In the old days we just culled the bad dogs so they wouldn't breed and create more culls.

America Pitbull Terriors can be an excellent dogs. I find the biggest problem is the owner. Many owners are not in control of their animals, Pit or  Poodle. Everytime I see someone with a heavy chain on a Pit it cofirms the owner is not in control. If the animal can't be trusted on a nylon leash it shouldn't be out in public. (blah blah..and then)

MT

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they are dangerous as you all say, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be banned. Why wait for the next child to be bitten? What's wrong with you people? You sound so sure of your convictions. Won't anyone support a ban of these ticking bite-bombs? In the absence of strict regulations and liability? Yes, I would. Just like it should be illegal to keep a grizzly bear or mountain lion as a pet in a residential neighborhood. Disagree with that? Boo-fucking-hoo. Don't say "I would". Say "I do". Say:  "I want the Government to BAN the private ownership of pitbulls". (they're just property) Just say it. What's so hard. Have some balls. I suppose we're not all simpletons such as yourself. But since you want to play inane games, how about we install vending machines that dispense hand grenades at schools. I mean, they're just property, right? That makes no sense whatsoever. Have you been drinking again? It's quite simple. Do you, or do you NOT support a Federal Ban on private Pit Bull ownership? Why not just ANSWER THE QUESTION? I already answered your question. Why not answer mine? Come on. Show some balls. You answered my question? You mean this?: In the absence of strict regulations and liability? Yes, I would. Just like it should be illegal to keep a grizzly bear or mountain lion as a pet in a residential neighborhood. Disagree with that? Boo-fucking-hoo. Nope. Too mealy mouthed. Answer the direct question: Do you, or do you NOT support a Federal Ban on private Pit Bull ownership? Yes or no. Oh yes, as to your silly question: how about we install vending machines that dispense hand grenades at schools? Ummm, no.  Bad idea. I don't see the point, though. I support the federal ban on Pitbulls. I support door to door pitbull confiscation. Don't you?

No, I don't support a FEDERAL BAN, no, I don't support door to door confiscation, and no, those weren't your original questions.

Hmm, bad idea to allow kids to roam around with hand grenades, huh? Why? Why is it any better to consciously allow known dangerous animals to freely roam urban/suburban neighborhoods?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So how do you propose keeping APBTs away from chidren under 18? The same way you keep kids under 18 from guns, drugs, and alcohol. It's there parents responsibility not the state. Parents should watch there kids. Yes some kids will get bitten, some will get shot, some will become addicts, some will become drunks. But we can not give up liberty for the illusion of safety, that's what old Ben thought. All the laws in the world won't stop some other dumb ass from running another breed into the ground by breeding overly human aggresive dogs, it would just be a matter of time. I think the OP should sue the shit out of the dog owner and the local goberment for not doing there job. And I am sure he did his best to keep her safe, but thats life bad things happen. He will take action and sue who needs it, then take care of his kid. Thats what's right and what should be done. You hear that Stokes? It's your own damn fault your daughter was attacked.

Read whats written above in red. I didn't say it was his fault, you did. I said he most likely did all he could without preemptively steping on someone else rights. Get your shit strait.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So how do you propose keeping APBTs away from chidren under 18? The same way you keep kids under 18 from guns, drugs, and alcohol. It's there parents responsibility not the state. Parents should watch there kids. Yes some kids will get bitten, some will get shot, some will become addicts, some will become drunks. But we can not give up liberty for the illusion of safety, that's what old Ben thought. All the laws in the world won't stop some other dumb ass from running another breed into the ground by breeding overly human aggresive dogs, it would just be a matter of time. I think the OP should sue the shit out of the dog owner and the local goberment for not doing there job. And I am sure he did his best to keep her safe, but that life bad things happen. He will take action and sue who needs it, then take care of his kid. Thats what's right and what should be done. You hear that Stokes? It's your own damn fault your daughter was attacked. Read whats writteb  above in red. I didn't say it was his fault, you did. I said he most likely did all he could without preemptively steping on someone else rights. Get your shit strait.

Well then his best just wasn't good enough, huh? I believe my shit IS straight. YOU'RE the one saying tough luck, shit happens and that your right to own a dangerous animal transcends my childrens' right to peacefully play in my yard or on public property.

Requiring a person to carry insurance and kennel his dog based upon breed alone is asinine.

That said, that PBT should be dead and the owner getting an asskicking in jail.

Quoted: That said, that PBT should be dead and the owner getting an assraping in jail.

Sounds better.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So how do you propose keeping APBTs away from chidren under 18? The same way you keep kids under 18 from guns, drugs, and alcohol. It's there parents responsibility not the state. Parents should watch there kids. Yes some kids will get bitten, some will get shot, some will become addicts, some will become drunks. But we can not give up liberty for the illusion of safety, that's what old Ben thought. All the laws in the world won't stop some other dumb ass from running another breed into the ground by breeding overly human aggresive dogs, it would just be a matter of time. I think the OP should sue the shit out of the dog owner and the local goberment for not doing there job. And I am sure he did his best to keep her safe, but that life bad things happen. He will take action and sue who needs it, then take care of his kid. Thats what's right and what should be done. You hear that Stokes? It's your own damn fault your daughter was attacked. Read whats writteb  above in red. I didn't say it was his fault, you did. I said he most likely did all he could without preemptively steping on someone else rights. Get your shit strait. Well then his best just wasn't good enough, huh? I believe my shit IS straight. YOU'RE the one saying tough luck, shit happens.

What fantasy land do you live in boomer? Bad things happen no matter what you do in life. He could follow his daughter 24/7 carrying a machine gun and a dog could still maul them both to death. You couldn't keep your kid 100% safe from the APBT without totally denying others the right to own them or denying her a normal life by keeping her indoors. Then she could be attacked by another breed of dog or die some how in her own house, so it would be moot.

No ones best is good enough, never has never will be. We strive for perfection but it is unattianable.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So how do you propose keeping APBTs away from chidren under 18? The same way you keep kids under 18 from guns, drugs, and alcohol. It's there parents responsibility not the state. Parents should watch there kids. Yes some kids will get bitten, some will get shot, some will become addicts, some will become drunks. But we can not give up liberty for the illusion of safety, that's what old Ben thought. All the laws in the world won't stop some other dumb ass from running another breed into the ground by breeding overly human aggresive dogs, it would just be a matter of time. I think the OP should sue the shit out of the dog owner and the local goberment for not doing there job. And I am sure he did his best to keep her safe, but that life bad things happen. He will take action and sue who needs it, then take care of his kid. Thats what's right and what should be done. You hear that Stokes? It's your own damn fault your daughter was attacked. Read whats writteb  above in red. I didn't say it was his fault, you did. I said he most likely did all he could without preemptively steping on someone else rights. Get your shit strait. Well then his best just wasn't good enough, huh? I believe my shit IS straight. YOU'RE the one saying tough luck, shit happens. What fantasy land do you live in boomer? Bad things happen no matter what you do in life. He could follow his daughter 24/7 carrying a machine gun and a dog could still maul them both to death. You couldn't keep your kid 100% safe from the APBT without totally denying others the right to own them or denying her a normal life by keeping her indoors. Then she could be attacked by another breed of dog or die some how in her own house, so it would be moot. No ones best is good enough, never has never will be. We strive for perfection but it is unattianable.

I guess I live in the fantasy land where this dog had no business being in that neighborhood. Don't recall saying that EVERY bad sitution is preventable. I'm just not so willing to simply dismiss particular instance as tough shit, bad things happen. Like I said, maybe the answer is to leglize the killing of any free roaming dog. Seems to be the best compromise between allowing people the freedom to own what dogs they may and everyone else being able to be secure from them. I know I wouldn't mind doing away with my neighbors yappy little chihuahuas.

I guess I live in the fantasy land where this dog irresponsible shit head of an owner had no business being in that neighborhood.

Fixed it for you.

I'm extremelly sorry your daughter went through this.

I agree that the term dangerous breed is like the term assault weapons.  Its a term people have choosen to try to make people afraid of a certain thing.  Take the term assault, do you assault people with your assault rifle?  My rotties are not dangerous evn though some people classify them as a dangerous breed.  

There are some dogs that are just wired wrong, then again some people are too.    Most of the vicious dogs are a result of lack of socialization as a pup, chain aggression, and bad owners.   Just like some teenagers are ill behaved, they are the results of bad parents or poor environment.  A dog is a pack animal, they are not ment to be thrown outside away from thier pack for the majority of their lives.  If you didn't spend time with your kids teaching them manners how do you think they would act.

Personally I believe people should have to take a class in obedience and demonstrate that their dog is well behaved by a certain age.  I wish you were given privilages for a dog that could pass a CDC or temperment test and was fixed if not show quality and penalized for non show quality dogs kept intact and could not pass the CDC or temperment test.  They shouldn't penalize people who have a certain breed of dog, just because it is popular with irrisponsible owners.  Just like you have to take a driving test to get your license you should have to pass an obediant dog test.  And for show quality dogs they should have to show that they are of sound temperment prior to breeding.  Also if you had a dog that had bit without reason and you chose to keep it and it bit again with out reason then you should be banned from having a dog.  If this was a law then we would drastically lower the number of bite instances and lower the number of dogs in the pound.

My dogs are both rescues, they may not have the best bloodlines but they have a good bit of manners.  They are indoors unless they are on a leash or in a fence and I'm always with them when they are outside.  I have been told by several neighbors that I have the best behaved dogs in the neighborhood.  I try not to let them go to the bathroom on any yard but ours and if they do (usually in the road cause I don't let them in peoples yards) I clean it up.  My three year old nephew could give my dogs a treat and then take it back out of thier mouth without them even biting or growling.  Before any one says anything I don't believe any child should be left alone around any animal without an adult.  

There are a few dogs that are just wired wrong but most are the result of something the owner did wrong and the owner should be held accountable not the breed of dog.

I believe everyone is entitled to thier believes, if they don't want to play with me because of my assault rifles or dangerous breeds then so be it.  But they are missing out on a cool chic.

Quoted: I guess I live in the fantasy land where this dog irresponsible shit head of an owner had no business being in that neighborhood. Fixed it for you.

Hmm, so now you're advocating banning shithead dog owners?
J/K

Quoted: Well, actually, the term 'Dangerous Dog Breed' is the result of years of statistics that were gathered by insurance companies who had paid out claims for various dog bites, dog injuries, etc. The facts are there, and the insurance companies have based their policies upon those facts. On the other hand, when the gungrabbers talk about 'Dangerous Black Rifles' they are not basing their charges on any statistical evidence that has been gathered by reliable sources over the years, for there are NO such numbers that indicate that so-called 'assault' rifles are used in crimes more often than non 'assault' rifles. One group bases its decisions on facts. The other group, upon their subjective 'feelings' about what simply 'must' be the case. Don't you agree? Eric The(Reasoned)Hun

Incidentally, I'd love for "them" to do some stats on race and crime, then we can start requring minorities (or whomever is "dangerous")to carry hazard insurance.

See where these "facts" from insurance companies can get ya?

Quoted: Well, actually, the term 'Dangerous Dog Breed' is the result of years of statistics that were gathered by insurance companies who had paid out claims for various dog bites, dog injuries, etc. The facts are there, and the insurance companies have based their policies upon those facts. On the other hand, when the gungrabbers talk about 'Dangerous Black Rifles' they are not basing their charges on any statistical evidence that has been gathered by reliable sources over the years, for there are NO such numbers that indicate that so-called 'assault' rifles are used in crimes more often than non 'assault' rifles. One group bases its decisions on facts. The other group, upon their subjective 'feelings' about what simply 'must' be the case. Don't you agree? Eric The(Reasoned)Hun hr

