First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pitbull mauls entire family because they tried to dress him in a sweater
Posted 1/9/17

MacMeaties wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:You have literally zero evidence the dogs killed a person because they were abused and despite all evidence to the contrary you continue to maintain they were abused.

Because she set out to create a killer dog and easily accomplished her task.


I could do that with an ovcharka or malinois but you don't see everyone running to the hills to get them banned. Know why? They are rare, expensive and the breeders are very specific about who gets one. Pitbulls are plentiful, cheap and bred by every joe blogs and his granny.

American Pit Bulls are fine IF they are from a reputable breeder and not Jesse or Paul, the local hoods who fires out a dozen a season for their local illegal fighting ring.


Also


runec wrote:

Pitbulls require an experienced owner that actually knows something about dogs. Not because they are unbridled killing machines waiting for a chance to strike but because they have considerable power at their disposal and they go all lockjaw on you if they do turn aggressive. Its not a matter of whether a pitbull is more or less aggressive than a Shih Tzu. Its that when the Shih Tzu snaps your life isn't in danger.

Unfortunately, pitbulls get adopted by douche bags that want a "manly" dog to intimidate people with it and/or morons that name it "Scarface" then try to force a sweater on it.



All of this. ^^^^^^
I said it before in my initial post. While a Shih Tzu or Jack Russell is more likely to bite (and do), it ain't going to do shit when it does.


So, what's your point? That we should get rid of Shih Tzu's because they don't kill people and keep Pitbull's because they are misunderstood?

LMFAO @ this double standard

No wonder so many people die to pitbulls. The owners live in a fantasy world.
Posted 1/9/17
So you have the conclusion you want, and you're bending over backwards to try and twist everything to fit your narrative. What exactly is the point of this thread? I suppose that you won't be satisfied until history repeats itself... Again.
11620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


MacMeaties wrote:

I could do that with an ovcharka or malinois but you don't see everyone running to the hills to get them banned. Know why? They are rare, expensive and the breeders are very specific about who gets one. Pitbulls are plentiful, cheap and bred by every joe blogs and his granny.

American Pit Bulls are fine IF they are from a reputable breeder and not Jesse or Paul, the local hoods who fires out a dozen a season for their local illegal fighting ring.


Also


runec wrote:

Pitbulls require an experienced owner that actually knows something about dogs. Not because they are unbridled killing machines waiting for a chance to strike but because they have considerable power at their disposal and they go all lockjaw on you if they do turn aggressive. Its not a matter of whether a pitbull is more or less aggressive than a Shih Tzu. Its that when the Shih Tzu snaps your life isn't in danger.

Unfortunately, pitbulls get adopted by douche bags that want a "manly" dog to intimidate people with it and/or morons that name it "Scarface" then try to force a sweater on it.



All of this. ^^^^^^
I said it before in my initial post. While a Shih Tzu or Jack Russell is more likely to bite (and do), it ain't going to do shit when it does.


So, what's your point? That we should get rid of Shih Tzu's because they don't kill people and keep Pitbull's because they are misunderstood?

LMFAO @ this double standard

No wonder so many people die to pitbulls. The owners live in a fantasy world.


Ah yes, how dare that guy say that we should get rid of Shih Tzus, which you can clearly see him say... Nowhere. Exactly nowhere. It is not stated or implied in either runec or meaties' posts. But no, do go on about other people living in fantasy worlds while you up and imagine things for them to say. You should stick to your killer memes, because you suck with words.

Speaking of which, still waiting to hear from you which gene is supposedly making pitbulls more likely to attack.
Posted 1/9/17
15065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:

Oh what do you know, its actually a pit bull mix. Also Dogs don't attack people like that for no reason, I'm guessing the family didn't provide the "pitbull" with enough mental and physical stimulation.





God I love it when someone posts something so absurd like this.

"We didn't play catch with Fido enough so he killed a 5 year old. We can't blame the breed, though."


Alright mate, you continue believing all dogs are meant to be sweet little hug plushies (Not pack animals) and I'll believe different breeds have different temperaments and needs and are classified as such. Physical and mental stimulation is not limited to playing catch.

Also "We didn't feed/walk/train Fido enough so he killed a 5 year old. We can't blame the breed, though." might be true as well.

Anyways, have a good day.
mxdan 
11120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 1/9/17
Pitbulls are irrelevant because Border Collies exist.



Look at that cute ball of win.
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Ah yes, how dare that guy say that we should get rid of Shih Tzus, which you can clearly see him say... Nowhere. Exactly nowhere. It is not stated or implied in either runec or meaties' posts. But no, do go on about other people living in fantasy worlds while you up and imagine things for them to say. You should stick to your killer memes, because you suck with words.

Speaking of which, still waiting to hear from you which gene is supposedly making pitbulls more likely to attack.


What kind of question is this anyway? Why are you asking about genes?

What do you think the answer would even look like? Why in the world do you think I'd even know the answer? Is your point that if I don't know all the genes associated with aggressiveness?
25579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:So, what's your point? That we should get rid of Shih Tzu's because they don't kill people and keep Pitbull's because they are misunderstood?

