[tones]

When pitbulls break loose, children pay in blood! It's happened again in Omaha. Toothless new ordinances are merely a ploy to increase dog registration fees without actually solving the pitbull problem. Ban the breed = less attacks and lower registration fees for other dog owners.

[pheaton]

I haven't seen the new ordinances. I'm not sure banning the breed would do anything. It would just force people to hide their dogs. Any dog can be trained to be violent just as any dog can be trained to be gentle. Pitbulls raised from a puppy can be very gentle and non-agressive.

That being said, dogs are animals. Just about any dog (not just a pitbull) can be set off given the right circumstances. No matter how well they are trained. Once a dog starts attacking they are basically possessed, they will not respond to an owners commands or other outside influences. All dogs can snap, millions of people get bitten by dogs every year. Not just by pitbulls though.

Certain breeds are more dangerous when they begin attacking. There are a handful of dogs that were basically built for fighting. They have a very strong bite, high stamina, and have a high pain threshold. This means when you are being attacked they will probably not respond to you gouging their eye, or punching them in the face. Some dogs will fight to the death. Some pitbulls have been known to have some or all of these characteristics.

The trouble is that even if you ban "pitbulls" there are still mixed breeds that are just as dangerous that will not be banned.

So what do you do?

[Calvinist]

I understand the argument about "it's the owner"... blah blah blah.

But there's a simple point that if my 15 pound Shi Tzu goes nuts and decides to attack an 8 year old, he's going to do considerably less damage than a 100+ pound pitbull.

What exactly is wrong with a person that they have the need to harbor a potentially dangerous animal?

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I understand the argument about "it's the owner"... blah blah blah.

But there's a simple point that if my 15 pound Shi Tzu goes nuts and decides to attack an 8 year old, he's going to do considerably less damage than a 100+ pound pitbull.

What exactly is wrong with a person that they have the need to harbor a potentially dangerous animal?

Overcompensation.

[tones]

Even if a ban results in people "hiding" their pitbulls, it will be a success IMO!! When they are found out - they can be destoyed at will, and a hidden animal is less likely to come into contact with innocents -- unless we are talking about the pitbull owners children - and then (while still tragic) is more of a case of natural selection. You know... since pitbull apologists blame lax owners anyways....

But the fact remains that in many cases the very people ATTRACTED TO pitbull ownership are the same people society DOESN'T WANT to own pitbulls.

[Calvinist]

I can guarantee you that if I had been on the scene when the latest 2 to attack did their thing, there would be no discussion of whether or not to put 'em down. I'd have done it right then and there with my bare hands.

[smithy77]

My sister lived next door to a family who owned a "sweet tempered" pit bull. Well, sweet thing decided to chew through the back door and proceed to go after a 7 year old neighbor kid playing in his back yard. Had my brother-in-law not been there with his baseball bat (which stunned the dog long enough for the cops to get there), God knows what would have happened. Pit bulls are unpredictable and are easily spooked---they also have jaws of steel and an amazing amount of PSI pressure in their bite. They were originally bred for fighting. I think it's time to follow Council Bluffs' lead and ban any further ownership.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by smithy77

My sister lived next door to a family who owned a "sweet tempered" pit bull. Well, sweet thing decided to chew through the back door and proceed to go after a 7 year old neighbor kid playing in his back yard. Had my brother-in-law not been there with his baseball bat (which stunned the dog long enough for the cops to get there), God knows what would have happened. Pit bulls are unpredictable and are easily spooked---they also have jaws of steel and an amazing amount of PSI pressure in their bite. They were originally bred for fighting. I think it's time to follow Council Bluffs' lead and ban any further ownership.

On that note, anyone know what has been the result of the pit bull ban in Council Tucky?

Are there pit bulls that are just not reported/licensed? Are there mixed dogs that are technically not pit bulls, but still maintain all the attributes?

[SunshineSanity]

*shakes head in stunned silence*

I cannot believe some people's ignorance.

[JordanJP]

Originally Posted by tones

But the fact remains that in many cases the very people ATTRACTED TO pitbull ownership are the same people society DOESN'T WANT to own pitbulls.

Banning the breed won't do anything, the people that YOU don't want to have pitties will still have them, or they'll pick another common dog to teach to fight.. Boxers, labs, german shepherds, hell.. I've seen a lot of collies, heelers, and chihuahuas more aggressive than most pit bulls are.

//www.city-data.com/forum/dogs/...ck-styles.html

There are dogs out there that can be just as aggressive as a pit CAN be, if they are not taken care of correctly. Pitties are high energy and need to be trained and paid lots of attention to at an early age. My boss' daughter had the sweetest little pit-girl and she never hurt a fly (okay, I may have seen her eat a few out of the air before, but still)