Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’ve very strong feelings about Dangerous Breed Dogs and their owners.  I believe that many of these dogs are unfit for neighborhood settings and their owners are reckless in their care for these animals... Your use of "Dangerous Breed Dogs" terminology is just plain wrong.  Please try to look at it as if you had said "Dangerous Black Rifles" instead.  It's an emotional response to an irrational fear. When was the last time your Dangerous Black Rifle charged out of your yard and knocked a little girl off of her bike and mauled her?

There you go making sense again.  It won't matter.  The pit apologists are going to descend any second now.

Quoted: Well, I've just gotten another call from Ken. I think I have Ken on the ropes, maybe getting ready to expose him with some problems. Ken now tells me that Randy has no surety bond.  On Dec.19, 2003, Randy notified Animal Control Services that he would be removing Angel from the county and would no longer need the Dangerous Dog certificate or it's associated conditions.  I asked Ken what assurances (as required by TCC 9.10.070(F)(4)(c)) Randy had made to him.  He had no answer! So, Randy has no money, says that he was taking the dog to southern Oregon, so now he can drop his surety bond and homeowners rider.  Animal control does not investigate, gets no assurances as required by law. I think they are both in trouble now. Edited to add:  Randy has brought the dog to Animal Control Services.  They notified him that he will more likely than not be charged and has possible civil liabilities.  They will quarentine the dog for 10 days to make sure it is disease free, then destroy it. Randy is claiming that he just brought the dog back from Oregon on Friday.  This is utter BS, as we've seen the dog in his yard the last few months.  Either way, it's unregistered.

Wow, I just keep seeing your dollar amount go up and up. You can sue Randy and the State.
Go get'm Tiger!!

Quoted: first let me say this. Properly raised pits are some of the best dogs out there. intellegent and strong. . . . . . The dog obviously saw your daughter as a threat to it's home or family and reacted the only way it knows how.

This dog must be brilliant then because it saw a 4 year old girl as a threat outside of the owner's yard.



I would kill the dog if I saw it again.

First let me say that I hope that your child fully recovers, both physically and emotionally. It would be a shame if she was forever scared of good dogs.

Now you need to sue. Sue everyone who is in any way, shape or form associated with this fucktard. Go for the deep pockets. Sue the city, the county, animal control, law enforcement, etc. Sue anyone and everyone who can be even slightly thought to have at one time or another had anything to do with not getting this animal off the streets and into a shelter for disposal.

You have shown patience. You have shown understanding. Now it's time to act. Push this thing to the ends of the earth.

Oh and track down and fuck up this Randy asshole. And maybe his dad too.

Looks like...

---Randy

---Randy's dad (homeowner)

---Animal Control Officer

---Animal Control

---County Govt

are all "players" in this clusterfuck. You need to start calling lawyers...!

If the kid had not fell the way she fell and the bike had not hit the dog it could of been her neck he bit and she might be dead.

If this had happened to me I would have killed the dog and hopefully somebody would of intervened before I killed the neighbor.

First: I am not intending to attack you personally Beer Slayer.  Please do not take it that way, and if it looks like I am, please EM me so I can apologise.

Second: Warning, rant about to begin.

Quoted: Properly raised pits are some of the best dogs out there. intellegent and strong. They are also protective to the extream of their family/territory. This makes them very good guard dogs.The dog obviously saw your daughter as a threat to it's home or family and reacted the only way it knows how.

Pit Bull Terriers do take the full load of press for dog attacks, but one reason is the statistics for pit bulls vs other breeds for serious attacks where unprovoked or where the level of attack is way off the charts.  Any individual dog can be bad, but of purebreeds and part breeds, the pit bulls are off the charts on the statistics when it comes to serious and FATAL attacks.  Pit bulls have been statistically responsible annually for between 50-67% of fatal attacks since groups, like the Humane Society, started keeping the statistics.  Overall, Pits and Rotts are statistically 6-7x more likely to be involved in a bite incident involving hospitalization.  I have done the documentary research and I look at it critically because some of the writers might just be cat lovers.  Do I need to go on?

Now some of the statistics are overblown. Others are skewed.  However it is clear outright that the number of serious attacks by Pit Bulls is statistically significant compared to their proportion in the dog population versus other large breeds.  There is little point in comparing the large breeds to the small: A toy poodle just cannot reasonably damage a human being in the way a large dog like a Rott or Pit Bull or Collie (remember Lassie!) can.

I do not believe the load of crap people keep shoveling about "no bad dogs, only bad owners".  I have owned dogs my whole life, and have worked with dogs my whole life.  The same with other animals.  Same with people.  Some are just bad.  The owner is stupid for owning a bad dog they can't control.  A dog is a companion but only to the degree that it is not a liability to those around it.  If it becomes a liability, you put it down.

protective to the extream of their family/territory is the key problem here.  Pit bulls and some other breeds have been bred to stupid, reactive violence, and have had normal temperment restrictions for violence/limits of violence bred out, in the same way as Golden Retrievers have issues with hips and joints and eye trouble bred in.  I know some breeds, like Poodles for example, have a high frequency of unprovoked bites (my experience is that they are just pissy dogs) - but Poodles generally stop after one bite and do not continue to graw the victim's skull for a kill point.

Why is it that so many so called "Dog Lovers" who completely freak out at puppy factories for pumping out poorly bred dogs with PHYSICAL ailments, cannot fathom that certain BREEDS have been bred with undesireable temperment and intelligence traits?  Most dogs even when provoked will not chase a threat beyond their territory.  Clearly if a breed, which pit bull fans clearly even admit, are "protective in the extreme of their family/territory" and do not have the inherent controls left in their temperment to stop when the threat to their territory is over, then there is an issue with the breed being suitable as "pets".

If there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, that is like saying if I have a faulty AR that is beyond repair  and should be scrapped for parts but that I should just repair it as much as is reasonable in my budget and time available and keep shooting it next to guys at the public range.  Yes, I am a bad gun owner/operator.  At the same time, the firearm is bad/faulty and needs to retired as it is unsafe.

Ban ALL pit bulls, obviously ALL pit bulls are BAD and should be Banned.
We need the Government to make a law, a NATIONWIDE LAW banning these dangerous beasts.

Say it.

Say:

"I think the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should ban the ownership of any and all pitbulls."

Maybe we should just ban the domestic breeding of pit bulls (not to mention dogs with pit bull-like appearances).
If you already have a pit bull, it can be "grandfathered".
Or should we ask the government to go "door to door" and confiscate these dogs?

Your mistake was not pouring a nice dish of antifreeze for the dog.

As an ADA, I'd strongly recommend talking to your DA's office and tell them about the DD incident.  The knowledge that your dumbass neighbor Randy had can be turned into criminal culpability.  I'd push for assault charges and I'd fleece his insurance company as well as sue the animal control office for their lack of oversight.

I'd guess that with a POOR attorney, you're looking at $30-40k on settlement.  I'd guess higher once you factor in a judgment by a jury, which you'd bet your ass that you'd get.  Call it $500,000 on a bad day.

Go retain counsel and let your dogs loose on him.  And if you see the dog again, shoot it on sight.  

That's it.
They are indeed "ticking time bombs".
Will you sign my petition to ask the Government to BAN them?
For the children.

Pre-emptive banning/regulating of Dog breeds is wrong.  Enact such statutes on the individual dangerous dog, not the breed.  If a dog attacks a human unprovoked it should be put down, and the owner fined. But putting undue expense on the owner of a perfectly frinedly dog is uncalled for. The anolgoy with guns works. Even better would be to use racial groups. Some racial groups, statisicly, commit a excessive portion of the crime in some areas; should we have pre-emptive laws against them? What happened to innocent before proven guilty? What about if a persons family line is shown to have a history of mental illeness but that person has show no signs; should they be disallowed from owning a gun?  I could go on and on with the anolgies but I think we all get my point.

Unless the dog commits a violent act  it should not be legislated.

As I've said before, I don't want to ban them.  I just don't want people to be surprised when I kill them on sight.

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?

Trying to extend the analogy from inanimate to animate is dumb. Trying to extend the analogy from dog to human is even worse. Saying that a dog (property, void of any rights) deserves "innocent until proven guilty", is just about as stupid as I can think.  I don't have to struck by lightning to know it will hurt.

Why is it stupid? The law you mentioned effects the owners who are citizens. It places a finicial burden on them for something their dog has never done. Unless the individual dog proves to be dangerous, you should not be able to place said burden on the owner.

Quoted: Quoted: Pit bulls will go the way of the original Piper Cub. Eric The(BTW,IDespisePersonalInjuryTrialLawyers)Hun [hijack]What happened to The Cub?[/hijack]

I think the manufacturer got sued either out of the country or existence, most likely by victims/survivors/familes of pilots who excercised poor judgement and crashed their airplanes. The cost of litigation just got too high for the company to financially bear. Unlike pitbulls, I don't think there was ever anything inherently wrong with the airplane itslef. They certainly weren't charging out of airports and knocking kids of their bicycles and then mauling them.

.

As much as I love my 2 dogs (a lab and a mutt) if I ever see them attacking anyone it will be the last day of their life.  In reality I only worry that they may lick someone and wet their face.    

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.

If he doesn't have the surety bond anymore, his father (who owns the property) will have Home Owner's insurance.  As such, there is a Liability clause (always at least $100,000) attached to it for just this sort of thing.

As a licensed insurance agent, here is my advice.

IMMEDIATELY contact the father and tell him what happened.  Ask for his insurance company's name.  If he won't give it to you, contact your insurance company.

Either way, sue the SOB and his insurance company will have to defend him, but will 99.9% of the time settle out of court.  Then they will drop his policy like a hot potato.  He'll have a damn hard time getting one again for 5 years.

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.

Big dogs need land. Period.

I didn't bother reading past page 1, because it's always the same shit "oh my dog would never hurt a flea" (from an owner with a postage stamp lot and they are shocked when the dog gets territorial and chomps someone walking down the sidewalk)

As for the dog owner, eff him and his dog. He has the RESPONSIBILITY to keep his pet under control, and that didn't happen.

If you live in a cramped neighborhood then get a chihuahua or fish. If you want to get a half-wolf, cougar or rhino, then get a place in the sticks first

Typical ME ME ME generation - I live in a two-bit shit apartment but it's my RIGHT to have pit bulls.

BFS

Quoted: Quoted: Wow, I just keep seeing your dollar amount go up and up. You can sue Randy and the State. Go get'm Tiger!! I don't want anything over than them covering my out of pocket medical expenses.  I would like to see them set up a hefty trust fund for Savannah to use for college or such. I just wouldn't tell her about it until she could use it!  I don't want her to get lazy in school thinking she's got a boat load of cash waiting for her 18th birthday.

I think that's a big mistake.  The only thing dirtbags like Randy and slackers like Ken understand is hitting them in the pocket.  Sue his ass off.  Sue his dad's (property owner) ass off.  Sue the county off so that next time this happens it doesn't get swept under the rug.

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?

Quoted: I fully understand your position, I just don’t agree with it’s apologistic viewpoint.

Forgive me if i'm coming off as apologistic, and I truly hope you do understand my position.

If you continue to contend that all dogs of certian breeds are dangerous (with some rare exceptions), then I must inform you that you are flat-out wrong.

If that makes me something other than a realist, then I have failed at communicating, or you've never been exposed to a truly good "DBD".

I did not make up the term Dangerous Breed.  Ask your insurance carrier about it.  Quite possibly, it might be mentioned as such in some form of statuatory authority in your location.  I think it fair to use the term, especially in such instances.