LMFAO @ this double standard

No wonder so many people die to pitbulls. The owners live in a fantasy world.


How much you fail to see the point pains me. I'd assume you are doing it on purpose if it wasn't for Hanlon's Razor.


I'll spell it out. Pit Bulls as an overall breed are no more or less dangerous on aggregate than a large number of other dog breeds; infact there are many breeds that are more aggressive and/or capable of inflicting much more damage of which I gave three examples, Shih Tzu, Ovcharka and Malinois. The breed itself is not the problem, it is WHO breeds them, WHO those breeders then sell/give the dogs to and WHAT they intend to use them for.

Prior to the Pit Bull boom it was Rottweilers. In areas where Pit Bull breeds have been banned dog bites did NOT drop.

So why pick on Pit Bulls when any number of other breeds could and have in the past been just as deadly? Media hysteria. Instead of focusing on the real problem which is irresponsible breeders and owners the entire breed is vilified.



And you speak of double standards yet excuse small dog breeds from biting people simply because they can't kill you in the same breath? That's like saying it is okay to crash a car as long as you don't kill anyone doing it. Neither is acceptable. You're a tool for crashing at all just as anyone who breeds and trains a dog to for fighting is... and because I know it is coming, Pit Bulls as a whole are NOT bred for fighting. Get ones from a reputable, registered breeder and you can be damn sure they won't be and if they pick up even a hint that you want one for that reason they'll not sell you one.
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

MacMeaties wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:So, what's your point? That we should get rid of Shih Tzu's because they don't kill people and keep Pitbull's because they are misunderstood?

LMFAO @ this double standard

No wonder so many people die to pitbulls. The owners live in a fantasy world.


How much you fail to see the point pains me. I'd assume you are doing it on purpose if it wasn't for Hanlon's Razor.


I'll spell it out. Pit Bulls as an overall breed are no more or less dangerous on aggregate than a large number of other dog breeds; infact there are many breeds that are more aggressive and/or capable of inflicting much more damage of which I gave three examples, Shih Tzu, Ovcharka and Malinois. The breed itself is not the problem, it is WHO breeds them, WHO those breeders then sell/give the dogs to and WHAT they intend to use them for.

Prior to the Pit Bull boom it was Rottweilers. In areas where Pit Bull breeds have been banned dog bites did NOT drop.

So why pick on Pit Bulls when any number of other breeds could and have in the past been just as deadly? Media hysteria. Instead of focusing on the real problem which is irresponsible breeders and owners the entire breed is vilified.



And you speak of double standards yet excuse small dog breeds from biting people simply because they can't kill you in the same breath? That's like saying it is okay to crash a car as long as you don't kill anyone doing it. Neither is acceptable. You're a tool for crashing at all just as anyone who breeds and trains a dog to for fighting is... and because I know it is coming, Pit Bulls as a whole are NOT bred for fighting. Get ones from a reputable, registered breeder and you can be damn sure they won't be and if they pick up even a hint that you want one for that reason they'll not sell you one.


I'm talking about the problem of pitbulls being capable of killing people. You keep bringing up dogs that aren't capable of killing people and acting like that somehow invalidates my point when it doesn't. This isn't that hard to understand. Pitbulls are dangerous. Shih Tzus are not.

You bring up other large dogs like that invalidates my point. It doesn't. Pitbulls have a well documented history of killing people. Great danes do not have this history. They are even bigger than Pitbulls.

It isn't media hysteria. I was waiting for someone to bring this up. I'll address it.
25579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:I'm talking about the problem of pitbulls being capable of killing people. You keep bringing up dogs that aren't capable of killing people and acting like that somehow invalidates my point when it doesn't. This isn't that hard to understand. Pitbulls are dangerous. Shih Tzus are not.

You bring up other large dogs like that invalidates my point. It doesn't. Pitbulls have a well documented history of killing people. Great danes do not have this history. They are even bigger than Pitbulls.

It isn't media hysteria. I was waiting for someone to bring this up. I'll address it.


Great Danes do mate. Check the statistics. Great Danes, Rottweilers, St Bernards, Doberman, German Shepards, Huskies, Malamutes, Labradors, even Jack Russells have killed people. Do Pit Bulls kill people? Yes they do. And yes they are at the top of the list by a long margin in the 2000s but they were not prior to that. So why has a breed that have existed since before the 1800s not been at the top of the list since official records began if it was the breed itself all along? Why was it other breeds before that?

Maybe, just maybe it is who breeds and uses them. Just a thought! ¬_¬
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

25579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17
Lets ban everything that kills people under any circumstance then Clearly that would make everything better.

You can side step and move the goal posts all you want, it isn't helping.
47269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
Maybe they didn't want the dog to get cold or something.
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

qualeshia3 wrote:

Maybe they didn't want the dog to get cold or something.


Imagine having such a failure of a breed that it gets mad and mauls the entire pack when someone tries to put a cute sweater on it. What a great dog. A family dog. For mauling families.
1518 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17
What I'm curious about is if the dog gave any sign of distress about the clothes before attacking. Most dog owners have the sense not to push if their dog doesn't seem to like it. Maybe this family didn't?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.