Dogs cause dog bites
Guns are directly involved in gun crime
The vast majority of both never harm anyone.
Fuck the insurance companies.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, actually, the term 'Dangerous Dog Breed' is the result of years of statistics that were gathered by insurance companies who had paid out claims for various dog bites, dog injuries, etc. The facts are there, and the insurance companies have based their policies upon those facts. On the other hand, when the gungrabbers talk about 'Dangerous Black Rifles' they are not basing their charges on any statistical evidence that has been gathered by reliable sources over the years, for there are NO such numbers that indicate that so-called 'assault' rifles are used in crimes more often than non 'assault' rifles. One group bases its decisions on facts. The other group, upon their subjective 'feelings' about what simply 'must' be the case. Don't you agree? Eric The(Reasoned)Hun Incidentally, I'd love for "them" to do some stats on race and crime, then we can start requring minorities (or whomever is "dangerous")to carry hazard insurance. See where these "facts" from insurance companies can get ya?

Do you honestly believe that those kind of stats don't already play a factor in insurance rates?

Quoted: Quoted: Well, actually, the term 'Dangerous Dog Breed' is the result of years of statistics that were gathered by insurance companies who had paid out claims for various dog bites, dog injuries, etc. The facts are there, and the insurance companies have based their policies upon those facts. On the other hand, when the gungrabbers talk about 'Dangerous Black Rifles' they are not basing their charges on any statistical evidence that has been gathered by reliable sources over the years, for there are NO such numbers that indicate that so-called 'assault' rifles are used in crimes more often than non 'assault' rifles. One group bases its decisions on facts. The other group, upon their subjective 'feelings' about what simply 'must' be the case. Don't you agree? Eric The(Reasoned)Hun Incidentally, I'd love for "them" to do some stats on race and crime, then we can start requring minorities (or whomever is "dangerous")to carry hazard insurance. See where these "facts" from insurance companies can get ya?

Were I King, that's exactly what would happen.

Again, as someone who works IN the insurance field, I can tell you that your neighborhood, its crime rate, and the type of dog you own ALL play into your rates, based on real, scientific, factual statistical data.

Many insurance companies will REFUSE outright to cover you if you own a Dangerous Breed dog.  They pay out BILLIONS of dollars every year due to dog bite claims.  Next time you bitch about your rates, you can thank asshats like Randy for the high rates.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they are dangerous as you all say, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be banned. Why wait for the next child to be bitten? What's wrong with you people? You sound so sure of your convictions. Won't anyone support a ban of these ticking bite-bombs? In the absence of strict regulations and liability? Yes, I would. Just like it should be illegal to keep a grizzly bear or mountain lion as a pet in a residential neighborhood. Disagree with that? Boo-fucking-hoo. Don't say "I would". Say "I do". Say:  "I want the Government to BAN the private ownership of pitbulls". (they're just property) Just say it. What's so hard. Have some balls. I suppose we're not all simpletons such as yourself. But since you want to play inane games, how about we install vending machines that dispense hand grenades at schools. I mean, they're just property, right? That makes no sense whatsoever. Have you been drinking again? It's quite simple. Do you, or do you NOT support a Federal Ban on private Pit Bull ownership? Why not just ANSWER THE QUESTION? I already answered your question. Why not answer mine? Come on. Show some balls. You answered my question? You mean this?: In the absence of strict regulations and liability? Yes, I would. Just like it should be illegal to keep a grizzly bear or mountain lion as a pet in a residential neighborhood. Disagree with that? Boo-fucking-hoo. Nope. Too mealy mouthed. Answer the direct question: Do you, or do you NOT support a Federal Ban on private Pit Bull ownership? Yes or no. Oh yes, as to your silly question: how about we install vending machines that dispense hand grenades at schools? Ummm, no.  Bad idea. I don't see the point, though. I support the federal ban on Pitbulls. I support door to door pitbull confiscation. Don't you? No, I don't support a FEDERAL BAN, no, I don't support door to door confiscation, and no, those weren't your original questions.

Actually, yes.
My original question was exactly that:

"...should we ask the government to go "door to door" and confiscate these dogs?" (see page three)

Hmm, bad idea to allow kids to roam around with hand grenades, huh? Why? Why is it any better to consciously allow known dangerous animals to freely roam urban/suburban neighborhoods?

