Dog's do have personalitys that are shaped by their owners, or the people who raise them. They can also have personality disorders.

 

For example, we had a puppy a few years ago who was the sweetest most loving little puppy you could imagine. Every once in a while he would just go berserk though, and we had no clue why.

 

When we asked the vet he told us that the pup was probably bi-polar, and that there was really nothing we could do. We had to get rid of the puppy before he got big enough to actually hurt someone during one of his outbursts.

 

It was sad, but it's what we had to do.

I am sure that it will help the young child whose face is mangled to know that the police went after the irresponsible dog owner AFTER the child's face was mangled. And that it was much better to do it this way than to try and do something preventative that would have kept their face from being mangled.

 

This argument could be made for a 1000 things. For instance, will it help the young child that is paralyzed to know that the police went after the irresponsible drive that ran a red light AFTER the fact? Do we ban vehicles? They kill more Americans than dogs and guns combined.

 

The issue at hand is how we want to balance our rights and freedoms with our responsibilities. There needs to be laws that ARE enforced. Don't punish me for being a responsible citizen by NOT allowing me my freedoms.

Any type of dog, except for a select few breeds, is capable of attacking someone and hurting them.

 

One type of dog is no more likely, by nature, to attack than another. Banning a specific breed of dog is nonsense to me.

 

The problem is the owners. The owners are the ones who are raising / training the dog's in most cases.

 

If you raise / train, or lack of train, a hatefull dog it will hate. If you raise / train a loving dog it will love.

I couldn't disagree with something more then I do with this statement.

I couldn't disagree with something more then I do with this statement.

 

Woods is right. Most modern breeds of dogs were bred for a specific purpose, in most cases hundreds of generations ago. It's why a Lab will swim and retrieve, a Beagle will chase rabbits, a Collie will try to herd everything it comes in contact with.

 

Pitbulls were not bred to be pets or even guard dogs. They were bred to be aggresive, relentless, killers in the fight pits. It would take many generations of selective breeding to remove this trait. Wouldn't it be simpler just to ban them and select a more docile breed?

I couldn't disagree with something more then I do with this statement.

 

:thumb:That statement does not make any sense. Of course some breeds are bred to protect and attack--that is indisputable.:confused::confused::confused:

Here is something I will throw out there for some food for thought.

In Paris, city limits of about 10,000. There are 4-5 well known individuals that have a yard full of pitbulls chained, unchained, etc... and they train their dogs to fight and be vicious.

Wouldn't it be simplier to go after these individuals and take their dogs away from them, then to ban the whole breed and mixed breed?

 

I mentioned earlier I know of a few people that really like their pitbull and are great pets according to them, and they love the muscle dog. So people like them get punished because of 4-5 bad dog owners.

 

They have a paid dog catcher. Is he not doing his job?

 

When I was a kid I got attacked by a coon dog. And I didn't look like a racoon either.

But it snapped and I was close and it jumped on me and cut me up pretty bad.

 

I just personally feel banning a specific breed of dog is wrong. There are other ways of handling it- starting with the laws that are already on the books.

What purpose, other than the ring, does a Pitbull serve? There are dozens of breeds better suited as pets. Many more better suited as guard dogs. Unless your goal is to fight your pet to the death in a ring, why not remove the risk factor and select another breed?

What purpose, other than the ring, does a Pitbull serve? There are dozens of breeds better suited as pets. Many more better suited as guard dogs. Unless your goal is to fight your pet to the death in a ring, why not remove the risk factor and select another breed?

I have heard that they are good pets.

I guess until you have owned one it is hard to say.

Now for me if I wanted to fight something, I would just fight chickens!:lol:.

 

But you know I think we all have a general paranoia regarding these types of dogs because we only hear about the bad side of this.

My connection in comparision; banning guns... If you ban them then only irresponsible people would have them. Law abiders, would do just that, abide by the law. SO go after those that break the law.

 

:thumb:Exactly, (If Guns are Outlawed then only Outlaws will have Guns ) that is what people can't understand and what it boils down to is that there are some politicians that would love nothing more than remove the 2nd amendment, have a "controlled" society and dictate every move that we make.

Now for me if I wanted to fight something, I would just fight chickens!:lol:.

 

 

:thumb: At least the loser could still eat good, supper would be in the loss. :lol:

This argument could be made for a 1000 things. For instance, will it help the young child that is paralyzed to know that the police went after the irresponsible drive that ran a red light AFTER the fact? Do we ban vehicles? They kill more Americans than dogs and guns combined.

 

The issue at hand is how we want to balance our rights and freedoms with our responsibilities. There needs to be laws that ARE enforced. Don't punish me for being a responsible citizen by NOT allowing me my freedoms.

 

I am glad you are agreeing with me that certain breeds of dogs should be illegal, the SAME as it is ILLEGAL to run a RED LIGHT!:thumb:

:thumb: At least the loser would still eat good. :lol:

Yep, Finger Licking Chicken! :lol:

 

Now a fighting chicken naturally fights. They do that in their natural habitat, a dog has to be trained and mistreated horribly to become viscious killers.:creepy:

I am glad you are agreeing with me that certain breeds of dogs should be illegal, the SAME as it is ILLEGAL to run a RED LIGHT!:thumb:

But shouldn't it be more like illegal to train your dog and breed your dog for this type of illegal activity? The dog is trained to be a fighter, and mistreated during the training process.

 

I really again think their is a huge misconception of the dog. Like I said I have been around several, and they were as playful and behaved as my bird dog.

Yep, Finger Licking Chicken! :lol:

 

Now a fighting chicken naturally fights. They do that in their natural habitat, a dog has to be trained and mistreated horribly to become viscious killers.:creepy:

 

 

No, it's not just training. Like the gamecock, years of selective breeding have made fighting instinctive to the breed just as herding sheep comes naturally to a border collie.

Check out this website... I think we are all misinformed on these dogs.... They have many uses, and like I said from ones I have talked to that own, love them and say they are great pets...

 

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm