Pit Bull helps woman.

[BUTCH1]

I would support having owners needing a license, similar to how guns are controlled.
Owners would need to be educated in how to care for the breed and NOT be allowed
to chain them in the backyard like a yard ornament. One of the problems is people
don't spend time with their dog and don't socialize the animal which will turn a lot of
dogs mean but with a pit set up a dangerous situation as they do possess the ordinance
for a devastating attack. Licensing would also weed out the thugs and felons from
ownership.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: pulse8
It helped her by mauling someone in defense. It's not like it helped her carry her groceries or saved her from a burning house. The dog simply mauled the right person this time. This doesn't prove that pit bulls can't be dangerous dogs.

I dont know too many dogs that carry groceries, sometimes I try to balance things on my great danes back, but he's not great at carrying stuff.

As far as pit bulls saving people from fires -

Dog Saves Family From Burning House

Dog Tries To Save Owner In Burning House




Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city

"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.

"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."

So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.

? 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.

? 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.

? 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.

blah blah blah

First, my comment about groceries was a joke. Second, I didn't say that pit bulls couldn't be a good pet under the right circumstances nor did I say that ever in the history of pit bulls have they not saved their owners from burning houses.

What I did say was that this story proves nothing in the defense of pit bulls not being dangerous animals. I also believe that dogs will take on the best and worst traits of their owners regardless of the breed. Pit bulls are more dangerous, in my opinion, because of how much more aggressive they are compared to other dogs in the same situation when owned by the wrong people.

I see a pit bull as a weapon to a certain degree. Like a gun in the right hands can be useful and even can protect your family, in the wrong hands it will only do harm and will never help.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: pulse8
It helped her by mauling someone in defense. It's not like it helped her carry her groceries or saved her from a burning house. The dog simply mauled the right person this time. This doesn't prove that pit bulls can't be dangerous dogs.

I dont know too many dogs that carry groceries, sometimes I try to balance things on my great danes back, but he's not great at carrying stuff.

As far as pit bulls saving people from fires -

Dog Saves Family From Burning House

Dog Tries To Save Owner In Burning House




Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city

"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.

"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."

So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.

? 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.

? 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.

? 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.

blah blah blah

First, my comment about groceries was a joke. Second, I didn't say that pit bulls couldn't be a good pet under the right circumstances nor did I say that ever in the history of pit bulls have they not saved their owners from burning houses.

What I did say was that this story proves nothing in the defense of pit bulls not being dangerous animals. I also believe that dogs will take on the best and worst traits of their owners regardless of the breed. Pit bulls are more dangerous, in my opinion, because of how much more aggressive they are compared to other dogs in the same situation when owned by the wrong people.

I see a pit bull as a weapon to a certain degree. Like a gun in the right hands can be useful and even can protect your family, in the wrong hands it will only do harm and will never help.

Agreed. Now evryone call senators and ask them to introduce a bill for pit bull licensing.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: pulse8
It helped her by mauling someone in defense. It's not like it helped her carry her groceries or saved her from a burning house. The dog simply mauled the right person this time. This doesn't prove that pit bulls can't be dangerous dogs.

I dont know too many dogs that carry groceries, sometimes I try to balance things on my great danes back, but he's not great at carrying stuff.

As far as pit bulls saving people from fires -

Dog Saves Family From Burning House

Dog Tries To Save Owner In Burning House




Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city

"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.

"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."

So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.

? 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.

? 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.

? 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.

blah blah blah

First, my comment about groceries was a joke. Second, I didn't say that pit bulls couldn't be a good pet under the right circumstances nor did I say that ever in the history of pit bulls have they not saved their owners from burning houses.

What I did say was that this story proves nothing in the defense of pit bulls not being dangerous animals. I also believe that dogs will take on the best and worst traits of their owners regardless of the breed. Pit bulls are more dangerous, in my opinion, because of how much more aggressive they are compared to other dogs in the same situation when owned by the wrong people.

I see a pit bull as a weapon to a certain degree. Like a gun in the right hands can be useful and even can protect your family, in the wrong hands it will only do harm and will never help.

blah blah blah...

yeah, I see no reason to read your post or appraoch it with rational thought, either. I can just blah blah blah relevant animal control data away, b/c it doesn't subscribe to my pre-conceived media-molded perceptions of reality.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
All pit bulls should die anyway.
Woman just got lucky that it was attacker mauled, not an innocent person.
And now pit bull would growl and maybe attack everyone - it got a sweet taste of blood.

vote for sterilization.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
? 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.

? 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.

? 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.

That's very interesting. Now if only we had an effective way to discourage the behaviors that leave these dogs unable to cope in a human's world.

Unfortunately, it's the dog that gets the punishment, rather than the owner.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: pulse8
It helped her by mauling someone in defense. It's not like it helped her carry her groceries or saved her from a burning house. The dog simply mauled the right person this time. This doesn't prove that pit bulls can't be dangerous dogs.

I dont know too many dogs that carry groceries, sometimes I try to balance things on my great danes back, but he's not great at carrying stuff.

As far as pit bulls saving people from fires -

Dog Saves Family From Burning House

Dog Tries To Save Owner In Burning House




Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city

"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.

"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."

So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.

? 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.

? 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.

? 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.

blah blah blah

First, my comment about groceries was a joke. Second, I didn't say that pit bulls couldn't be a good pet under the right circumstances nor did I say that ever in the history of pit bulls have they not saved their owners from burning houses.

What I did say was that this story proves nothing in the defense of pit bulls not being dangerous animals. I also believe that dogs will take on the best and worst traits of their owners regardless of the breed. Pit bulls are more dangerous, in my opinion, because of how much more aggressive they are compared to other dogs in the same situation when owned by the wrong people.

I see a pit bull as a weapon to a certain degree. Like a gun in the right hands can be useful and even can protect your family, in the wrong hands it will only do harm and will never help.

blah blah blah...

yeah, I see no reason to read your post or appraoch it with rational thought, either. I can just blah blah blah relevant animal control data away, b/c it doesn't subscribe to my pre-conceived media-molded perceptions of reality.

If you had read my post you would have realized that I partially agreed with Turin39789.