So, you equate allowing Pitbulls to "freely roam urban/suburban neighborhoods" with putting Hand Grenade Vending Machines in schools.

Yet you don't feel Pitbulls are enough of a danger to merit a federal ban???????

You must be one of those wacky gun-nut militia guys.
(owned)

I would have a consultation with a personal injury/liability lawyer.  I have had two dog problems, and was successful on both.  The first cost the owner cash, and the second moved away.  I sued the first for damages (vet bills and time) because I was told this will help prove negligence on the next occurence.  Their counsel or insurance company will usually explain this to them.  Second, I photographed the dog every time it showed up, (once the police were already here because neighbors had called) and informed the police of the state (PA) leash laws.   Maybe a complaint can be lodged against the animal control guy for failure to enforce the laws?

I know this country needs tort reform, but aholes like you are dealing with are the reason I don't campain for it.

Glad the kiddo is ok.  Can't say what is really on my mind as it would be a violation of the CoC.

This happened yesterday in here Albuquerque NM.  Folks here say it was BITTEN OFF!  OUCH!

Pit Bull Severly Injures Albuquerque Man
Marmon Elementary Locked Down After Incident; Dog Is Still Loose

POSTED: 10:46 pm MDT August 30, 2004
UPDATED: 10:57 pm MDT August 30, 2004

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A man suffered critical injuries during an attack by a pit bull in northwest Albuquerque Monday.

The unidentified man was walking the dog when it attacked him. Police said the man was seriously injured in the groin area.

The man appeared to be disoriented and fled the area on foot when police arrived. He was found naked in a nearby park, police said.

The man was transported to the University of New Mexico Hospital.

Albuquerque police and animal control officers canvassed the area Monday night looking for the dog, and some of the man's body parts.

Susie Rayos Marmon Elementary School was locked down following the incident and parents were called to pick up students who usually walk home.

Authorities are advising parents to drive their children to school Tuesday morning because the dog is still loose.

My Beautiful Wife and I are the Parents of three BEAUTIFUL young children........

    If you/anyone/anybody/anything/anyfucknut or their relatives, moves within a dozen houses of mine in any direction and decides to own a Pitbull.... The dog will have a serious "but silent" case of lead poisioning......

      Mark my words......    That animal will NOT survive in my our neighborhood...


      "I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT IF THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN PROPERLY RAISED..."     edited to add this.....



      I love Pitbulls.... there cute..... but children are cuter..... and Human.




           

Oh, the things I have seen as an Animal Control Officer.

Any dog can bite; today I had to take a bite report on a 3 year old Springer Spaniel.  It had bit the owner, an 80 year old man for the 3rd time in 2 years.  He was bitten up and down both arm and hands.  Today he signed the dog over for euthanasia.

There are some bad dogs, have you ever seen a 4 month old Chow Chow that was so vicious you could not handle it.

Oh it a small dog, it okay to have it off leash.  Tell that to the owner of a large dog (take your pick), who is being legal with their dog on a leash.  The little dog runs up to the big dog and gets bit up.  Now who is in the wrong?  Not the owner on leash.

I do not like breed laws and do not think they work.  Judge the dog and its owner for the action and not the breed.

24 years as an Animal Control Officer, I have seen too many animal bites and too many animals euthanized.  Please spay and/or neuter your animals and keep them confined.  Put me out of a job or cut down my work load.

Not to add to the fire, but any one can be bitten.

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40193

Monday, August 30, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pit bulls maul animal-control officer
'I could see drops of blood just falling in front of my left eye'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Frank Baldwin in the wake of a double pit-bull attack (photo: Stuart News)

An animal-control officer fortunate to be alive is looking forward to getting back to work despite being mauled by two pit bulls in South Florida.

Frank Baldwin, 23, of Martin County, Fla., was attacked by the dogs Wednesday night when responding to calls for help from a jogger and bicyclist who had been bitten.

"I just knew that I had to get that dog before it went after somebody else," Baldwin told the Stuart News. "This was a level of viciousness that I had not experienced before."


