that my neighbor owns — as well as the 6 month old Rottweiler that they were dogsitting — have tried to bite people on multiple occasions?

      I think the only major problem with “dangerous breeds” is that they are harder to train than other breeds. And being large/powerful dogs, if they decide to bite or attack, the results are a lot more gruesome.

      1. avatar nmgene says:

        My daughter started training dogs in the early 90s. She has trained many a pit bull, rotweiler and doberman. She spends many many hours with the dog and its owner. When you speak a command to any dog she has trained it obeys immediatly. She has retrained agressive dogs to be great family pets. It takes time that most people dont want to take and many dog owners shouldnt have any animal for a pet!!!!!

    4. avatar John Galt says:

      One day that loveable Scooby Doo could unpredictably turn deadly, as in the instances listed here:

      Family dog attacks
      http://www.dogsbite.org/staying-safe-family-dog-attacks.php

      1. avatar Will says:

        A source with an agenda. Take whatever they say with a grain of salt as the numbers are likely to be massaged to fit their view.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          The dog was bred for one purpose: to destroy.

          Fatal Pit Bull Attacks Dating Back to 1844
          http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/

          In most states, coyotes can be killed on sight, year-round as nuisance animals.

          Why not pit bulls?

        2. avatar Tommycat says:

          Gee, A site called “Fatal pitbull attacks” Nope, no agenda there. It’s like the Bloomberg of the dog world with you isn’t it?

        3. avatar Vhyrus says:

          The Brady Campaign to end Dog Violence must love this guy.

        4. avatar John Galt says:

          The emotionalism and projection on the part of “animal lovers” is akin to the same emotionalism and projection foisted upon us by the gun-grabbers.

          All the “love” in the world won’t magically transform biology and DNA.

          “Wolf dogs killed owner, autopsy determines”
          http://www.post-gazette.com/local/westmoreland/2006/07/19/Wolf-dogs-killed-owner-autopsy-determines/stories/200607190197

          “Sandra L. Piovesan bled to death after being mauled by a pack of nine wolf dogs that she had raised as pets and was so devoted to that she once told a neighbor they “give me unqualified love.” ”

          Coyotes are dangerous, wolves are dangerous, pit bulls are dangerous. There’s no denying genetics.

        5. avatar Tommycat says:

          Hardly emotionalism. Talk to PROFESSIONALS in the field. Ask a veterinarian what dog is dangerous. There’s a reason Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a no kill shelter for pit bulls. He actually houses them in an old air conditioned jail as opposed to how the prisoners are in tents. Because the dogs can be saved. My fiance works with many of the “dangerous” dogs, even Mickey(recent news about the dog that attacked a kid) is just a friendly loving dog that was chained outside for months(or even years) before his attack. He wasn’t a family pet. He was a resident dog that was chained up outside in the Arizona heat. Pretty sure you’d be pretty grouchy if you spent months chained up outside. We know the dogs far better than you. Yet you use made up facts to support your position. You use the scary scary news as proof that something needs to be done, for the children.

      2. avatar Richard says:

        “One day that loveable Scooby Doo could unpredictably turn deadly”

        “Every redneck with a gun is just one bad day away from killing”

        Or whatever drivel that anti gunners seem to be unable to stop from spouting.
        Your lack of reasoning and logic is disappointing.
        You’re just like an anti.

      3. avatar nmgene says:

        john why dont you come on out here to Arizona and try to kill my dog. You will have to go over me first and being in Arizona I am always armed. Take your BS somewhere else, its not needed here or wanted here. You would probably run at the site of a pit bull anyway!!!!

  6. avatar My Older Brother Chet says:

    evil high capacity assault dogs who’s only purpose is to kill babies. UBC for all assault dog purchases. Sounds rather silly when you apply it to dogs…. or Moms demand action doggy style. I could do this all day, what have you got.

  7. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    At the risk of veering too far into “blame the victim” territory, I think the analogy can be extended to apply to child safety as well.

    Just as too few parents teach small children basic gun safety, so too we sure seem to have lost teaching children how to behave around unknown (to them) dogs.

    It’s easy to blame the gun or blame the dog; neither of those can really defend against the accusation. It’s a lot harder to look at oneself for the responsibility, especially as a parent.

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      Yup, that new born in the carrier should have never gone near grandma’so boyfriend’s pit.

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      You’ve veered directly into “blame the victim” territory.

      Just walking past a dog (minding your own business) shouldn’t require a person to alter their behavior and attempt to read the dog’s mind to determine what might set it off.

      Unless a dog is being deliberately taunted or abused, the animal (and their owner) is 100% responsible.

      1. avatar Richard says:

        The animals actions are the direct responsibility of the owner.

        That is all. If a violent fool wants to keep a violent dog, bad things will happen.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Boy, did BOTH of you completely miss the point I was trying to make. But, hey, thanks for playing! It’s been fun!

  8. avatar Wes says:

    Uh,…Dogs are not inanimate objects. They make decisions and react to things. Sometimes inappropriately. Modern firearms, on the whole, fire only when the trigger is pulled.

    1. avatar MudPuppy says:

      Yep, that’s where the comparison breaks down just a bit. An abused or poorly trained AR15 doesn’t shoot a postman or wandering toddler in it’s territory because it thinks they are a threat.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Hmm.

        I don’t know if the analogy breaks down all THAT much in one respect.

        A neglected or mistreated dog can be dangerous or unpredictable.

        A neglected or mistreated firearm can be dangerous as well. Improper handling, such as firing with mud crammed into the muzzle, can have that inanimate object “turn on its owner” so to speak. Another analogy could be feeding a gun improper ammo.

        I think as a metaphor, the dog – gun thing has some interesting dimensions to consider.

        Just like a gun requires proper care, maintenance and use to function safely, so does a dog require proper care, training and handling.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          Every time there is an attack, we hear how it was such a good dog.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          I think you need to open your mind a little bit and try to think about the metaphor and not just see a “bad dog story.”

          Good grief.

        3. avatar Will says:

          We Do? We usually find out that the dog is owned by some dealer or dog fighter in the end.

        4. avatar cmeat says:

          and how it was an honor student on the deans list and a choir dog.

    2. avatar Skyler says:

      I agree. I do not want my gun rights associated with a breed of animals that was bred for dog fighting.

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        + 1, 000

      2. avatar oldworntruck says:

        well I guess it’s fair to compare pitbull to remington 700 rifles anyway….never quite sure when they are going to go off…

        1. avatar KCK says:

          And they were recalled for a fix.
          Numerically, there were probably less 700 fatalities/injuries than Pit Bull attacks

  9. avatar Sambo82 says:

    Certainly not every pit kills children, but literally every time I’ve heard about a child being killed by a dog, it turned out to be a pit bull. In my own small town (10k) a child walking down the road was killed by a pit bull just a couple of years ago. You can call it coincidence or cite any number of reasons that that pit bulls kill the most children, but to be honest with you I don’t care what the reasons are.

    Now, I don’t want to infringe of your right to own whatever you want that makes you happy. But if a pit bull comes up into my yard around my kids, based off of my reasonable past observations, I’ll put the animal down. I would (probably) not do the same for a lab or a poodle.

    1. avatar Sambo82 says:

      One more point; animals are NOT the same as guns. Period. They are different precisely because they have their own mind, and their own sinews and muscles to act on their own. Guns are inanimate; They rely upon a human to act. No animal can be trained to that point of submission. Even circus or zoo animals which have been trained for decades by professionals occasionally act in an unpredictable manner.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “But if a pit bull comes up into my yard around my kids, based off of my reasonable past observations, I’ll put the animal down. “

      Sorry, man, but if you are going to kill a dog based solely on its breed and not its actions at the moment, your past observations were not exactly reasonable. That’s an emotional response to anecdotal (non-controlled) evidence.

      Threat assessment applies to four legged animals as well as the two legged kind.

      1. avatar Dark says:

        Yeah. That’s called being careful. If something lunges at your kid with malicious intent? Shoot it. If something’s just hanging out? Keep the damn weapon in the holster, jack. You can’t just shoot something for walking around in the neighbourhood.

      2. avatar Sambo82 says:

        So judging an animal’s probable tendencies based off of your observations or past actions is unreasonable? What if a bear walked up in your yard?

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Do you apply that same logic to the race and mode of dress to a human in your yard?

          Your mindset sounds exactly how the anti’s try to paint us … ready to fire at any PERCEIVED threat.

          Now, about the bear. Yeah….same dang thing. What is it doing? Just being present is not a threat. And, yeah, I’ve been around bears. Quite a bit. NEVER felt threatened enough to just shoot one just for being there. Seen a man swat a black bear on the butt to get it to run off back into the woods one time.

          Threat Assessment is an important aspect of gun ownership, and one needs to give this serious thought before talk of opening fire based on what you THINK someone or something MIGHT do.

          My two cents, anyway.

        2. avatar Skyler says:

          A stray dog off the leash on your property, not knowing the animal and not knowing the owners? Dogs are chattel. The only problem is the shooting of a firearm within city limits.

        3. avatar Duzt says:

          holy shite! he swatted a wild black bear! must have balls the size of a house…

        4. avatar Sambo82 says:

          “Do you apply that same logic to the race and mode of dress to a human in your yard?”

          Absolutely I do, and don’t pretend like you don’t. If in my area the majority of crimes were committed by a certain minority dressing in a certain manner, I would certainly take that into consideration when making my threat assessments. If you let political correctness cloud your judgement about protecting yourself and your kids, far be it from me to tell you you’re wrong. But I have no such qualms.

          But really I doubt you do either. If you tell me you react the same way when two gangsta dressed kids approach you one night vs two kid’s dressed like, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses I probably won’t believe you. Pitt Bulls deserve their reputation based off of the aggregate actions of their breed. Whether those tendencies are genetic or a result of training makes absolutely no difference to me.

        5. avatar JJ48 says:

          You’re absolutely right, sambo. If young men dressed in “gangsta clothes” cut across a yard but otherwise don’t act dangerously or make any threatening movements, we should absolutely gun them down without first at least trying to shoo them away nonviolently, or just waiting inside until they go away or become threatening.

          Seriously, though, ANY wild, stray, or lost animal should be approached with caution. What I find most troubling about your statement, honestly, isn’t that you think pitts are dangerous, but rather that you apparently think that any breed not on some “dangerous breeds” list must be completely safe. My recommendation would be to treat ALL strangers (animal and human alike) with some small amount of caution until you have more information to categorize them as more friendly or more hostile.

        6. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Absolutely I do, and don’t pretend like you don’t. “

          I’m sorry, but I don’t shoot people just for being in my yard. Say it with me…”ability, opportunity and jeopardy.”

          Good luck with your murder conviction with the attitude you have.

          You are living the stereotype the anti’s have of gun owners and gun rights advocates. So, thanks for that.

          I’m beginning to think you are trolling, that you are providing a little public “confirmation bias” for those that mine blog comments for quotes.

        7. avatar nmgene says:

          Just spent 10 years in Alaska, there were bears in the yard all the time. Leave them alone and there little ones alone and they will leave you alone. And just for your info; moose kill more people then Grizzlies do!!!!

      3. avatar Model 31 says:

        “if you are going to kill a dog based solely on its breed and not its actions at the moment, your past observations were not exactly reasonable.”

        Lets substitute “wolf” or “lion” in place of “dog”. Kind of different? Wolves, lions and dogs have “wild” origins. Dogs have been domesticated, but the wild instinct is still there. We’ve seen video where the kids in a third world country are petting, rubbing and tugging on a male lion…having a blast until one boy steps on the lion’s paw and all of a sudden, the lion gets po’d.

        The reason pitts have the rep is its damage is worse than the average mutt and much worse than when the 3lb. chihuahua goes on a rampage.