Actually my insurance carrier has restrictions on "vicious dogs".  I am quite aware of restrictions on certian breeds by insurance carriers, and refuse to do businiss with them.  I actively fight Breed Specific Legislation just as much as I have fought for CCW or other 2nd Amendment legislation.  It is no more "fair" to use DBD, than it is to racially profile Blacks driving nice cars for drugs

[Sidenote:  both sides of the profile debate begone!]

More importantly, I have to discount any analogies between dogs and guns...

Please read carefully, and you'll see that I objected to the terms you used - and equated the methodology to what liberals do with "assault weapons" terminology,  i.e:  it looks dangerous, therefore we should ban it.

If your Jack Russel Terrier killed my cat, it would not be a Dangerous Breed Dog, it would be a Dangerous Dog (by statute).

So why is it different for a black and tan molosser weighing 60# more (i.e. a Rotweiler)?  Is it because it looks more dangerous?  Is it because you're much more likely to report it to animal control?  If the statute applies to both, then why is a Rottweiler that is freindly with cats and people suddenly "dangerous" (hey, it's your term, you defend it).

I think the crux of your argument comes down to this quote: There are no such things as "Dangerous Breeds". There are only irresponsible owners.

I think this is closer:

...your focus is still on the breeds, rather than the responsible party.

Perhaps I should qualify.  The breed is not the danger.  The irresponsible owner of a vicious dog is.  Both should be punished.  Apologies if my post came off differently.

I disagree, so do insurance companies and some municipalities.  Even the DBD apologist refer to them, if only to say that they are really not dangerous..

Again with the terminology.  I have never seen a Rottweiler or a PittBull enthusiast (apologist, evidently) use the term "Dangerous Breed" other than in ridicule and derision, and almost always in quotes.  Again, think of how we use "Assault Weapon" here.

The Federal Government uses the term “Dangerous Breed” (such as in the CDC study).  You might not like the term, but it exists and I feel appropriate to use.

The Fed uses the term "Assault Weapon", and the CDC has called gun fatalities a "Public health epidemic".  It doesn't really change the fact that the terms are based in irrational fear, lacking true logical basis.  If you feel it appropriate, more power to ya, but don't be suprised if someone calls you on it.

If you want to make an argument that the term “Dangerous Breed” is a misnomer akin to “assault weapon”, I’ll listen to the argument, but I won’t discount the fact that the term is still valid.

I think that was what I just did (and meant to do in the first place). Unfortunately the term is only valid as long as misinformed people keep using it.

Please notice that I said “exception of the general stereotype”, and not exception to the rule.

Thank you, I typed hastily, and I apologize if I missed the "stereotype". I have spent much time getting folks in the neighborhood to meet my dogs, and understand that these stereotypes are wrong.  I'm glad you recognize it as that.

It seems you've also had good experiences with one of these "Dangerous" dogs (JimmyD223's).  Should he have his rights to enjoy his property infringed based on an irrational fear of a certian breed?

Personal responsibility is the key.  If it makes you feel safer, by all means lobby for a "Dangerous Breed Dog" law, but realize that if you were to try it where I live, I (and many others) would fight you all of the way.

I understand that your daughter was mauled by a Pitt.  I'm truly sorry.

Get the dog destroyed, go after the owner, but don't label me, or the dogs I own as dangerous.

-FMD

PS Anybody else wanna make comment that I was comparing dogs to guns?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow, I just keep seeing your dollar amount go up and up. You can sue Randy and the State. Go get'm Tiger!! I don't want anything over than them covering my out of pocket medical expenses.  I would like to see them set up a hefty trust fund for Savannah to use for college or such. I just wouldn't tell her about it until she could use it!  I don't want her to get lazy in school thinking she's got a boat load of cash waiting for her 18th birthday. I think that's a big mistake.  The only thing dirtbags like Randy and slackers like Ken understand is hitting them in the pocket.  Sue his ass off.  Sue his dad's (property owner) ass off.  Sue the county off so that next time this happens it doesn't get swept under the rug.