An armed state environmental officer was already on scene when Baldwin arrived, as the dog attacked his vehicle. Baldwin tried snagging the pit bull with a catch pole, and nearly caught it before other trouble broke loose.

"I just about had the noose around his head when I saw the other pit bull squeeze out of the top half of the gate on the fence," he said. "It got stuck just a little bit and gave me just a second to draw my baton because I knew they were going to come after me."

Both dogs then began a ruthless assault, tearing into Baldwin's head, neck, arms, back and legs, and nearly chewing off his ear.

"And I hit the ground," Baldwin told the paper. "That's when I really felt one of them bite my ear, one of them bite my face," he said. "The only thing I was thinking when I was on the ground was that I had to get back up.

"I pushed up with my hands. ... I could see drops of blood just falling in front of my left eye."

As the battle raged, a local resident joined sheriff's deputies and firefighters in rescuing Baldwin and bringing him to the hospital.

"We kind of lost count on the stitches," he said. "I still have my eye, which I'm very thankful for. It could have been a lot worse."

"If it had just been me and those dogs, I do not believe I would have survived," he added.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation officer James Dyal ended up shooting one of the dogs, and the second was captured. Officials are now seeking criminal and civil charges against the owners of the animals.

Despite the severity of the attack, the 130-pound Baldwin says he's eager to return to duty.

"I want to go back. I don't have any fears about going back," he said. "I like doing what I do. As soon as I can get back out on the road, I want to be there."

Quoted: Being a Dangerous Breed doesn't mean anything other than more caution should be used.

Well said.
I hope all is well, and continues to be so.

At least the dog went home safe that night.

Quoted: My Beautiful Wife and I are the Parents of three BEAUTIFUL young children........     If you/anyone/anybody/anything/anyfucknut or their relatives, moves within a dozen houses of mine in any direction and decides to own a Pitbull.... The dog will have a serious "but silent" case of lead poisioning......       Mark my words......    That animal will NOT survive in my our neighborhood...       "I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT IF THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN PROPERLY RAISED..."     edited to add this.....       I love Pitbulls.... there cute..... but children are cuter..... and Human.

 

Quoted: My Beautiful Wife and I are the Parents of three BEAUTIFUL young children........     If you/anyone/anybody/anything/anyfucknut or their relatives, moves within a dozen houses of mine in any direction and decides to own a Pitbull.... The dog will have a serious "but silent" case of lead poisioning......       Mark my words......    That animal will NOT survive in my our neighborhood...       "I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT IF THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN PROPERLY RAISED..."     edited to add this.....       I love Pitbulls.... there cute..... but children are cuter..... and Human.hr

I hope you are joking.

You'd shoot someones dog for no good reason? Hum, I am attached to my Staffordshire Bull terrier. If you shot her for no good reason I would hope you'd be ready to defend yourself becuase screw the law at that point its on. I am pretty laid back and non-confrontational but someone shooting my dog unprovoked would piss me the fuck off.

While this is getting a bit off track, I'd like to remind everyone that PEOPLE have rights.  Dogs do not.  Dogs are property, property that can act on it's own.  Comparing dogs to people is inappropriate.  People should get the benefit of the doubt, property should not.

Yes people do have rights, and forcing someone with a perfectlly friendly dog to undergo undue fincial burden is bullshit; plain and simple; the state is forcing this burden without due process.

Quoted: Get used to it.  You don't have absolute freedoms, nor are you guarenteed them, nor do you deserve them.  If you think something like this is an infringement of your rights, you've not looked at your daily life very critically yet.

My rights end when they infringe on someone elses. How does my owning of a dog that has never harmed anyone infringe on your rights?

You're in Washington-- remember, just don't use it.  

Mike

Quoted: If they are dangerous as you all say, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be banned. Why wait for the next child to be bitten? What's wrong with you people? You sound so sure of your convictions. Won't anyone support a ban of these ticking bite-bombs?

Sorry if I am wrong, but it seems like you keep trying to provoke one of us into acting like the "ban everything" crazy liberals we all hate so much here.