        Guns are non-living objects where as dogs are self aware creatures with intelligence and emotions. As for putting one down in the yard, I’d say the real parallel is with EDC. It isn’t that an attack is likely to happen, but rather the stakes are too high to not be prepared.

        Spend a couple years around dogs and they’ll tell you what they’re thinking.
        Wagging tail and ears up = “glad you here”
        Tail between legs, ears back and laying on stomach = “You’re the boss and I’m uncomfortable”
        Sitting down and growling = “You best get back, I will bite yo a##”
        Running toward you, ears back, growling and teeth showing = “I’m going to take you out if you don’t shoot me now”
        I hate to see tails and ears cut because it hampers their ability to communicate with you and other dogs.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          Except that pits are deceptive. Check dogsbite.com and get a load of what pits can do.

        2. avatar Andy T says:

          Jeremy no dog is deceptive. They aren’t out walking the neighborhood, planning their next sneak attack. A dog won’t pretend to be your friend just to get you in biting range. They’ll always tell you exactly what they’re feeling/thinking. It’s not the dog’s fault if you don’t recognize when they’re telling you to stay away.

      4. avatar John Galt says:

        The fact that 62% of dog-bite fatalities are caused by pit bulls is certainly cause for a person to be on heightened alert. (And that figure doesn’t include the shark-like non-lethal maulings caused by pit bulls.)

        Therefore, a reasonable person has far more to fear (in terms of death or grave bodily injury) from a charging pit bull than from a charging cocker spaniel. So, I imagine they would draw on a pit bull sooner than drawing on a cocker spaniel.

        Whether they pull the trigger on the pit bull should depend on the totality of the situation and the availability of other non-lethal tools (for example, pepper spray).

        That said, the average dog owner (including owners of birds, deer and therapy dogs) probably has more to fear from trigger-happy cops than trigger-happy neighbors.

        Police State USA: Police vs. Pets
        http://www.policestateusa.com/tag/police-vs-pets/

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Calling a dog a “pit bull” guarantees a news feed and, if you’re story is graphic enough, you may even get an network feed. But you won’t get it by saying “a bad dog attacked . . .” or a “terrier mix attacked”. It has to be not just a pit-bull, but a “vicious pitt-bull”. Tell a naive, uninformed, public that any dog is a pit-bull and your story gets picked up. News producers know all about this, of course, but their jobs are about ratings so as long as “pit-bull” files they’ll go with the story. It’s all about ratings. Otherwise they just don’t care.

      I’ve always felt that a great many dogs are worth far more to humanity than their owners.

      1. avatar JeremyR says:

        Find a story where they called a poodle a pit, and I will believe you. (Link please) I see lots of times where owners call their pits something else.

    4. avatar John Galt says:

      The reason you always hear about pit bull attacks is because they are the ones doing most of the killing, not because they are “maligned” as pit bull apologists would have you believe.

      9-Year U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Stats – 2005 to 2013

      62.2% – Pit bull
      11.7% – Rottweiler
      3.9% – Husky
      3.9% – German shepherd
      3.5% – Mixed breed
      3.5% – Mastiff/Bullmastiff
      3.2% – American bulldog
      2.1% – Boxer
      6.0% – Combination

      Source:
      http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/9-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

      1. avatar Tiro says:

        I’m not a data analyst, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. No wait. I’ve got that backwards.

        The problem with the dogsbite.org “studies” is that they’re based on unsubstantiated press accounts rather than actual breed identification. There’s another comment to this story that mentions garbage in, garbage out as a truism, and with this data it applies. Why should anyone, especially on this site, assume that the press is particularly good at breed identification given their amazing track record with accurately recording the details of firearms related stories? These stories are emotional pieces meant to drive readers to advertising, not meticulously verified with veterinary experts.

        Fortunately, there is an example of a study that is both statistically rigorous, and conducted by veterinary experts:
        http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/#1

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Thank-you.

        2. avatar John Galt says:

          The National Canine Research Institute is a PR front group for pit bull apologists. Starry-eyed dreamers who project their emotions onto a particular breed and expect that the breed’s characteristics and temperament can be magically transformed through warm fuzzies.

          Much the same way that the anti-gun crowd believes that “gun free zone” signs will magically stop bad guys.

          And they’re about as honest in their motives as MAIG, Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand, etc.

          Their tag line is “Preserving the Human-Canine Bond” — a more accurate tag line would be “Preserving the Pit Bull Breed”

          What the anti-firearms crowd and the pro-pit bull lovers have in common is emotionalism, a belief in magical thinking and a refusal to confront reality.

        3. avatar Tommycat says:

          You’re one to talk John, quoting dogsbite.org and other anti-pit bull sites. NCRC has FAR more credibility than any of the sites you posted your “facts” from.

          And seriously.. 33 fatalities from ALL dogs and you want to ban a SPECIFIC BREED. Why don’t you try calling them “Assault Dogs” maybe you can get on the news as the next Shannon Twats

        4. avatar John Galt says:

          I never once suggested banning the dogs or the breed. But we need to acknowledge the reality.

          Much the same way that TTAG acknowledge the “ugly” part of gun ownership:

          * Idiot Gun Owner of the Day
          * Passively Constructed Negligent Discharge of the Day
          * the long-gun open carry debacle
          * what bad guys do with guns
          * etc.

          Just like we can’t wish away the terrible tragedies caused by people using guns, we can’t wish away that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than all other breeds combined.

          The most salient fact that we all need to face is that a dog (ANY breed of dog) is not comparable to a gun.

          A gun is a harmless hunk of metal until used for good (or evil) by a person.

          A dog is a living being with unpredictable behavior. Some breeds more so than others.

          Peace.

        5. avatar Tommycat says:

          You say you don’t want to ban the breed, but you get your “facts” straight from dogsbite.org. A little clue for you. They are the MDA/Everytown/Brady Campaign for dogs. They have absolute ZERO credibility on their statistics, because of the way they compile them and how they twist the stats to fit their agenda. Sound familiar? Ever since she was attacked by a dog that was said to be a “pit bull” she has been on a mission to target the bully breeds. She wants breed specific legislation, despite EVERY SINGLE REPUTABLE ANIMAL ORGANIZATION BEING AGAINST IT
          http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-lack-of-professional-support/

          Interestingly the site you post acts EXACTLY like MDA. Any dissent in their comments section gets immediately deleted. Sound familiar?

          They call any dog that resembles in any way shape or form a pit bull a “bully breed” which includes mastifs, boxers, bulldogs, cane corso, despite these dogs being bred for different purposes altogether. Not all the dogs counted by them as Pit Bulls are in fact actually pit bulls. So it looks like they like to make up their own “facts” as well… Sound familiar?

        6. avatar LC says:

          I think its fair to say Galt’s arguments got completely blow out of the water

    5. avatar Richard says:

      “You can call it coincidence”
      You could, if you are stupid.

      You could also blame it on the breed… if you are stupid.

      It’s the owner. If you own a dog, you are responsible for it’s actions. Train it to act properly. If this is not a possibility, make sure it is never out of your control.

      I had a dog a few years back that was severely abused. He was nearly dead when I found him, and he tried to attack me. He had to be restrained at the vets office, and it took months before he was calm enough to be enjoyable around.

      I never let him out of my control for a moment. He was always locked up securely. Other people were not allowed around him, aside from adult friends of mine who knew the risks. He was a good dog in his own way for the last 4 years of his life.

      He was without a doubt a dangerous dog. So I adjusted my actions accordingly, and negated the danger.

      It’s all about the owners. Don’t be foolish.
      Stupid/violent people have violent dogs that aren’t under control.

      1. avatar JJ48 says:

        How DARE you act like a responsible pet owner, instead of just putting down the dog outright! Don’t you know that if it makes even ONE person have a false sense of safety, it’s better to kill a dog than to risk someone getting years of enjoyment from keeping it as a pet?

        Seriously, though, nice story. I hope you have many happy years together

        1. avatar Richard says:

          Thanks JJ.

          We had a great 4 years together. He never attacked me past that first night, though he was cautious for months. He never liked new people, and took a long time to warm up to them. I was lucky enough to have a large closet/pantry area that I was able to remodel into a nice room for him. I could keep him 100% away from new guests without making him feel like he was restrained. He was big and dangerous, but with a bit of thought I was able to make it an enjoyable experience.

      2. avatar John Galt says:

        The problem is the ASPCA and other “humane” organizations have been engaging in a misguided and misleading attempt to rebrand pit bulls as a lovely pet for your average suburban family.

        The public is being suckered into adopting these dogs without realizing what they got themselves into, until it’s too late.

        For example.

        Girl, 4, is mauled to death by one of family’s TWO pit bulls while watching TV with her mom
        http://tinyurl.com/mh62q4f (Daily Mail)

        The ASPCA and other groups are glossing over the inherent danger and nature of pit bulls vs. other breeds.

        Pit bull owners should be fully informed so they can at least decide whether or not to buy a gun in case their dog turns on them.

    6. avatar tdiinva says:

      Not sure about a standard poodle. They are extremely smart and ill tempered. They can take on a German Shepherd and win.

  10. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I have the over capacity assault Alaskan Malamute Rough Collie cross that can empty himself in half a second. He has that rear rump thingie that goes up.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Actually, if I had to pick a dog to stick in a Ronald McDonald house at Riley Hospital, it would be the Malamute Collie cross I have.

  11. avatar Howard says:

    after being attracted by a Rottweiler (getting teeth marks on my back), it’s owners said, “he has never done that before!”

    Guns do not have their own minds – dogs do!

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      And just what were this Rotts intentions after he was ATTRACTED to you and you ended up with teeth marks on your back?

      1. avatar Howard says:

        I was walking down the sidewalk – the night before trash day – his owner was by the curb (with a trash can or two) as I walked by. The owner had failed to close the gate, so, I was between the dog and its owner, moving at a fast walk. It was during a heat wave (later, I was told that the dog had not been eating much the last couple of days, presumably, because it was so hot). The dog may have though he was protecting his owner from an attack – when I saw the dog, I turned my back to it. The owner was right there, and probably grabbed the dog to stop the attack (I was looking away from the dog and did not see why he stopped the attack, but, it did not last long).

        The owner never acted as if he thought he was in danger – it is just my best guess about what the dog may have been thinking (in addition to being in a bad mood because of the weather).

        As I said before, guns do not have their own minds – dogs do!!!

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          *banging head on desk*

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Please don’t tell me that you are banging your head on the table because “the dog was just protective.” If that is your point then those of us who think pit bulls are dangerous are correct. The dog’s instinct is to attack those who it believes presents a threat to his owner even when no threat exists.

    2. avatar Richard says:

      “He’s never done that before!!!1!!!”

      “my poor (gangbanging) son was a good boy, he just fell in with a bad crowd!”

      If you don’t understand that the lie is just a reactionary defense then you have no place in the debate.

      1. avatar Howard says:

        without evidence, I am expected to assume they are lying? (they [dog owner & family] sounded more confused and bewildered, than like they were making an excuse). Were they also lying when they told me the dog was good with kids? Both are certainly possible, but, I doubt it. Since you were not there, perhaps you have a better idea of what was going on than I do, but, again, I doubt it.

        Most, if not all, dogs will act to protect their owners & friends from an attack – not all dogs will assume walking down a sidewalk toward its owner is an attack. Some do.

        Feel free to bang your head against it, though I doubt it will do the desk any good.

  12. avatar Dark says:

    Yeh, I got ya pit bull right hea, got dem vicious teeth and all you need ta do is press dis button and he’ll stop actin’ a fool.
    Oh yes, this is a pit bull, a very nice and wonderful dog. We DISCOURAGE shock collars because he is already friendly and loyal as can be.
    Apply to guns and you will see why MDA is so… Forceful in their acts.

    1. avatar Taylor TX says:

      Shock Collars are GREAT training tools, particularly on large muscular breeds, and even more so with males.

