Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Pit bulls are adorable and friendly unless you train them to be vicious. I've never personally met a pit bull that didn't want me to give it a big hug.

That said, since my dog was put down I've had only cats. I've got six of them now, and certain behavioral things, such as aggression, are innate. I can tell you that I have one cat who'd never bite you or scratch you no matter what you did to him, and another who'll leave you bloody just for looking at her wrong. The thing is, though, that even my moody cat won't bite you for no reason. You always have to do something, and unless she was already pissed off for some reason (ie she'd just been tortured by one of the other cats) she'll always give you a warning before she tries to kill you.

To make a tl;dr short, most issues of animal aggression come down to human stupidity. Either the people train the dogs to be aggressive, or they do something stupid like tease it, torture it, or hurt it that causes it to attack. Example: I insist on petting my cat when she's growling at me and swishing her tail. I'm not surprised when she leaves me with a bloody stump afterwards; it's my fault after all.

There's a reason we have domesticated dogs and not wild dogs. They're domesticated. If they cause problems it's almost always a man-made problem. It's a very rare thing when a domesticated dog, regardless of breed, attacks anything for no apparent reason.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

One thing that annoys me are owners who leave their pets and children unsupervised. It's very sad when a toddler who doesn't know any better (while it should) decides to hang from a dogs ears and ends up getting bitten. I never understood why such animals always have to be put down when the fault clearly lies with the owner and parents of the kid.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Sorry but I gotta call bullshit. I have seen too many stories of a "well-trained" pit just one day snapping and biting the head off a 2 year old or mauling another dog to hell.

Maybe in retrospect it is an isolated instance and a rareity of 1 in a hundred thousand, but I will breed-profile to keep myself safe.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I believe everything I see on the news too, especially since you know they never have the full story -- just enough in order to sell it. :)

Do you think pit bulls are the only dogs that attack people? But you're not going to hear many stories of poodles attacking people because dogs are a product that breeders still want to be able to sell. No worries about giving a bad rap to a dog breed that already has a bad rap.

And again, do you think any dog "bites the head off a two year old" just for shits and giggles? The dog has a motivation, trust me. Any pet owner can tell you that their pets always have motivation for the things they do.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Ok. Look at a poodle.

http://christianmen.files.wordpress..../03/poodle.jpg

Small. Small body, small mouth. Thing could prolly just barely fit your toe in its mouth.

Look at a pit.

http://bosdogkennels.com/batman-pitbull-01b.jpg

Large, muscular. Looks aggressive.

The motivation? The animal succumbs to instinct. Pit bulls are bred to be vicious animals by irresponsible people.

Also I think I remember hearing something about they being bred to be hunter / killer type dogs or something.

I think they should be banned for anyone who has anyone under 13 in their home and you have to have the dog registered and must pay a fee to have it and if the dog gets outta line even once and authorities are called, it can be shot on sight.

If the world ran my way the pit would be exterminated systamatically. Get a group of people to go door to door. *Knock Knock*. "Hello?" "Do you have a pit bull?" "Yes" "Can we see him" *Shotgun Blast* "Have a nice day".

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

No way...dog however big, however blood thirsty if raised properly has no way of attacking humans.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

My cousin had a Rottweiler, and fed him weight gainer shakes for most of his puppy days, in the end the dog was more then 220lbs and pure muscle. I spied it eating another dog once in the alley way, and it wasn’t too long after that the city ordered it removed or destroyed.

It’s now a watchdog on my aunts property and by far the biggest, baddest, meanest dog I’ve ever seen in life.
Here’s a picture of it as a puppy.



Do I think it’s unethical to own such an animal. No, not really. Should some types of dogs be banned from ownership by the general populace, no. However I believe that the owners of such animals should liable in every way when it comes to the actions of these animals. If you're going to own it, and be the reasons for its existence in your area, you better take proper care in safe guarding others from it

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dogs bred to fight should be legal only for people without small children who can prove that they are responsible owners. Sure, you could argue that such legislation should apply to all breeds, but such bureaucracy isn't free and I don't want to make owning a dog more expensive than it already is, if an irresponsible or criminal individual gets himself e.g. a golden retriever instead of a fighting breed, chances are he will do less damage with it.

Dogs are living creatures, not programmed robots, so I'm afraid you are wrong.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

:Puzzled:
You posted a picture of a Maltese poodle
-----This is the standard, bearing it's teeth-----
http://hammerspoodles.webs.com/carson%20teeth.JPG
Now tell me you'd stick your foot in it's mouth, eh?

Also, the dog you posted looks fairly harmless.

Your logic seems to lead to the conclusive that if something is genetically fit to survive, it should be eliminated by a force it cannot overcome because it might be able to inflict damage were it poorly treated. When the dog actually attacks, you're going to walk away bloody and torn, more so from a pit bull than a poodle, but not that much.

As for what they were bred for, it's in the name, pit and bull; they were used in sport to take down bulls, similar to bear-baiting, but ofcourse, bull-baiting. Rather awful, but when you look at the histories of many dogs, you'll find something you don't like to look at.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

A gun can be the object in the act of those former things you dismiss, the crafting of gun parts could not occur without guns, nor the cleaning of guns. As to the latter that is something of subjective importance, much like the things you mention of dogs.

The civilians have no real chance of fighting back directly anyway. The government has lots people with guns who know how not to be seen and how to use them; and you do not. Any war between government forces and civilians will be decided on economic grounds, not military ones.

See answer to Nirv bellow.

Whether the thing was made to kill or not, what it is meant for, is irrelevant; I can design a thing intending it for perfectly peaceable uses and have it used as a weapon, and vice versa. Indeed this is the route of many martial arts. To suggest that law be formed upon the intent of the maker of the original article, who in many cases will have been dead for hundreds if not thousands of years is insane. The question is one of capability and use, not of the intention of the maker.

Much like guns and knives. Don't get me wrong you want dogs I'm fine with that, license the things up, introduce a certain legal responsibility and give me guns and knives back and we're set. My point is the contradiction between allowing dogs, potential lethal weapons, and not allowing guns - also potential lethal weapons.

Do a dog's teeth have a mind? Or the human's fist? They inherit these things, as do all tools, from the higher agency of their user.