I’ll bite. (pun intended)

I may be getting in over my head here...but I would have no problem with bans on them.

It seems to me that there is a pretty big difference between an inanimate collection of metal, alloy, and plastic parts which can only cause harm to someone or something by human initiation / manipulation vs. a living, breathing, self thinking animal with violent tendencies. The animal makes it's own decision to jump up and attack a human.

What do we do with humans who act like this dog did to a child? Well (at least we try) to BAN them to jail, or eliminate them....so I have no problem with the thought of banning an animal that has irrefutable statistics to show that they are a known, dangerous, violent threat to humans (especially small children).

If you want to take this even a step further in your attempt to draw a parallel between “Assault Weapons” and “Assault Dogs”, consider this:

As owners of specialized weapons that were “bred to fight” (and firearms in general), don’t we have a special, common sense responsibilities? We don’t just leave them out in the open unsupervised where anyone may come into contact with them?

We take special care in where we even “play” with the weapons because of their “breeding”. They are powerful, and their potential to inflict injury and death must not be forgot for even an instant. We make sure they are secure and only “enjoyed” in a safe area where others will not be accidentally harmed.

We are required to have a criminal and mental back ground checks in order to purchase one, and we must endure even more scrutiny to be able to “take them for a walk” (carry concealed).  We encourage new people to the “breed” to take Safety and Handling courses before even purchasing one….let alone enjoy it recreationally and keep one in their home for company, protection and piece of mind.

Are you starting to get my point yet?

Pittbull owners have it pretty easy compared to us (gun owners)…and their “pets” have a mind of their own. Their “pet” can decide to just charge over and tear someone’s throat out, my “pet” AR15 does not have that ability.

I don’t like the idea of banning things as well – but if owners of dangerous breeds want to play the card I am assuming you are – they should at least be required to have a license to “carry” such an animal in public. They should also have common sense restrictions on their use, and where you can possess them.

If owners of these breeds think what I am saying is a bunch of crazy B.S.….tell that to Stokes little girl.

I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest about Pittbulls - but the thought of Stokes daughter getting bit by one just makes me sick.

Sorry if I have got of topic Stokes.....I sincerely hope she is doing ok!

I tired not to make an ass of myself hope I didn't.
My stance is this:
The dog that attacked Stokes daughter needs to be put down, the owner charged and the city sued. All were negligent
I think the Wa law is too strict on dog breeds, but hey it's their state, let them do what they want.
and
I think anyone who'd come onto someone elses property and shoot a dog with no provication deserves to get shot back at.

Thats it, no more for me on this topic.

Quoted: I tired not to make an ass of myself hope I didn't. My stance is this: The dog that attacked Stokes daughter needs to be put down, the owner charged and the city sued. All were negligent I think the Wa law is too strict on dog breeds, but hey it's their state, let them do what they want. and I think anyone who'd come onto someone elses property and shoot a dog with no provication deserves to get shot back at. Thats it, no more for me on this topic.

What if I shoot your dog on my property or public property?

Quoted: What if I shoot your dog on my property or public property?

Dammit I need to stay away from this thread.