      We as humans have a tendency to crank the voltage higher than needed, an emotional response to the dog doing something you disapprove of, as opposed to using the minimum amount of charge to cease the bad behavior.

      Honestly, I try to train thatyou should get to the point where you rarely EVER use the shock setting, and the beep is more than enough.

  13. avatar Jim says:

    Unfortunately the large majority of owners of the “dangerous” breed category, at least around here, get them specifically because of their rep and train them (or don’t train them, depending on how you look at it) to be mean attack animals.

    You can’t find a doper or meth head around here that doesn’t have a pit or a rotty.

  14. avatar Jay1987 says:

    That is odd seems the anti gun arguement is recycling a lot of arguements from other anti (insert activity or object here) movements. As for the pitbull I had one when my son was very young aside from her fascination with chewing furniture & digging holes in the yard she was a very lovable and gentle natured dog. so much so a 6 month old could crawl across the carpet, grab her tail, ears, jowls, or whatever other part and drag her across the hardwood floor most she ever did was lick him till he got to cacklin so hard he loosened his grip enough for her to escape then it turned into a big game of inter species tag.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      You have no idea. Do a little research on anti-anything. Believe it or not, there was a movement in 1943 against sliced bread, and the slogan was “to stop sliced bread for the children” the banners believed that because sliced bread was so easy to eat, children would eat too much carbohydrates and become obese. The good old NYT was even at that time backing the banners.

      Look to anyone who wants to ban anything in about any country and you have the same recycled themes.

      1. avatar Jay1987 says:

        Yeah and they all boil down to “we wanna ban this. Any opposition?”
        “Yeah!?!? Well LOOK AT THIS BABY!!! STIL OPPOSED!?!? LOOK AT THIS MOTHER F@$*ING BABY!!!”

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Well… they didn’t ban it and children have gotten fatter.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          We should have listened…

          Dear God, what have we DONE?!

  15. avatar Rick_in_NH says:

    6 weeks ago at 9PM on a Sunday night I was walking my dog down the road that goes by my house. A pit bull pushed its way past the owner, ran down a 300 foot driveway and attacked my dog. After $1100 for vet bills (paid by the pit bull’s owner) my dog is back to normal. The costs don’t cover the time spent caring for my dog, the cleaning of the blood spilled on my car’s back seat on the way to the vet emergency room, and re-introducing my dog to stranger dogs that she does not know or trust.

    I have no problem with owning “problem” breeds, but if they attack another dog or a person, then they need to be put down or removed to a place where they can do no further harm.

    ALL my neighbors suggested that I walk my dog while open carrying my shotgun to remind everyone of the attack. This was the second time a dog in the care of these people attacked another dog unprovoked. I don’t feel that “dangerous” dogs should be prohibited, but I do believe in the “one Bite” rule.

    The difference between a dog and a gun is that gun owner has control over who gets shot while the dog owner is responsible for the independent actions of his dog. Dog owners know that their dog does not obey every command every time. Unlike a gun, a dog can go off on its own.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “This was the second time a dog in the care of these people attacked another dog unprovoked. “

      It seems to me that this statement fully supports the author’s thesis and several of the comments made early in the comment section.

    2. avatar teemoo says:

      Why didn’t you do the rest of us a favor and shoot the dog? In my state, you can shoot dogs attacking other dogs, livestock, or people without fear of prosecution or civil liability. Maybe look to see what the laws are in your state, but for damned sure, carry a gun from now on. For the children.

      1. avatar Heathen says:

        Also true in my state. I grew up on a livestock farm,strays dogs were shot, menacing dogs were shot.

        One of my neighbors has a white female pit . They’ve raised Ariel since she was a pup after she was hit by a car while her former owner (junkie) left her to wander. She’s a great dog around their children,etc. She’ll bark at me on occasion but stops when she notices that it’s me. Comes up & wants petted ,etc. Yeah, I’m apparently one of her humans.

        New neighbors on the other side moved their white trash arses in a while ago.They’ve an older grey mouthed hunting breed,who can’t die soon enough to suit me. When not in their house,they tie him up with a chain long enough to reach my property & back deck. If that dog makes the mistake of coming towards me again while growling, and being aggressive. The cops won’t be the ones to shoot him.

        Best damned dog I ever had was a Coyote that a former girl friend raised from a pup.

    3. avatar LC says:

      I had a case similar when a neighbor’s pitbull attacked our family dog. I shot the pitbull and the neighbors were pissed off at me. They sued, they lost, I filed a counterclaim, won, and it ended beautifully. These neighbors no longer live there (they moved to california. haha). I hope they get cancer.

      1. avatar Carry.45 says:

        Dude. It’s totally unwise to put those vibes into the universe. Also, thanks for representing the people of the gun so flatteringly on a public blog that MDA and similar douche bags monitor.

  16. avatar David in NC says:

    As the happy owner of a rescued pit bull, and as a volunteer at a local animal shelter and a non-profit rescue group, I am fully convinced of the “deed versus breed” philosophy. In fact, I see evidence of it every day. We get dogs that have been neglected, abandoned, beaten, fought, stabbed, shot…even burned. The ones that are lucky enough to be saved from death have an almost 100% success rate when matched with the right owners. Most of the pits who are adopted but later have to be euthanized are returned dogs. Something about coming from abuse to a shelter to a good home and back to a shelter breaks them mentally. On the flip side, we have awful people who come to the shelter on a daily basis looking for pits who are mean, aggressive, and not “snipped.” They leave when the dogs they meet greet them with wagging tails and wet tongues. Dirtbags like this give the breed a bad name, not the dogs themselves. It’s too bad we can’t euthanize them.

    It is refreshing to find people who are on the same page as me. I only wish there were more of us. Seven years after rescuing him from a wholly nightmarish situation, the closest my Brewski has come to resembling anything aggressive, is when he barks out of frustration because he can’t catch that damned laser pointer.

    Blame the deed, not the breed.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      The people who fall for these poor, abused dogs and think they can magically turn them around with “love” are sadly deluded, much the same way a woman who stays with an abusive husband believes she can “change” him.

      Pitbull owners (see “Breed Ambassador” and “Lion Tamer Complex” sections)
      http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-owners.php

      “Studies show that pit bull owners employ strategies to disguise the true nature of the breed by engaging in distortions, denial and overcompensation and by projecting blame after attacks.”

      1. avatar Richard says:

        So, what’s the process for reporting this “dogsbite.com” spammer?

        He’s spamming links to that website in each and every comment on this page.
        How do we report him for this foolishness?

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I think he’s doing a pretty good job of discrediting himself.

        2. avatar Mina Smith says:

          Dogs bite me . org is a typical Leftist, Liberal woman who is impervious to logic.

          She makes her $$ on this anti-advocacy.

          Her parallel in the gun world is Shannon Watts.

          added later: oops I see you are referring to John Galt. He’s Probably a sock puppet for Colleen Lynch aka Shannon Watts of the anti-pit bull brigade.

      2. avatar cmeat says:

        so you don’t think some “act right” works as well for canines as it does for spouses?

    2. avatar Mina Smith says:

      I love you but this is bullshit. you have a right to choose whatever kind of dog you like that matches with the needs of your family. make no excuses for that.

      Anyone who makes you feel like you need to tell them a story about how great your dog is or what a great service you are doing for dog-dom to rescue one should go F&ck themselves.

    3. avatar Roscoe says:

      “On the flip side, we have awful people who come to the shelter on a daily basis looking for pits who are mean, aggressive, and not “snipped.”… Dirtbags like this give the breed a bad name, not the dogs themselves. It’s too bad we can’t euthanize them.”

      Agreed…If only.

  17. avatar Random_Commenter says:

    I have 4 ferrets. Ferrets are banned in Department of Defense housing, NYC, & The People’s Republic of California. These areas are also “Gun Free Zones”. My ferrets and firearms have not (yet) harmed me or anyone else. Good thing that I am not a prohibited person.

    Everyone should get a ferret instead or a firearm or vicious canine.

    /sarcasm

  18. avatar SHEA SHEEHAN says:

    THATS EXACTLY RIGHT!!! AND WHAT IM STILL TRYING TO TELL SOME PEOPLE!!!! ITS NOT THE TOOL OR WEAPON(offence or defense) YOU HAVE OR USE. ITS HOW WELL YOU KNOW IT AND OPERATE IT EITHER LIVING ANIMAL,TOOL FROM YOUR SHED OR A GUN!!!! OTHERWISE ITS JUST OWNER MALFUNCTION, NEGLIGENCE &STUPIDITY!!!!

  19. Everybody knows the pitt bull is a gentile, docile, peace loving breed. Don’t believe it, just ask the Pitt Bull fanatics.

    Me?

    When it comes to pitt bulls headed my direction, I shoot first and ask questions later.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Everyone says that open carry gun owners are gentile, docile, peace loving breed. Don’t believe it, just ask the gun owners

      Me?

      When it comes to gun owners coming my direction, I call the police and have them arrested and pray they get shot doing so.

      Yep, Paul, you might as well be a gun grabber, your logic is the same. Shoot first, ask questions later.

    2. avatar Richard says:

      Watch out there Paul.
      I don’t own a “Pitt”, but anyone who just starts (illegally) shooting at my dog any myself (we are never far apart) is going to receive return fire. One of us won’t be leaving alive.

    3. avatar Carry.45 says:

      Paul, you would! Pascal said it well: you employ the same logic as a gun grabber. Do you have a filter between your brain and mouth? This is the Internet. You have time to stop and think about what you’re typing and how it reflects upon you. I could only imagine what you’re like real time. Lets get coffee sometime, I’m downright curious.

  20. avatar Wes says:

    Anybody know what happens when a 5yo is running around screaming (like 5yr olds do) and trips over a pits leash tangling up with the dog? A chihuahua may also bite. The difference is that the chihuahua won’t rip a kids face off.
    I’ve seen it several times.

      1. avatar JT Niggle says:

        Thanks for that, I’m going to start using that website a lot I think.

      2. avatar Richard says:

        Oh, very interesting website indeed.
        Thank you for that.

    1. avatar outwardhound says:

      Exactly right. And, as other commenters have already pointed out, this is a poor analogy to guns. Dogs are sentient beings, act on past experiences, respond to stimuli, AND most importantly have been breed for certain characteristics that cause them to act and respond in predictable ways. Unlike a firearm, they have intelligence and and will go off on their own.

      Consider,
      when I want a dog that will retrieve a dead duck, I get a Lab
      when I want a dog to track a lost child, I get a bloodhound
      when I want a dog to find and hold a covey of quail, I get a pointer
      when I want a dog to herd sheep, I get a collie
      oh, and if I want a dog that will, by its nature and breed be reliable for attacking, I get, umm, what is it now….?

      If you want an analogy, how about the pit bull crowd, that after a terrible mauling or death of a child, blame the owner for poor training, never the dog and certainly never the breed – this sounds SO much like the mother of a murderous thug saying, “oh my poor baby was just hanging around the wrong crowd, he was a good boy, he was turning his life around.” The disingenuous arguments by pit bull apologists falls flat under the most rudimentary considerations.

      A pit bull,Presa Canario, or similar are exceptionally dangerous compared to the Chihuahua and therefore require exceptional care and exceptional confinement. They need to be restricted from access to children, elderly, and other pets – their typical victims. Community restrictions make sense to me.

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        “oh, and if I want a dog that will, by its nature and breed be reliable for attacking, I get, umm, what is it now….?”

        Bingo.

        What is dogfighting and what does it have to do with pit bulls?
        http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php

        “Pit bulls are the dog of choice amongst dogmen, individuals who fight their pit bulls against other pit bulls. Dogmen consider pit bull terriers, who they commonly call “100% bulldogs,” to be the ultimate canine gladiator. Pit bulls were selectively bred for “gameness,” the ability to finish a fight. A truly gamedog will continue fighting “on stumps,” two or more broken legs, and far worse.”