I believe all Stokes wants for HIMSELF is the cost of medical expenses. His DAUGHTER, on the other hand, might wind up with a prepaid college education.

The #1 problem with the APBT is dumb ass breeders. So many fools think a good Pit Bull is one that is ultra-aggressive and territorial.

My brothers friend has a APBT he is going to breed. I asked him if he was going to sell the puppies and he said yes. So I ask to see the bitch and he is like, "Well the last stranger that came in she bit, and that was a little girl". I thought to myself WTF? Why would you purposely breed dogs with bad temperment?

And this can happen with any breed when dumb asses are raising dogs. It is a lot more to breeding  dogs then just letting them fuck. Remeber people go to college for Animal Husbandry, all these po dunk, hick, ghetto, dumb ass breeders ought to do some reading about dogs, the breed they are raising, animal aggression, and socialization. It's nuts.

And breed specific legislation is insane. Give me 20 years and I can breed Labrador Retreivers that are just as animal aggressive as an APBT. And if you ban the APBT that will happen. It will take time but the dumb ass ghetto fucks will pick another breed and keep breeding bad dogs untill they have something elese to fight.

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 don't support a Federal Ban.

I would be pleased as punch if they were legislated out of the hands of most people, though. They should be made so expensive to own (via mandatory insurance) that most people would pass on owning one.

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.

Quoted: And breed specific legislation is insane. Give me 20 years and I can breed Labrador Retreivers that are just as animal aggressive as an APBT. And if you ban the APBT that will happen. It will take time but the dumb ass ghetto fucks will pick another breed and keep breeding bad dogs untill they have something elese to fight.

Yep, they've been trying to destroy Rotties for years that way.  Some of them end up as mal-adjusted, scared and aggressive husks.  Our rescue lets these be put down.

The amazing thing is that most end up as great dogs (if given the chance).  A little bit of love and attention, and you'll never have a better cannine friend.

(sorry for the hijack)

-FMD

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.

The hand grenades in school makes no sense because you are impling giving children hand grenades. Children are under 18 and don't have the same rights as adults. So no children can not have hand grenades.

Now I do not support the Fed regulating APBT's. I do support allowing adults having hand grenades, shoulder fired rockets, claymore mines, blasting caps, plastic explosives, and machine guns.


And don't get this thread locked

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. The hand grenades in school makes no sense because you are impling giving children hand grenades. Children are under 18 and don't have the same rights as adults. So no children can not have hand grenades. Now I do not support the Fed regulating APBT's. I do support allowing adults having hand grenades, shoulder fired rockets, claymore mines, blasting caps, plastic explosives, and machine guns. And don't get this thread locked

So how do you propose keeping APBTs away from chidren under 18?

Quoted: Quoted: Wow, I just keep seeing your dollar amount go up and up. You can sue Randy and the State. Go get'm Tiger!! I don't want anything over than them covering my out of pocket medical expenses.  I would like to see them set up a hefty trust fund for Savannah to use for college or such. I just wouldn't tell her about it until she could use it!  I don't want her to get lazy in school thinking she's got a boat load of cash waiting for her 18th birthday.

You are ignoring the entire injury that has been enacted on you, fear of the neighborhood, etc.  I despise lawyers but you need one asap.  You have been placed in a dangerous situation due to the negligence of the state.  Sue their fuckin 7 hour day asses.  Maybe that way they'll actually enforce laws instead of enacting more.

People that repeatedly say a whole group of dogs are a problem just flat out doesn't know shit about dogs. The whole pit bull thing is a lot of hype by the media. The biggest problem is they call anything a pit bull if a bite happens. Just like so called Assault weapons, they are misrepresented every time I see or read an article about the AWB. Shit, if you go to the local pound they have dogs listed as "pit" on their kennel signs that look like they MAYBE have a 1/4 pit bull. Now if that dog ever bit someone, it would be a PIT BULL that bit someone, not a mutt.