Yes You would be justified. I wouldn't like it, but I would live with it. It would be my fault for the dog getting out unsupervised.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they are dangerous as you all say, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be banned. Why wait for the next child to be bitten? What's wrong with you people? You sound so sure of your convictions. Won't anyone support a ban of these ticking bite-bombs? In the absence of strict regulations and liability? Yes, I would. Just like it should be illegal to keep a grizzly bear or mountain lion as a pet in a residential neighborhood. Disagree with that? Boo-fucking-hoo. Don't say "I would". Say "I do". Say:  "I want the Government to BAN the private ownership of pitbulls". (they're just property) Just say it. What's so hard. Have some balls. I suppose we're not all simpletons such as yourself. But since you want to play inane games, how about we install vending machines that dispense hand grenades at schools. I mean, they're just property, right? That makes no sense whatsoever. Have you been drinking again? It's quite simple. Do you, or do you NOT support a Federal Ban on private Pit Bull ownership? Why not just ANSWER THE QUESTION? I already answered your question. Why not answer mine? Come on. Show some balls. You answered my question? You mean this?: In the absence of strict regulations and liability? Yes, I would. Just like it should be illegal to keep a grizzly bear or mountain lion as a pet in a residential neighborhood. Disagree with that? Boo-fucking-hoo. Nope. Too mealy mouthed. Answer the direct question: Do you, or do you NOT support a Federal Ban on private Pit Bull ownership? Yes or no. Oh yes, as to your silly question: how about we install vending machines that dispense hand grenades at schools? Ummm, no.  Bad idea. I don't see the point, though. I support the federal ban on Pitbulls. I support door to door pitbull confiscation. Don't you? No, I don't support a FEDERAL BAN, no, I don't support door to door confiscation, and no, those weren't your original questions. Actually, yes. My original question was exactly that: "...should we ask the government to go "door to door" and confiscate these dogs?" (see page three) Hmm, bad idea to allow kids to roam around with hand grenades, huh? Why? Why is it any better to consciously allow known dangerous animals to freely roam urban/suburban neighborhoods? So, you equate allowing Pitbulls to "freely roam urban/suburban neighborhoods" with putting Hand Grenade Vending Machines in schools. Yet you don't feel Pitbulls are enough of a danger to merit a federal ban??????? You must be one of those wacky gun-nut militia guys. (owned)

The question I originally responded to is right up there in quotes. Duh.

But you are correct. You were owned buy your own silly non-sensical arguments and poor trolling skills yet again. But even though no is biting, it still never gets old for you, does it?

Quoted: Quoted: What if I shoot your dog on my property or public property? Dammit I need to stay away from this thread. Yes You would be justified. I wouldn't like it, but I would live with it. It would be my fault for the dog getting out unsupervised.

Well then I guess we wouldn't have much of a problem being neighbors.

Quoted: Well then I guess we wouldn't have much of a problem being neighbors.

Probally not. I would hope you'd have a bit of mercy and not shoot the dog if its not threating anyone. But if you did then, hey, my fault. I might not go shooting with you or have sunday barbeques, but I defiently would not retaliate or be hatefull.

Now if the dog was being dangerous or threating and you shot it, I'd bury the dog myself and re-emburse you for the cost of the ammo and time spent. I cannot stand a dog that would attack a human without cause.

[Cough, Cough]prestone[Cough,Cough]  [Cough,Cough]jumprandyatnight[Cough,Cough]

S.O.

Man, this is better than a soap opera!!!

Quoted: They are hardwired to be vicious in a manner unknown to beagles and terriers. They are terriers.

+1 LMAO I was justing thinking wtf.

Does this guy own a car? If so getting the judgement paid may not be so tuff if you know how to play the system. My dad has done it before.

What if his dad KNEW that he was to have the required ins but didn't and let him have the dog their anyway? Seems to me that would make him partially liable. Put a tape recorder in your pocket and go have a talk with his dada and see what you can get out of him, if of course, that is legal and admissable in your state.

S.O.

This is terrible.


I'm sorry to hear about your daughter, Stokes. I was bitten by a dog at the age of four, and 20+ years later I've still got faint scars. It's no fun.


FWIW, if you plan on using those photos of your daughter's injuries as any type of evidence, you may want to take photos with a known size reference in the photos, such as a ruler. IANAL, IANAC, IANAET, but it will help that much more to show the extent/size of the injury.

Best of luck to you folks.



Now, as an ev1l dog (tm) owner, I will refrain from posting anything else, lest I get sucked into this argument between haters and 'apologists.' Although I will add that the most dangerous end of my dog is the rear end, due to the gaseous emissions and constant thumping tail wag.

well.......Officer I was going outside with my firearm to go to range and it went off killing that poor pitbull accidentally.

If he had insurnace why couldnt you go for it. Also, I'd still take him to court. Eventually you WILL get the money. Sue him, then when he doesnt pay you can start throwing a lein on anything he has.
He wants a new car, tries to trade in the old one? Oops, has a lein, cant take it.
Wants a house? Liens dont look good on credit. And on and on