        The Complete Gamedog- A Guide to Breeding and Raising the American Pit Bull Terrier
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/8919228/The-Complete-Gamedog-A-Guide-to-Breeding-and-Raising-the-American-Pit-Bull-Terrier

        There is no analogy between guns and dogs.

        A firearm is an inanimate object. A tool.

        A better comparison would be against other inanimate objects capable of inflicting death, in no particular order:

        * swimming pools
        * common household cleaning chemicals
        * ladders
        * automobiles
        * bicycles
        * knifes
        * matches
        * gasoline
        * machetes
        * baseball bats
        * tire irons
        * stairs

      2. avatar Andy T says:

        This “he was such a good dog” to “my kid was such a perfect angel” comparison has popped up several times in this thread. There’s one big problem with that argument: Dogs aren’t people! Humans are capable of self-determination; being “your own man”. A dog will be exactly what you’ve raised it and trained it to be.

    2. avatar Ben says:

      No, but I have had 3, 4, 5 year old nieces and nephews do that with my pits, pull on their tails, pull on their ears, take away their food and the worse I’ve seen is my pits lick the kids to death.

  21. avatar Slab Rankle says:

    The irony is that the people who are standing up for the rights of the dogs, would most likely be on the side of those trying to limit the rights of gun owners.

    Interesting point. Touchy feely animal lovers are anti gun leftists. Sounds about right, like how most vegans are probably anti gun leftists, but do you have evidence to support your opinion?

  22. avatar JT Niggle says:

    “The irony is that the people who are standing up for the rights of the dogs, would most likely be on the side of those trying to limit the rights of gun owners.”

    You sure are right about that! Check out this article from last year, discussing the Obama administrations statement about dog breeds.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/obama-breed-specific-legislation_n_3785911.html

    And the white house statement that they are discussing,

    “We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.
    In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds.

    The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by breed regulations — when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.

    For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation — which they call inappropriate. You can read more from them here.

    As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.”

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      “As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.”

      Community Organizer in Chief hard at work.

      Ha! Would that Occupier could apply the same logic to AR-15s, and guns in general. How about building stronger communities by empowering people to use guns to defend themselves from criminals?

      And for all the pit-lovers and trolls ready to attack me as a hypocrite regarding guns vs. pit bulls. I haven’t advocated that they be banned. However, dog adopters and the general public should be fully informed of the dangers pit bulls present and not have the risks glossed over.

      The pit bull marketing campaign is causing these dogs to end up with owners who don’t understand the risks and resulting in more pit bulls spreading throughout communities, instead of their numbers dwindling.

      How about a campaign by ASPCA to educate the public about pit bulls the same way the NRA educates the public in the proper handling of firearms, and kids through the Eddie Eagle program.

  23. avatar Tim Roberts says:

    I “had”an 10lb mini dachsie who was in our front yard when 2 of the wanna be bad ass biker “neighbor’s” pits ran down the hill and shredded him in a matter of seconds (I can still hear him squealing in my mind), needless to say they met an untimely end at the muzzle of my 12 gauge when they turned on me. The “neighbor almost met the same end when he went off on this old Vietnam Vet Jarhead. He’s lucky he’s doing 25 to life for his 3rd felony instead of pushing up daisys like his POS dogs.

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      Dang, you forgot the most basic of your boot camp training?

  24. avatar FoRealz? says:

    Guns don’t have legs and a mind of their own, nor instincts or certain breed specific idiosyncrasies.

    Guns don’t decide to hop over or under the fence on their own and tear up people’s trash or sometimes tear up people.

    Guns don’t feel tired, grumpy, sick or scared and have a commensurate influence on their behavior.

    Guns have zero intent or will of their own. Animals, no matter how well trained, do have a degree of unpredictability and autonomy of thought and action.

    Cue: “OMG! Are you okay?!? Fluffy never bit anyone before! She must have been scared of your tie!” Etc.

    I know what you are getting at in the article, but I don’t feel it’s a valid comparison.

  25. avatar Tile floor says:

    All I know is Pits tremble at the approach of my vicious attack Corgi

  26. avatar former water walker says:

    Where ya’ been rev? Big +1. In my town south of Chicago the only reason anyone has a pit bull is to kill, intimidate or fight. And they’re ugly as hell…bring the hate.

  27. avatar IronGiants says:

    Eh, I like cats.

  28. avatar TT says:

    The author’s whole premise falls apart when he says “all breeds do what their owner has trained them (or not trained) to do . . .” This shows so much ignorance about dogs it’s shocking. First, you can’t train a breed. You can train a dog, but you sure as hell can’t train a breed. On the other hand, you can certainly breed a breed. Lots and lots of behavioral traits are bred into dogs. Aggression (and passivity) can be and are bred.

    Some breeds are without a doubt more aggressive than other breeds, and pits are an aggressive breed.

    1. avatar PeterK says:

      This is true, but you shouldn’t blame an entire breed of dog for people who buy the wrong dog breed. Just because some people can’t handle them doesn’t mean no one should have them, right?

      1. avatar Taylor TX says:

        Hey, that sounds like some other argument I hear all the time, maybes its about guns or something…. 🙂

      2. avatar TT says:

        I never said anything about banning pit bulls. I said the author’s argument was no good.

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      Aggression can absolutely be bred in or out of a breed. Pit bulls were without question bred to be aggressive, not signal their attack, and fight to the death.

      For reverse situation, read about the Russian fox study, where they bred out aggression from wild foxes.

      Taming the Wild
      http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text/1

      “Only a handful of wild animal species have been successfully bred to get along with humans. The reason, scientists say, is found in their genes.”

  29. avatar Jay1987 says:

    I love how people say Pits are aggressive… mine is scared half to death of a pink spray bottle full of water or a water house wielded by either of my boys (3&4 y.o) oh and the 2.5 lbs of coiled fury that is the girlfriend’s cat and car rides (loud exhaust) and thunderstorms.

    Also Pits weren’t bred for fighting other dogs they were bred for bull and bear fighting in ancient Rome. Another interesting fact Pits were historically used as “nanny dogs” in the early 20th century up until around the 30’s I believe it was. However thanks to Mike Vick & those like him us Pit owners & our dogs catch a bad rap. Yes my dog has bit me once or twice but that wasn’t an attack that was playing tug of war with a piece of rope and him tryin to get a grip (the lab mix has done it too.) In fact the only animal to have attacked me for no good reason is the friggin cat.

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      Lies and nonsense. Bulldogs were bred to fight bulls. Pits were bred for the ring, and less than a millenium ago.

  30. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Opinions are like assholes, TTAG is full of both of them 🙂 Between this article and the smoking article, some of the commenters REALLY continue to surprise me, why do other people want to define how other should live?

  31. avatar Newt421 says:

    Owning pitbulls is just like owning a firearm. They should never be left unsecured without adult supervision. They are the AR or glock of the dog world. If there is a dog attack and the offending dog is not readily idenifiable as non pit like poodle or Doberman it’s labeled by the media as a pit because it makes for a better story. I’m not saying that pits do not do an exteme amount of damage when they attack a person or animal but with proper supervision from a responsible owner they are no more dangerous to the public at large than any other breed. I have owned several pits and believe they are excellent pets and companions due to there loyalty and love for there owners. I never let my dogs run loose or leave them to their own devises and if one of my dogs acted like they were going to attack another person or animal that didn’t have it coming I would ventilate them immediately.

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      No, they are the back alley zip gun of the dog world. Liable to blow up I your face, hand or pocket as to hit a target.

  32. avatar DogGuy says:

    First post on TTAG that I’ve flat disagreed with in a while. Dogs are inherently more or less aggressive based on breed. That aggressiveness, whether it be with other dogs, livestock or people, has been bred into specific breeds just as truly as a pointer’s instinct to point. It is simply not true that in the end, a dog only does what it’s trained to do. The decades or centuries of selective breeding play a huge part in it. The right of a private or public group to disallow ownership of an individual dog based on the behavior of the whole may be a separate debate, but the author gets it wrong when he implies the owner is the sole factor in an aggressive dog attack.

    1. avatar Nathanael says:

      This article seems to me to be a classic example of everything looking like a nail to the guy with the hammer. I’m on the fence with regard to banning or restricting dog breeds, but trying to shoehorn that debate into the same mold as the gun debate is just stupid. We like to make fun of the gun control supporters for treating guns as if they have minds of their own, but that’s precisely what dogs do have.

  33. avatar Nathanael says:

    If, as is argued here, ownership of a pitbull is so comparable to ownership of a gun, with any wrongdoing due to owner error, could we agree on a simple proposal?

    The penalties for any harm a pitbull causes to a person, property, or other animal shall be the same as for that crime committed with a firearm and premeditation.

    If a pitbull kills someone, the owner faces first degree murder charges. If a pitbull attacks but doesn’t kill someone, the owner faces first degree attempted murder charges, etc…

    Any objections? Oh, pitbulls have minds of their own, and can’t be controlled with the same precision that inanimate objects like firearms can?

    1. avatar Tommycat says:

      Not quite agreeing with you.

      Fatal dog attack should be manslaughter. Murder 1 should be if he intentionally set the dog on a person.

      Dog mauling could be considered assault, or would be based purely on the actions of the owner. I mean do you charge the gun owner with attempted murder if he accidentally discharges his firearm and it happens to hit someone?

  34. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    I like cats. They’re kind of like me. They’re independent, they tend to their own business, they don’t generally make waves unless waves need to be made and they love liberty in it’s purest sense. Dogs are wonderful and awesome but they tend to be needy and much more dependent.

  35. avatar Newt421 says:

    Well guns are dangerous and there’s some irresponsible gun owners out there so let’s just ban em all for the chillruns.

  36. avatar dh34 says:

    The point of the article, for those that feel that I am ignorant and don’t know anything about breeds or dogs, was not about dogs at all. But thank you for your derision.

    The point of the article was about the culture of over-reaction and reactive banning. That assumptions based on incomplete and often irrational logic lead to poor decision making … such as the SAFE ACT and all of the other post-Newtown legislation.

    For those that did understand what I was apparently unable to communicate effectively..thanks.

    1. avatar teemoo says:

      The point of the article, for those that feel that I am ignorant and don’t know anything about breeds or dogs, was not about dogs at all. But thank you for your derision.

      The difference is, banning aggressive dog breeds can actually save lives, without costing any. And nobody has a right to an aggressive dog breed. It’s not like guns at all. If was a flawed analogy and you got called on it. Welcome to the internet.

      1. avatar dh34 says:

        I disagree with pretty much everything you say.

        But it is the internet…opinions you know….yours included.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “actually save lives, without costing any. “

        Oh bull squeeze.

        Humans are apex predators and thus are higher on the food chain than dogs.

        Just because people don’t know how to take responsibility for their own lives does not mean entire breeds of dogs should be banned.

        How about you grow a pair and if a PARTICULAR dog attacks you, you handle it and stop making assumptions that are not scientifically based. (cf, CDC study on dog attacks, if that reference was too subtle for you).

      3. avatar teemoo says:

        How about you grow a pair and if a PARTICULAR dog attacks you, you handle it and stop making assumptions that are not scientifically based. (cf, CDC study on dog attacks, if that reference was too subtle for you).

        Yeah, about that:
        “Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths.”

        http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

        You were saying? If most accidental gun fatalities were caused by one or two specific models of guns jumping out of peoples’ safes and killing people, wouldn’t we say “Boy, there must be a problem with those specific models of guns, eh?” Dogs, on the other hand, are incapable of doing wrong. Because they’re inanimate objects and only act when their owners make them. Or something.

        I say, Kill them all and let Dog God sort them out.

        1. avatar Mina Smith says:

          typical single issue troll.