The owners of a dog is where the buck should stop, if "Angel" was in a properly secured yard with no way to escape, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I have never known a dog to be able to sprout wings and fly out of it's secured yard. If you don't have a way to properly secure your dog (I don't care what breed) then you don't have any business owning a dog in the first place. If you think it is cute to let your dog roam off leash at the park, YOU SHOULDN'T own a dog anyway. I see morons all the time who think their cute cuddly labrador should run loose in the park and sniff dogs that are properly secured on leash. I don't care if you have a Golden Retriever or a Cane Corso, they need to be properly secured at all times.

99% of dog bites would be avoided if the owner of the dog had it properly secured, that is the bottom line. No dog makes it's own mind up if it's owner has already made his own mind up. PERIOD

Quoted: People that repeatedly say a whole group of dogs are a problem just flat out doesn't know shit about dogs. The whole pit bull thing is a lot of hype by the media. The biggest problem is they call anything a pit bull. Shit, if you go to the local pound they have dogs listed as "pit" on their kennel signs that look like they MAYBE have a 1/4 pit bull. Now if that dog ever bit someone, it would be a PIT BULL that bit someone, not a mutt. The owners of a dog is where the buck should stop, if "Angel" was in a properly secured yard with no way to escape, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I have never known a dog to be able to sprout wings and fly out of it's secured yard. If you don't have a way to properly secure your dog (I don't care what breed) then you don't have any business owning a dog in the first place. If you think it is cute to let your dog roam off leash at the park, YOU SHOULDN'T own a dog anyway. I see morons all the time who think their cute cuddly labrador should run loose in the park and sniff dogs that are properly secured on leash. I don't care if you have a Golden Retriever or a Cane Corso, they need to properly secured at all times. 99% of dog bites would be avoided if the owner of the dog had it properly secured, that is the bottom line. No dog makes it's own mind up if it's owner has already made his own mind up. PERIOD

Perhaps the answer is that is should be legal to kill any freely roaming dog?

Quoted: Quoted: People that repeatedly say a whole group of dogs are a problem just flat out doesn't know shit about dogs. The whole pit bull thing is a lot of hype by the media. The biggest problem is they call anything a pit bull. Shit, if you go to the local pound they have dogs listed as "pit" on their kennel signs that look like they MAYBE have a 1/4 pit bull. Now if that dog ever bit someone, it would be a PIT BULL that bit someone, not a mutt. The owners of a dog is where the buck should stop, if "Angel" was in a properly secured yard with no way to escape, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I have never known a dog to be able to sprout wings and fly out of it's secured yard. If you don't have a way to properly secure your dog (I don't care what breed) then you don't have any business owning a dog in the first place. If you think it is cute to let your dog roam off leash at the park, YOU SHOULDN'T own a dog anyway. I see morons all the time who think their cute cuddly labrador should run loose in the park and sniff dogs that are properly secured on leash. I don't care if you have a Golden Retriever or a Cane Corso, they need to properly secured at all times. 99% of dog bites would be avoided if the owner of the dog had it properly secured, that is the bottom line. No dog makes it's own mind up if it's owner has already made his own mind up. PERIOD Perhaps the answer is that is should be legal to kill any freely roaming dog?

I would not disagree, I hate free roaming dogs because my dogs are always secured NO MATTER WHAT. That puts me at a disadvantage because when Fluffy runs up off leash, I can't do shit about it.

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.

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.

+1

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?

Who the fuck lets their dog run loose? I have 2 pits, Have been loose on a few times, however it scares me shitless, even when my sheepdog is loose. However I have never had them bite some one. In fact many of the neighbors like the dogs. Then again I didn't raise them as pitbulls but as dogs I cared for. They are basically over grown lap dogs (they don't understand at 80lbs you cant hop into some ones lap)

Very sorry to hear about your daughter luckly she wasnt hurt seriously.

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.