        2. avatar Taylor TX says:

          Substitute Dog God with Gun God and you have the antis solution for gun owners, hmmm

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “If most accidental gun fatalities were caused by one or two specific models of guns jumping out of peoples’ safes and killing people, wouldn’t we say “Boy, there must be a problem with those specific models of guns, eh?”

          No, uh, actually, we WOULD NOT.

          Are you trolling?

          And that CDC study you linked to does not justify killing dogs on site…less than 10 deaths per year, and pit bulls were not even the #1 breed.

          Did you READ the study? Just wow.

      4. avatar J Star says:

        OK, top aggressive dogs are Chows, Chihuahuas, and Jack Russels. Ban away. Feel safer now?

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          Chihuahuas are nasty dogs. They have been the only breed of dog to get aggressive with me. Though I will say its only funny when that happens. If a Pitt did that it wouldn’t be funny at all.

  37. avatar gun papa says:

    As a professional in the dog world, pit bulls and their mixes account for a lion share of the incidents in my jurisdiction, but it has little to do with the breed in my experience. They are a VERY popular dog breed. The issue lies with poor ownership, poor training, poor socialization. Frankly, in my experience, the Pit Bull is an easier breed to deal with, as their behavior spectrum is simple, and the dog is not a big thinking breed. Pit bulls are not sneaky, and do not try to out figure the opponent like a Shepherd, or act without a hint of body language like a Chow Chow.
    Most of the issues that I encounter with Pit Bulls are dog vs. dog, and some property territoriality. Both issues can and do happen with most breeds.

    The difference between a dog and a gun is that a dog acts upon its own accord, independent of the owner. A dog has breeding traits. I take layered measures to lock up my guns, You may want to take the same measures to secure your animals. Failure to leash or secure your powerful dog can end in a dog acting like the animal that it is. I do not agree with breed bans, like I do not agree with gun bans. That said, if your dog, whatever breed is running loose and acting aggressive with me or my leashed carpet shark, expect that I will protect myself or my dog from yours..

    The responsibility for a dog’s actions, as it is with a gun, is a person’s fault. Unfortunately, in the case of the dog, the dog often times pays a much greater penalty than its owner when all is said and done.

  38. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    This has to go on record as one of the most derp filled threads on TTAG.

    1. avatar C says:

      For real. They’re going to be untwisting panties for weeks.

  39. avatar Accur81 says:

    Numbers.

    The most dangerous animals in the US are deer. They account for about 200 deaths per year, and a whole bunch of car crashes. My estimates of dog-related deaths are about 35-50 per year in the US. Rottweilers and pitbulls account for about 2/3 of that death toll. Even a small dog can kill a small child. However, if a 6 pound dog bites me, I’m going to kick a field goal with it. A 50-150 pound dog, on the other hand, could very well constitute a lethal threat. Pound for pound, pit bulls are some of the toughest dogs alive. That’s exactly why some scumbags train them to fight. You don’t see illegal golden lab or basset hound fighting rings.

    source:

    http://www.listosaur.com/science-a-technology/10-deadliest-creatures-in-the-united-states/

    Some personal observations:

    1. Police have a well-deserved reputation for being too quick to shoot dogs
    2. A large, aggressive dog is much more likely to be dangerous than a smaller dog
    3. Deer are more dangerous than dogs
    4. People can be more dangerous than deer or dogs
    5. Pepper spray usually works very well on dogs – particularly since they have a very sensitive sense of smell

    I’ve been bit by a small dog, and snapped at by my best friend’s pit bull. The little dog wasn’t much of a threat, but my buddy’s dog could have been, had he not quickly intervened. My 75-80 pound Weimaraner could also be a dangerous dog, and even a small dog could potentially kill a child.

    I don’t support banning any dogs, and I don’t support banning guns.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’m pretty sure deer don’t kill anyone who isn’t in a car going over 20 mph. Not a great comparison point.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Alright, bud, just drive 20 mph, then. All I ask is that you move over for people who want to drive at a normal speed.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          You might want to consider the number of deer vs the number of pits. Besides, there are more deer killed by hunters than vehicles. They have the right to preemptive strikes in defence of their kind./sarc.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          @Jeremy,

          You’ve got a point. Pit bulls are very popular dogs. I don’t have the info regarding exactly how much more lethal – statistically speaking – that a pit is versus a yellow lab. Come to think of it, Labradors are pretty poplar dogs and I don’t hear much about them attacking folks.

          If anyone has the homicide / attack rate per capita of pit bulls versus other dogs, I’d be happy to see it. My money is on pits and Rottweilers being on the top of the list for dangerous dogs. I doubt Bassett hounds and labs go “postal” very often.

        3. avatar Tommycat says:

          That’s because they call it a “pit bull type dog” in the news. If it gains any traction at all, then they might call it a Lab. But most times once the media hears it was a Lab, they drop the story.

  40. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Breeds” of dogs were bred by humans for certain traits. To then ignore those traits as if they don’t exist is nuts.

  41. avatar Mina Smith says:

    The arguments for dog control and gun control are 100% synchronous. There is zero difference.

    If you are for dog control & against gun control you are either:
    1. a Liberal straddling both sides of the same issue (freedom, personal responsibility)
    2. a hypocrite (taking one side of one issue because it’s “your” issue and taking the other side of the other)
    3. Really believe what the MSM tells you, except where guns are concerned (hence: you are dumb)

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      I see an id10t error in your post.

      1. avatar Mina Smith says:

        Clearly an example of someone who falls into all three categories simultaneously. Congratulations!

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          I’ve missed you. Where ya been?

          Excellent point, by the way. 🙂

  42. avatar Mina Smith says:

    BTW: the majority of pit bull advocates are lefties of the highest order and hate guns and gun owners.

    Been in the fight for decades with the dogs, had my first in 1985 … Lefty Liberal issue straddlers. They don’t stump for the dogs because “Liberty to own whatever type of dog I like” but because “I feel like dogs should have love and be treated like humans with fur”.

    blech.

    1. avatar J Star says:

      Very nice ignorance! You display it well!

      1. avatar Mina Smith says:

        Thanks, Leftie dog advocate troll!

        1. avatar J Star says:

          You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

      2. avatar Mina Smith says:

        So just checking: Do you consider someone “ignorant” who has spent 30 years fighting for the rights of people to own whatever type of dog they desire that works best for themselves & their families on the basis of personal freedom & responsibility?

        Someone who has owned “pit bull” type dogs for over 30yrs, having had 7-8 of these types of dogs in succession in that time and owning no other type of dog? (Dog #7? #8? I lost track … pictured here after horse/chicken chores this morning & one of the great loves of my life https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/yourphotos?pid=6033702637153186818&oid=108183018661297162011)

        That is how you define ignorant? Ok then.

        Meanwhile I stand by my assertion. I have fought for these dog’s rights from the basis of personal freedom & responsibility for 30 years and what I have learned in that time is that the Great Minority of “pit bull advocacy” folks are fighting for the rights of the dogs from that perspective.

        Most (99.99%) of the pit bull advocates are Liberal women who want to convince the world that pit bulls are fluffy children. On the other side of the debate are other Liberal women who want to convince the world that pit bulls are evil incarnate (because “the children”) and despise pit bull owners as low-class thugs.

        Liberals on one side, Liberals on the other – watching them duke it out is like watching a snake eat itself tail first. They do have one thing in common though: They absolutely hate guns & gun owners. Pit bull advocates see zero hypocrisy in their straddling both sides: guns bad/dogs good. They see no conflict because fighting for people’s rights to choose what kind of dog is right for their family is not how they see dog bans nor do they approach their advocacy from this perspective. Yet this is the only perspective from which the RKBA is fought from. See the problem yet?

        As someone who has attended symposiums, meetings, Govt committees & etc for these dogs you want to call me ignorant. Ok then, go ahead. Enjoy.

    2. avatar Ben says:

      You can count me as one of those who love my pits and my firearms….I am against banning any breed, and I am 100% 2A supporter.

  43. avatar JeremyR says:

    I’ve been shot once, and bit several times. Wasn’t the guns fault, the operator failed to look past his target. In one of the bites, the owner was trying to stop the dog. Never once did the pet owner tell the dog to attack though. I do blame the owners though. No reasonable person would want that kind of responsibility.

  44. avatar J Star says:

    Remember your hypocrisy when they come for your guns.

    My guns aren’t dangerous…but certain dogs breeds are! You got that sh!t from the media the same way ignorant anti-gun people get their gun info.

    As someone who has worked closely with breeders and been to several dog shows I can tell you that the dogs most likely to be nasty by way of their natural disposition are almost all very small breeds. Pit Bull terriers get a bad rep because every trashy person on the planet thinks they are bad asses and have to own a bad ass dog which they “know” is a pit bull from movies/tv/stupid media. Then they either train them to be mean or just mistreat them. Pit Bulls by nature are very gregarious and loving.

    And yes, the dogs I helped raise and show were all Pit Bulls aka American Staffordshire Terriers. You know how many times I have been bitten? Zero. Do you know how many times they growled at me? Never.

    But then again I’ve never been shot by my own gun or used it to shoot anybody either.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “My guns aren’t dangerous…but certain dogs breeds are! You got that sh!t from the media the same way ignorant anti-gun people get their gun info. “

      A-freaking-Men.

      Thank-you for that statement.

  45. avatar Ralph says:

    I was a dog trainer for several years — I owned a dog training school — before I went to law school. I trained more dogs than I can count. I never identified any breed that had a higher propensity to bite than any other breed.

    The question to me isn’t which breed is more likely to bite. The question is which breed can cause the most damage by biting. My answer, after training thousand of dogs, is the German Shepherd Dog. No other breed comes close.

    I love German Shepherd Dogs. I owned them. I trained them. I bred them. I showed them. None of mine ever harmed anyone that they weren’t supposed to harm. But no other breed bites more often without provocation and causes more damage when they do.

    And you people are afraid of pit bulls. You are fools.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      I don’t always love you, Ralph,
      But when I do…
      I love you a lot.

      I love you right now, mang.

      As an aside, when I took my pit to training, there was a German Shepard in there with her. That dog was definitely on the nervous side. It didn’t seem like it knew how to act around other dogs and it would suddenly get very afraid. My pit (like many others) is extremely hyper and very bad at reading other dogs. I’m sure Ralph knows that the most dangerous dog is a scared dog, and I was always worried that shepard would attack my pit. Not because I was afraid she would get hurt, but because I knew that the world is full of ignorant people like many of the hate rhetoric spewing commenters in this thread and would immediately blame my dog for anything that happened.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      GSD can be a fearsome dog but there are many other dog breeds that can take them down in a heartbeat and they are not necessarily fighting dogs at all. For instance the Plott Hound which is a bear and boar hunting dog with the mildest temperament you can find when it comes to others dogs and people. My Plott is a pussie except he hates GSDs. He can and will tear a schutz trained GSD a new one in heartbeat. If a dog is fearless in the face of a 500lb bear or a 150lb mountain lion a GSD is a piece of cake.

  46. avatar Matt in RI says:

    “Vicious Breeds” vs. “Vicious Guns”

    A Tale of Four Dogs:

    I will make my point eventually.

    First Dog: Massive Rottweiler I knew growing up. Loved to wrestle. I would attack with my patented flying tackle. Slam him to the ground. The dog’s response was to immediately overpower me, pinning me to the ground with his size and incredible power, and proceed to viciously lick my face to death. The amount of assault slobber was devastating. ….He also seemed to think that he was a cat.

    Second Dog:
    My neighbors’ black lab/mutt-whatever mix. Fiercely loyal, needy, and amazingly well behaved despite no formal training. She follows me around and begs for belly rubs. Medium sized dog, loving family since she was a puppy. Also loves to wrestle. When she wrestles, it’s a full on attack. Teeth like a wolf, snapping and clawing. Fast, limber,and unpredictable. Can’t have her around dogs, kids, anything. Just in case. We wrestle, I end up bleeding… but a total sweetheart, nonetheless.

    Third Dog:
    Total mutt. Rescue dog, previously abused. Adopted from a shelter by a friend of mine. Every time I went over, he was glued to my hip… always affectionate. Thought he was a great dog, but had a nasty limp when it got humid or damp. Medium sized, wanted to be a lap dog or just lick peoples’ faces all the time. Shed like a motherf*cker. Then my friend starts telling me the dog is biting people. Bit two people on the face…. Had to send him back. Never would have imagined.

    Fourth Dog:
    Pit bull/Mastiff mix. Amazing animal. Tall, gorgeous posture, and rippling muscles everywhere. Red/pink nose (OMG, THOSE ARE MORE VIOLENT!!!) 130 pounds of excitement. Another enormous dog. Fully ghetto owners….but they loved that dog. If she saw someone she met before, she’d destroy flooring with her toenails and piss everywhere with excitement. Then run you over and proceed to lick you to death. …Big, scary pit bull….

    HERE’S THE POINT:

    It’s not the breed. There are no “dangerous” breeds…. Sometimes, it’s not even the owners. Look back at the picture at the top. That dog is going to lick the sh*t out of your face. Scary…

    The correlation to gun ownership is this:

    We have basic safety rules. We claim we have situational awareness. The same applies with dogs. Whether you own or interact with a dog, you have to be responsible and aware of your actions.

    If you own, you must always be vigilant. You must be safe.

    If you interact, you must always be aware of your body language and your reactions.
    Unknown dog? Dogs are everywhere. Knowing the basics of dog behavior is just as important as reading human body language. You should know how to be safe. And dogs respond very quickly when you know what to do. (YOU DON’T NEED TO SHHOT THE DOG.)

    Random pit bull shows up on your property? Give it a treat and watch it melt. Your biggest problem will be getting it to go home.

    If we don’t want people to blame guns for bad things happening, the we can’t let them blame dogs, too.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should all learn a bit.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Excellent post.

  47. avatar Jon says:

    I have a pit bull. He has never attacked anyone. My niece sits and stands on him and me has never blinked an eye. It’s all about the owner. If he doesn’t like what she is doing (poking at his eyes or pulling his ears) he gets up and goes somewhere she cant. Condem a dog(pit bull) just like you do a gun (AR-15) this just means you have no common sense.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “I have a pit bull. He has never attacked anyone. “

      But he MUST have…to read some of the posts on this page, there’s no pit bull that exists that has not killed at least one baby.

      Kinda like all gun owners are murderous thugs just waiting to go off, I guess. Those that haven’t killed anyone over standing in line for coffee is just “haven’t killed anyone yet over standing line for coffee.”

  48. avatar Will says:

    Dog trainer Ceasar Millan, doesn’t believe a bad breed of dog exists. He’s handled everything from a Chihuahua nicknamed el-diablo to even bigger dogs. He owns pitts himself. Dogs turning on their masters usually turn out to be cases where the owners did not know or pay attention to what their dogs were telling them, and the dog reacting the only way it knew to get them to back off. Dogs raised for fighting or guard duties are usually trained to be aggressive. In the case of fighting, cruelly trained.

    But yes… just like a firearm, a dog is no more dangerous than the wishes of their masters or their ignorance

    1. avatar Matt in RI says:

      i’ve found it amazing how so many people here think pit bulls….or any dog for that matter….are a problem. DOES NOT COMPUTE. we fight for our rights to one thing, but deny so manys’ others.

  49. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    I love how people who rail against the illogic of MDA’s arguments all day long turn around and use exactly the same BS against pit bulls. You are hypocrites. As for the dog bite “statistics”, the CDC has called bullsh$!, and with good reason. In 2013 there were 32 fatalities from dogs according to the apparently popular website dogbites.org. 32. Total. So the very same people that are making the case that 11-12,000 annual fatalities from firearms is not significant or meaningful, then turn around and try to make the case that somehow those 32 fatalities and the “statistics” associated with them are somehow important. Let’s put this into perspective: a single incident would skew any statistic by over 3%. What that means is that any standard deviation you tried to apply would be huge relative to your sample size. Put simply, THE STATISTICS ARE MEANINGLESS. Even if you take them at face value, which you shouldn’t. As a bit more perspective, even rescue organizations misidentify pit bulls far more often than they get it right. One of my dogs is a chow husky mix, but because he doesn’t have floppy ears he is routinely called a pit bull. Its a giant exercise in “the thing that goes up”. In reality, the vast majority of these dogs are mixed breeds that come from all sorts of backgrounds, most of which can’t even be reliably identified by DNA testing, let alone visually. Keep in mind, even with DNA testing, you only get reliable results if at least one parent was a purebred. If they are a true mixed breed, you might as well throw a wet towel at a dartboard and see what sticks. And with regards to reported bites, there is a huge reporting bias against pits. First, people are afraid of pits because the media has a heyday every time someone does something stupid with a dog and the dog then hurts somebody. So those bites absolutely get reported. But what about the chihuahuas and shih-tzus out there that bite everyone in sight? I have never, not once, been bitten by a large dog of any breed. I have been bitten at least half a dozen times by small dogs. I just didn’t feel the need to report it. It’s just the reality that large dog bites get reported, small dog bites don’t.

    All this being said, while I agree that the argument against pits is exactly the same bs as you see for guns, on a fundamental level you are dealing with a living being, not an inanimate object. A gun will do exactly what you tell it to, a dog SHOULD do exactly what you tell it to IF you have properly trained them. A better comparison than guns is raising a child. Given the right guidance, training, and support, they will be absolutely predictable. And if you screw it up, they won’t be. People get a pit bull puppy because they’re friggin’ adorable. They will love you to bits, they’re soft, and they love people. Then, just like children, they start going through their “teen years” between about 1 and 3 years old. And people realize they just don’t know what do. So the dog takes over. It is at that point that the dog transitions from being a beloved pet, to a weapon. It isn’t the dog’s fault, it’s biology. The people in its life don’t get that if they don’t take the leadership position, the dog will, and the dog hasn’t the foggiest idea how to live in a human world. I’ve been fostering “bully breeds” for a long time, and I have never had a dog that I couldn’t train to be a good pet. I currently have 110 lb pit in my care that came in 2 weeks ago food aggressive, toy aggressive, overly protective, and had already nipped at people. He is now a favorite of the neighborhood kids, who come over and ask us if he can come out to play. Two weeks of consistent rules and training made that difference. But if you’re not willing to put in that work, if you’re not prepared for dealing with a stubborn, strong-willed dog, don’t get a stubborn, strong-willed dog. Just like if you’re not prepared for bone-shattering recoil, you shouldn’t go out and buy a .338 Lapua. Dumbs$#t decisions get dumbs$#t results.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh. They don’t want to hear the truth, they want to be hypocrites.
      It’s OK to defend guns and recognize how the media has an agenda, but they can’t recognize the same thing going on over DOGS!

  50. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    I should stay out of this as I would rather kick some anti-pitbull persons face in than listen to his BS when they don’t know jack squat about what they are talking about.
    I also own an Ak variant, so I hear the same argument about “assault rifles” I’m also a pilot and I hear the same horse crap about small planes. “oh they crash” In the long run, I own Am-staffs and Amstaff mixes, all spayed females and wonderfully social, I’m a pilot and I have assault weapons. I have heard enough shit to make a brown stain from Seattle to Boston. The same anti-dog rhetoric is the SAME BS we hear about gun control. So any of you hypocritical slobs defending guns while being anti-specific dog breed can go fk yourselves.

  51. avatar JR says:

    Wow. The ignorance here is astounding…and this from folks who I would think would be the last people to buy into the media “truths” and “unbiased” website statistics.
    Someone in the comments said dogs “make decisions”. That would imply dogs have the ability to reason and they do not…therefore they don’t “decide” to do things. They react based on instinct, training, etc. Not reason or logic.
    Sorry to burst some peoples idiot bubble but dogs don’t just snap and attack out of nowhere. Whether the had behaved viciously before or not, they were brought to that point by humans who don’t understand a dog’s needs. People treat a dog in such a way to fulfill their own human needs. They love them to death and have no concept of boundaries, exercise, etc. that dogs need to be fulfilled. Allowing your dog to live as a complete equal to humans with no boundaries WILL at some point lead to problems. Combine that with a powerful breed of dog and you can have problems. Be a responsible person who cares to educate themselves on the needs of the animal you are keeping and you end up in my shoes – with a 13 year old pit bull who has never so much as growled at another dog or a human, allows children to climb all over her and poke her eyes and pull her ears and never stops wagging her tail, and everyone who meets her agrees that she’s the best and most sweetest dog ever. And she’s not the exception…I have a 5 year old pit bull who’s just the same.
    Persecuting a breed of dog because of the kind of dog it is, is as stupid as persecuting a type of rifle because of the type of rifle it is. AR 15 anyone? They MUST be dangerous cause the media and some biased statistics say so. Your a hypocrite if you believe so….and an ignorant one at that. Educate yourself on the matter before speaking, and before you demand the same of others regarding gun rights. Ignorance drives breed specific legislation and ignorance drives gun bans.

    1. avatar Sambo82 says:

      “Persecuting a breed of dog because of the kind of dog it is, is as stupid as persecuting a type of rifle because of the type of rifle it is. AR 15 anyone?”

      No, it’s not the same, and it’s not just Pitt Bulls or even dogs. Animals an animate (hence the name). Guns are not. Guns do not have a mind of their own as the Moms Demand would have people believe. There is no comparison. Even very well trained zoo and circus animals with no history of abuse or neglect have snapped after decades of perfectly fine behavior.

      You are right that Pitt Bulls are not reasonable though. They’re animals and to a point they’re unpredictable. It seems that every time a dog kills a kid it’s owners swear that they were “the sweetest thing”. Until they weren’t. Guns don’t do that.

      I don’t want to ban Pitt Bulls or any dog, I just want the owners held responsible. If dogs are just tools as AR15’s are, then you should be fine with that. If you dog kills a kid, you get charged with murder. That seems like a fair compromise to me.

  52. avatar Matt in RI says:

    Anti-gun and Anti-uh-uh-vicious attack dogs. pit bulls and mutts and whatever we rescued…. ….with ar-15’s…. we can’t have guns. can’t have gorgeous pit bulls or mastiffs….or for god’s sake some jack russell terrier that’s totally frazier.

  53. avatar Matt in RI says:

    WOW. Methinks we should do more “Dogs vs. Guns” debates. Would have never thought it woud=ld be so difficult….

  54. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    Way too much fail in this article even to bother with much more than an eye roll and an observation: for a website which repeated and vociferously shouts from the treetops how guns are inanimate tools and its the operators’ actions which matter, it strikes me as exceedingly stupid then to defend said tools by comparing them to very animate objects such as dogs, particularly dangerous breeds of dogs at that, whose behaviors can be influenced by both the owner’s actions and inactions. Epic fail, TTAG.

    I propose a corollary to the guns and alcohol don’t mix theorem: gun blogging and alcohol don’t mix.

  55. avatar Philip says:

    After reading some of the comments I think the writers logic blew over some peoples heads. Domestic canines are not inherently ruthless savages they must be trained to become like such or have never been propely socialized. Guns are not inherently dangerous UNLESS it is in the hands of a person with evil intentions. I think what the writer was attempting to convay was that MSM has a lot of people convinced about certain topic NOT based on fact BUT on emotions.

    1. avatar Sambo82 says:

      Well, I think I have a fair compromise between the “Pitt Bulls are dangerous and need to be banned” and the “Pitt Bulls are harmless unless they are trained otherwise” folks. IF your Pitt Bull maims or kills someone you are directly responsible as though it were simply a tool you used. If someone is killed, you are tried for murder. Period. If having a dog is REALLY the same as having a gun as TTAG is suggesting here, and as we all know guns can’t hurt anyone on their own, then Pitt Bull owners should be fine with such a law.

    2. avatar dh34 says:

      @ Phillip. Thank you.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Yes, thank-you. Sadly, even with this explanation, it STILL will blow over heads.

  56. avatar John Galt says:

    I never once suggested banning the dogs or the breed. But we need to acknowledge the reality.

    Much the same way that TTAG acknowledge the “ugly” part of gun ownership:

    * Idiot Gun Owner of the Day
    * Passively Constructed Negligent Discharge of the Day
    * the long-gun open carry debacle
    * what bad guys do with guns
    * etc.

    Just like we can’t wish away the terrible tragedies caused by people using guns, we can’t wish away that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than all other breeds combined.

    The most salient fact that we all need to face is that a dog (ANY breed of dog) is not comparable to a gun.

    A gun is a harmless hunk of metal until used for good (or evil) by a person.

    A dog is a living being with unpredictable behavior. Some breeds more so than others.

    Peace.

    1. avatar GunGuyInNC says:

      John you would do yourself a great service by reading more on the dog bite issue, gathering all your info (based on your links) from a site that is massively biased against “pit bulls” does not tell the true story. As others have said, it’s exactly like using Brady/MDA sites as a source about “gun violence”.

      The “pit bull” is not recognized as a breed per se, but rather a type — a descriptor of several breeds of dogs with similar physical characteristics. Commonly, the breeds included are the American pit bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and the American Staffordshire terrier. Sometimes other breeds are included, such as the English bull terrier or the American bulldog, or even mastiff-type dogs like the Argentine Dogo, the Tosa, the Cane Corso and the Presa Canario. As far as the media is concerned they are all “pit bulls”.

      Now add in the fact that large numbers of pit bull owners (very popular among meth cookers and drug dealers) get them for the wrong reasons (insert anti-gunners analogy about guns and male member size) and you end up with headlines the media can’t resist. In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds (don’t expect this type of truth telling if Obama/Congress ever green lights the CDC to study guns).

  57. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

    This looks like Moms Demand Shenanigans for Everytowns facebook page. Tons of emotionally driven arguments, mixed in with cherry picked stats. Weird

  58. avatar Shire-man says:

    Ive had nothing but good times with “pit bulls” and their look-alikes. Of course I dont hang out with gangbanger DMX or white trash wannabees who neglect or abuse their dog. Those idiots would turn any breed hostile.

    PS John Galt needa to change his name as he is anything but. Dogsbite.org? Seriously? You should be embarassed.

  59. avatar Fabian B. says:

    What makes you say there’s no right to “keep and bear” dogs? (Ok, the bearing part, well… Maybe not with a pitbull. 😉 )

  60. avatar New Chris says:

    I have a black lab pit mix. So a black pit.. Is she is an assault dog?

    When she was a little puppy, I knew she would grow up to be a powerful animal, so I taught her, using kindness and gentle encouragement to never bite people.

    I would play with her, and if she mouthed to hard I would yelp and pull away so she understood that she “hurt” me and I would not pay with her if she did that.

    Now she refuses to bite, even when I’m doing something nasty like trimming her nails.

    That’s it, dogs are easy.

    I had a neighbor with a different breed. He would beat the dog for peeing on the carpet. One day the dog turned on him and he got ride of it insisting that the dog was “just too aggressive.”

    A funny thing happens when you apply this principle to child rearing…

  61. avatar Marc1980 says:

    My small children can take off running for no reason and my AR nor my 1911 is going snap and shoot them in the back. Nor is my Labrador Retreiver going to click off safe and run them down and attack them. If you want to take the chances with pit bulls and your children, then that’s on you. This is a piss poor comparison. Some dog breeds are obviously(scientifically proven) more intelligent than others. They possess the ability to reason (if only simply) before they act. Labs are only ranked about 7th (Border Collies are #1 followed by Poodles). If it’s a guard you want, get a German Shepherd (#3). No body has ever accused a pit of being able to think. Come to think of it, I’m not sure their owners have been either….

    1. avatar Tommycat says:

      Wow, so much ignorance on display in a single post. Congratulations. Did you know that since many apartment complexes have been banning pitbulls, the thugs have been using Labradors. They get called “Pit bull type” dogs in the media when they attack someone. It’s like the “Assault Rifle” the Media use for dogs. When someone says, “Oh, it was a lab” media attention goes away.

      But yeah, I’m just a pit bull owner, so you know, I can’t be a rational thinker. Do you like Sheriff Joe? He runs a no kill shelter for pits, and even has the dog Mickey that was on the news. Of course you simply think that the Lab is a safe dog.

    2. avatar Will says:

      (Sigh) You do know that German Shepherds once had a turn on the evil dog bandwagon, right? As did Dobermans, and Rottweilers before Pits took the spotlight back in the mid 80s because the gangs and drug dealers seen them as a weapon and a defense of their goods

      Speaking in generalities, you and I as humans, also have a past… 100% of human genocide (attempted or successful) has been perpetrated by humans. Do we hold what some have done against ourselves?

  62. avatar N8thecowboy says:

    I agree with Sambo82. People can have whatever dog they want and raise it however they want. If it kills somebody, it’s their butt on the line. Same as if it was their hand that did the killing. I’ve lived with nice pits and have in countered mean chihuahuas. It’s in the hands of the owners.

  63. avatar Paco says:

    Have to agree with the piss poor comparison posts, comparing an animal to inaminate objects is not being intellectually honest.

  64. avatar xwing says:

    I love dogs, and agree that the owner plays a huge role… the difference is dogs are living and breathing. A gun in it’s natural state does nothing. A dog in the absence of it’s owner can be unpredictable. You leave a small terrier alone and it’s tendency is going to be to chase small animals. It’s what it was bred for. I entirely agree that the ones often labeled are dangerous working breeds and in the correct context are desirable traits. Unattended and in a new situation those traits can be “bad”. that’s why we have leash laws and owners should be held accountable for when their dogs go loose and injure someone. Working breeds have territory much larger than our typical homes so if they get out their behavior is perfectly innocent as they are just protecting their area, but they might be protecting it from a neighborhood child.

    Our neighbor had pits and while I was around them at their home they were fine… but their behavior barking through the fence, not so much. Our fence was not in the best of shape after many hurricanes and I told them in the nicest way that if they got through our fence at our dog or lawn maintenance men they might not get back to their side of the fence. I repaired as best I could but I thought they might take my hand off while doing it.

  65. avatar Paco says:

    At the same time, be careful of anyone quoting a .org source.

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      .gov sites are even worse.

  66. avatar Eric says:

    I have been around many dogs in my life, including a lot of pit-bulls, rottweilers, dobermans, German shepherds, & other so-called vicious breeds. All but one dog (a doberman) from all of the breeds I just mentioned have been wonderful family dogs that wouldn’t hurt anyone except to defend their owners. One of the sweetest dogs I have ever met was a friend’s service dog which happened to be a pit-bull (it was a seizure alert dog and since she didn’t look disabled got hassled every time she went into a store or a restaurant for the first time). I was almost bitten by a golden retriever once, I was bitten by a black lab another time, and the most vicious dog that I have ever been around was a poodle. So based on my experience we should ban retrievers, labs, and poodles. Yeah, breed specific laws are just as pointless as the gun laws the antis are for.

    Oh, and by the way… The black lab that bit me is now my best friend. She whines and wags her tail a mile a minute whenever she sees me and jumps up to lick my face every chance she gets. Maybe we should try to convince more antis to go shooting, they might find that guns aren’t so bad after all.

  67. avatar TM says:

    In my line of work I am often out on properties for inspections and run into a good number of dogs. Usually I approach the dog and make friends and 98% of the time the animal is friendlyI have become leery of certain breeds due to my experiences. I have had two bad experiences with a pitbull. The first was when I arrived at the property the pitbulls were already in progress attacking a neighbor woman. The second was this summer when my son and I were bike riding on a paved bicycle trail passing a child holding the leash of a pitbull. The dog came after me first and missed then bit my son on his foot pretty hard. We called the police but the father who was off the trail ran up grabbed his child and ran off with the dog. The breeds I have the most problems with are Chows or chow mixes and Australian Cattle Dogs. If I see one of those I will not go on the property.

    The strangest incidents for me involved a pitbull and a buffalo. The dog climbed a privacy fence to watch me and was sitting on it like a frog. It was very friendly just wanting attention. The buffalo saw me went over to a lift gate, hooked it’s horn on the gate, lifted and opened it. He proceeded to follow me around. The farmer later told me the animal desires human contact and will go to their neighbors and “knock” on the door with it’s horns.

  68. avatar Dermott says:

    As an engineer, I like to see numbers, feelings and “I think” don’t do it for me.

    Dogs cannot be startled. This from the CDC website:

    “Dog Bites

    Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children.1 One in five dog bites results in injuries serious enough to require medical attention.1

    Why be concerned about dog bites?
    •About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.1
    •Almost one in five of those who are bitten, about 885,000, require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries; half of these are children.1
    •In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.2

    Who is at risk?
    •Children: Among children, the rate of dog bite–related injuries is highest for those ages 5 to 9 years, and children are more likely than adults to receive medical attention for dog bites.3”

    If half of those bit are children and 27 k of all those bit require reconstructive surgery, then 13.5 k children require reconstructive surgery. That’s close to 37 kids a day going in for reconstructive surgery. Over 1200 kids a day require medical attention from dog bites.

    Cops shoot dogs out of fear of being bit, it hurts.

    You can’t tell me your large well trained German Shepard of Pit Bull is not dangerous. They understand and can smell fear in people

    I’ve been bit by a loving well trained dog. I just avoid them, no longer afraid as I’ve been trained in how to deal with a charging dog, hope it works if needed.

    Little kids are easy prey for large dogs,

    Just sayin’

    1. avatar Mina Smith says:

      (soothing voice) : Yes, yes we need to ban all large dogs. Let’s not rely on people’s personal responsibility. It’s for the children.

      (soothing voice) : Yes, yes we need to ban all assault weapons. Let’s not rely on people’s personal responsibility. It’s for the children.

  69. avatar JohnM says:

    The difference between dogs and guns is that the owner’s neglect of the former can create a pattern of “unpredictable (and possibly dangerous) behavior” whereas the neglect of the latter simply results in corrosion and a loss of value/function.

    Whether killed by guns or dogs, it’s a product of the owner’s behavior. The only difference lies in the effects of that owner’s (or perhaps a previous owner’s) behavior. Since a dog is capable of making it’s own decisions, the influence of the owner can lie dormant for a long time until a specific scenario brings it out.

    Certainly there are cases of vicious and unpredictable attacks by pit bulls. I’d venture to guess that is only a subset, and that the majority of total attacks are a product of the owner and there’s simply a correlation between bad owners and the breed known for “being vicious”. I’d also venture to guess that the number of truly unpredictable and unwarranted attacks is pretty common across breeds and even species as suggested by the CDC’s conclusion that it’s impossible to attribute a particular ‘rate of attack’ to a specific breed.

  70. avatar KCK says:

    Why do gun manufacturers recall guns that are not drop safe.
    A Pit is like a gun that you can’t drop, safe if safely handled.
    A gun has to be picked up to be dangerous, a dog has legs.

  71. avatar KCK says:

    Do you like being muzzled at the gun store?
    Even if you “know” the gun is empty?

    Do I like to walk past a Pit Bull on the street with a collar that has spikes to control the dog,
    It feels like I’m being muzzled with a loaded gun.

    Thug dogs (not breed specific) are a big reason I carry a loaded gun.

    1. avatar Mina Smith says:

      “all pit bull owners are vicious thugs”

      “all gun owners can snap at any time & become the next mass shooter”

  72. avatar JimmyDelta says:

    Just like with guns, the appearance and demeanor of the accompanying human can either help or hurt. Ever see an outlaw biker or a gang member with a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel? See them with their Pit at a dog obedience class? Pit Bulls are usually sought by people who actually like their bad reputation and more often encourage aggression than not.

    1. avatar Mina Smith says:

      not surprisingly this is the same things that anti gun people say about us.

      1. avatar Tommycat says:

        In the case of the dogs, it’s kind of a truism. Violent thugs seek out the pit bulls because of their reputation, and therefore create a dangerous dog out of an otherwise reasonable dog. I didn’t initially want a pit bull, because of their reputation. After owning one(three actually) I can tell you the reputation is ill deserved. My largest is afraid of the stray cats in the neighborhood, and has been known to get a thorough cleaning by one of the house cats while she simply lays there and takes it. I haven’t seen how she reacts to strangers when I’m not around(never have strangers in my room when I’m not there), but I know that she has only attacked people with her tongue,

  73. avatar cknarf says:

    I just wanna say, the best dog I know is a pitbull. The only thing it will attack is unattended food.

  74. avatar zeos says:

    I have a customer that has a bunch of dogs, all different breeds, and I was surprised to find that the pitbull is the sweetest of the bunch, although the great pyrenees is a close second. The worst of his dogs is, big surprise, a chihuahua.

    I have seen plenty of stories about pitbulls attacking people, but I still believe dogs regardless of breed are a product of their environment. Pet dogs who are well treated will be generally good, dogs that aren’t kept as pets will be a crap shoot at best. For example I had a different customer at a different job who had a police dog that was retired because it had ptsd. That dog was crazy and nothing the owner could do would convince the dog I was okay, but it was fine around it’s owners.

  75. avatar Paco says:

    A lot of emotion on this topic, so much so it clouds rational dialogue. Comparing dogs to guns is silly at best, a living creature will never be the same as an inaminate object. Yeah people love their dogs, yeah people love their freedom to own firearms, the 2 do not have to be mutually exclusive.

  76. avatar Anonymous says:

    Wow. 240 comments and counting out of this “dog” article. TTAG has a winner here. http://www.thetruthaboutdogs.com?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Yeah, pit bulls are always good for a lively conversation. People are just as passionate as they are about the caliber wars, but at least with the caliber wars, many folks realize the argument is stupid and they don’t engage, or like I do, only engage for sport. When discussing dogs, people still legitimately believe they can change others’ minds, so you get several hundred people shouting past each other, with very little effect.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        This whole thread has gone down to dribble.

        Dogs can attack on their own. Guns cannot.

        1. avatar Tommycat says:

          The issue is, that the same arguments made for dog bans are the exact same as gun bans.

          It’s for the children!
          Um 33 TOTAL deaths by ALL dogs last year… Barely worth monitoring the statistic.Even if 2 in 3 were a real pit bull, that would still only be 22.

          Pit bull to the media is the same thing as Assault Weapon. They use it EVERY TIME there is a dog attack. Heck I know of at least one time where the dog involved was a papered Chow, but the media called it a Chow pit bull mix.

          Those of us that own and save these dogs want their reputation changed because thugs who want a mean evil dog buy pits and then when they find out the pit they got wouldn’t hurt a fly, and is afraid of a kitten, they drop that dog in a shelter, or take it to the pound. It’s happened a number of times. I’ve even seen at least one guy come in LOOKING for the mean evil pit bull that he wanted after dropping off a sweet little pit bull at another location.

          Yes, we should acknowledge that dogs are animals. BUT there are millions of pit bulls who have attacked… NOBODY!

          And lets face it… The pit bull is America’s dog

  77. avatar S.CROCK says:

    AR 15s scare people but rarely hurt people, Pitbulls scare people and hurt more people than a lot of other breads. I have a friend who has 3 Pitbulls and 1 Chihuahua all of them get along totally fine. Not all Pitbulls are bad, but they are still unpredictable (unlike guns).

    1. avatar Tommycat says:

      The same was said of Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Sheppard, Huskies,

      ALL dogs can be unpredictable. ALL dog fatalities totaled 33 for last year. That’s hardly a massive number.

      Pit bulls make up the bulk of NEWS about dog attacks, so people who want a big bad dog… what do they get?

  78. avatar Ken Hagler says:

    “The irony is that the people who are standing up for the rights of the dogs, would most likely be on the side of those trying to limit the rights of gun owners.”

    And vice versa, apparently.

    When I was a kid it was German Shepherds that got all the hype about how inherently evil they were. Then it was Doberman Pinchers. In another 10 or 20 years, nobody will bat an eye at Pit Bulls and everyone will be hearing about the demonic Poodle.

    I’ve heard of people being attacked by Samoyeds because they bought a Samoyed after hearing how protective of children that breed is supposed to be, but didn’t realize the dog wouldn’t know it was only supposed to protect their child from other people and not them.

  79. avatar benny says:

    My pit is a goofball. She has to use her entire body to wag her tail. And she growls while wagging her tail (body) and I’ve NEVER seen a dog talk like that. It’s all playful of course. I’ve actually never seen her take an aggressive posture at all, and she’s 2. Come to think of it, my tiny pug would come and scare off an intruder faster than she would. Blue would just stand there and be like “OMG ANOTHER FRIEND I LIKE YOU LET’S BE FRIENDS”

    I really just felt you all should know this. She’s a strange creature….

  80. avatar Kyle says:

    Pitbulls are like the AR-15 of the dog world. A totally understood dog. There really is no such thing as the “breed” of pitbull. “Pitbull” is a term that refers to a multitude of breeds that look similar. Laws that outlaw pitbulls outlaw them based on their physical appearance for this reason. The reality is that the dogs labeled as pitbulls are actually very friendly dogs and among the best dogs to have around children. They are ideal for fighting dogs however, and thus are trained and used as such, which has given them a bad reputation.

    Now a truly dangerous dog, one that is by its nature an attack dog, that you have to train from birth to be friendly, that is extremely aggressive and resistant to pain, that will attack and kill on site, that can kill wolves, the Ovcharka, is perfectly legal.

  81. avatar What about Bob says:

    It is interesting that with all the times it was suggested that Pit Bull owners face manslaughter or murder charges if someone is killed by their dog, none of the defenders of the breed said that they would be ok with that. In fact that was the end of the replies. Telling.

    If I kill someone with an ND, you can bet your ass I’ll be charged that way.

    They also have no direct answer to the point made repeatedly that guns are harmless unless fired, while any dog can act independent of its owner, with Pits being capable of the most damage.

    I don’t agree with a ban, but I do think that you should go to prison if your dog attacks my kid. I don’t think it works this way now. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    1. avatar 101nomad says:

      My Scot Terrier loves kids. But, I never leave them alone together. I also never leave a firearm, locked or not, alone with kids. You know, we have reached a state where we need a law for everything when simple reasoning should do. People tell me I am negative in a lot of ways. Perhaps. But, I was trained to look ahead, and sometimes, it ain’t all good. Some things can not be taught, to dogs or men, but if you have an ounce of humanity within you, a dog, or a child, will find it. Betray that trust at your own risk.

    2. avatar Tommycat says:

      I OWN pit bulls, and I have said that I agree with charging the owners with a crime for their dog. Murder/manslaughter or even negligent homicide. Your dog kills, you need to be brought up on charges. Maybe that’s why we didn’t respond, because if a dog owner’s dog kills, they SHOULD face the same charges.

      But why ONLY pit bulls? It should be ANY dog. If your Lab kills a kid, why should you be okay but I have to worry about my pit bull? That’s like saying it’s okay to accidentally kill a person with a hunting rifle, but not okay to do it with an “Assault Weapon”

      1. avatar What About Bob says:

        I agree, any dog.

        Thank you.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Your opening premise is incorrect. Most of the people defending the breed are saying exactly that the owner is the responsible party.

      “In fact that was the end of the replies. Telling.”

      No, it’s not telling. It means nothing.

      Commenting on a blog is not a conversation you are in in ‘real time;’ lots of folks comment, then never come back. Some come back and re-reply a time or two. Some stick with a thread until it’s pointless to continue. Etc.

      Just because someone did NOT say something in a particular thread does not mean their silence has significance.

      1. avatar What About Bob says:

        Some did say it was the responsibility of the owner, but stopped well short of accepting charges. When asked, they ignored the question while continuing to troll the folks who questioned whether Pit Bulls are a responsible breed to own.

        I think that is telling and means a lot.

        I’ve met some great Pits, and also know how dangerous they can be. Dogs are not like guns, where you can control them 100% by handling properly, locking when not carrying etc. Gun accidents do happen, by direct fault of the owner. Dogs however, can react in ways even responsible owners may not predict. When it is a Pit, the results are much worse. Add to this the irresponsible owners and yes, I have concerns.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “I think that is telling and means a lot.”

          Only because you are reading something into a non-reply that is not there. Seriously. Someone NOT replying in the blog comment sections does not mean they have been silenced by flawless logic of their debating opponent.

          But whatever. Read into it what you want. I won’t reply again, but that does not mean I have been awed by the astounding profundity of your assertion.

  82. avatar cmeat says:

    after “one hundred and one dalmations” first showed, these coach dogs became very popular. quite beautiful but stubborn, they were more than a match for most families and were given up. you still see them more at the firehouses.
    after “those amazing dobermans” hit the circuit this breed too became very popular. supposedly they are in the top ten breeds for intelligence. i don’t see it but they were probably more succesful as family pets than dalmations.
    after “the omen” became a minor horror sensation there was a surge in rottweiler ownership. since they were badasses in that movie me thinks many people wanted them to intimidate mostly.
    lassie. benji. hooch. rin tin tin. all these critters became overbred to some extent due to greed mostly. unscrupulous breeders will recognize demand.
    and some punk ass bitch can pretty much take any breed and make it a near or perfect reflection of his own rotten soul.
    i read meters for the electric utility for nine years. unlike the postman (who unwittingly trains dogs to be uniform wearer aggressive by always leaving when the dogs bark) i had to enter the back yards, the canines territory and home. never pepper sprayed one. with over thirteen thousand homes a month i had roughly one thousand dogs to contend with. demographics certainly influenced what breeds i encountered, and a depressed area might contain more pooches kept for guard duty than pet duty, but aggression did not correlate entirely with breed. as mentioned there is the punk ass owner influence. also these critters get grumpy, irritated and can just plain have a bad day. there are NO bad dogs breed wise. there are too damn many dogs (and cats and oscars and pythons) so i say put the biters down. i do believe they can probably all be re- trained towards non- aggression. but as the owner of a gun shy blue tick that had become family pet said, “nothing thirty cents worth of ammo wouldn’t cure. but the wife and kids love him.”
    the important obvious distinction in dog breeds is just being able to recognize that large jaw powerful dogs can put a bigger hurt. they are dogs and your belief that it will never hurt your child is misplaced. i can’t look at the pictures of your daughter being nuzzled by the family dojo. i get that the room is filled with love part and the dog is family part. it’s not a chance i’m willing to take with my shorties. go anthropomorphise your car instead.
    we’ve got some dog lovers here. don’t let your canine or breed specific love cloud your debate. you make them family. you would do anything for them and they for you. but they are still dogs.
    i don’t recognize any of these pit bull haters as previous ttag posters. they must have had they’re browsers set on trawl. ignore them. it’s not the breed and it’s not the gun.
    “they” are just ignorant, fearful nervous people with stress of unknown origin.
    and some of my outlaw pals do have cavalier king charles spaniels. a courtesan dog with no bad bone. if they were nippy they would not have lived under women’s petticoats. but someone out there could make a mean one. maybe after the movie…

  83. avatar Big B says:

    Let the damn breed die out! Most are good dogs but if most 1911’s were good and only one in a thousand went off all by themselves, killing innocent bystanders, you know damn well they would be recalled and no one would walk around with one in their pants.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email