Pit bull attacks a dozen children at elementary school recess

[Anonymous]

The most violent dog I ever knew was a Chihuahua. Difference is, if a small dog bites you, it's usually not such a big deal. Big dogs can maim and kill, easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most violent dog I ever knew was a Chihuahua. Difference is, if a small dog bites you, it's usually not such a big deal. Big dogs can maim and kill, easily.

Once they start attacking, pit bull and pit bull breeds won't stop, even when they are shot. It often takes several gun shots to get them to release.

They also will attack and kill or maim their owners, which is very uncommon behavior from normal dogs.

[Anonymous]

LOLOL to the pit bull lover who posted above. It's not mass murder if it's a DOG. Jesus.

Also, I have seen "service dog" pitbulls and it's really horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I definitely think we should regulate based on categories. Men are more likely to be violent and aggressive (just look at all the mass shootings) so let's round them up and keep them carefully contained and not let them have access to guns. Because you never know when a man is going to lose it because, hey, that's what men do.

Thanks for demonstrating how crazy and unhinged pit bull people radicals are.

Wait - "pit bull people" are unhinged for a clearly tongue-in-cheek suggestion to illustrate the absurdity of the original suggestion to euthanize all pits? Who is really unhinged, here?

Pit bulls make up about 5% of the dog population (90M) - so the suggestion here is to kill 4.5M dogs - almost all of whom have done nothing wrong. That's a unjustified mass murder of people's pets. And the reason for this suggested mass murder is in retaliation for a portion of the 30 or so dog bite fatalities each year. Kill 4.5 Million innocent dogs for that? Yeah, sure that makes a ton of sense.

Also, the application of this proposal is problematic. Pit bulls aren't a breed. The four/five different kinds of breeds that can be considered to be pit bulls. Further, there millions of pit-mixes. So where does this killing proposal stop? Just euthanize those 4 - 5 breeds? Or do you include all the mixes too? Exactly how many dogs are you suggesting that we kill? Again, almost all of whom have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Instead of being hysterical, how about you research more about dog bites and dog-related fatalities and come up with a viable suggestion that will actually help?

Sterilize all of the pit bulls and pit mixes.

Require muzzles on all pits outside.

I live in Ontario and they tried this in 2005. It was poorly enforced. Most cities don’t have extra budget for animal services. Aside from that, as another PP has noted, pit bull isn’t a breed. There is no way for an enforcement officer to prove a dog is a pit bull.

13 years later, I see pit bulls all over the place. Of course now they’re “boxer mixes” or “bulldog hype and legislation did nothing to deter good owners, or bad owners.

[Anonymous]

^^^ The shelters really need to step up to the plate and quit rehoming pitbulls and pitt mixes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ The shelters really need to step up to the plate and quit rehoming pitbulls and pitt mixes.

Agreed. I can't wait to read the comments from people who defend pitbulls killing and maiming. FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I definitely think we should regulate based on categories. Men are more likely to be violent and aggressive (just look at all the mass shootings) so let's round them up and keep them carefully contained and not let them have access to guns. Because you never know when a man is going to lose it because, hey, that's what men do.

Thanks for demonstrating how crazy and unhinged pit bull people radicals are.

Wait - "pit bull people" are unhinged for a clearly tongue-in-cheek suggestion to illustrate the absurdity of the original suggestion to euthanize all pits? Who is really unhinged, here?

Pit bulls make up about 5% of the dog population (90M) - so the suggestion here is to kill 4.5M dogs - almost all of whom have done nothing wrong. That's a unjustified mass murder of people's pets. And the reason for this suggested mass murder is in retaliation for a portion of the 30 or so dog bite fatalities each year. Kill 4.5 Million innocent dogs for that? Yeah, sure that makes a ton of sense.

Also, the application of this proposal is problematic. Pit bulls aren't a breed. The four/five different kinds of breeds that can be considered to be pit bulls. Further, there millions of pit-mixes. So where does this killing proposal stop? Just euthanize those 4 - 5 breeds? Or do you include all the mixes too? Exactly how many dogs are you suggesting that we kill? Again, almost all of whom have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Instead of being hysterical, how about you research more about dog bites and dog-related fatalities and come up with a viable suggestion that will actually help?

Sterilize all of the pit bulls and pit mixes.

Require muzzles on all pits outside.

Euthanize them all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the dogs. Its the irresponsible people who own them. No dog of any breed has any business running loose / unattended. Either manage them properly, or don't own them.

[b]I foster quite a bit and I've yet to have a pit or pit-mix NOT have some kind of aggression issue. I'm fostering two pit-mixes right now and even at 8 weeks old, they are very aggressive. One more than his brother, but both are more aggressive than any other breeds I've fostered.

Also, the group I foster through is hesitant to place pits or pit mixes with people who have young kids.

Have I met some sweet pit bulls? Yeah, definitely. However, even they had their aggression issues from time to time and had to be kept under a very close watch.

All pit bulls were sweet at one time. They are until they are, NOT. By nature, they are unpredictable. It is always said 'but he/she was such a loving dog--we can't believe she mauled and killed so and so."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I definitely think we should regulate based on categories. Men are more likely to be violent and aggressive (just look at all the mass shootings) so let's round them up and keep them carefully contained and not let them have access to guns. Because you never know when a man is going to lose it because, hey, that's what men do.

Thanks for demonstrating how crazy and unhinged pit bull people radicals are.

Wait - "pit bull people" are unhinged for a clearly tongue-in-cheek suggestion to illustrate the absurdity of the original suggestion to euthanize all pits? Who is really unhinged, here?

Pit bulls make up about 5% of the dog population (90M) - so the suggestion here is to kill 4.5M dogs - almost all of whom have done nothing wrong. That's a unjustified mass murder of people's pets. And the reason for this suggested mass murder is in retaliation for a portion of the 30 or so dog bite fatalities each year. Kill 4.5 Million innocent dogs for that? Yeah, sure that makes a ton of sense.

Also, the application of this proposal is problematic. Pit bulls aren't a breed. The four/five different kinds of breeds that can be considered to be pit bulls. Further, there millions of pit-mixes. So where does this killing proposal stop? Just euthanize those 4 - 5 breeds? Or do you include all the mixes too? Exactly how many dogs are you suggesting that we kill? Again, almost all of whom have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Instead of being hysterical, how about you research more about dog bites and dog-related fatalities and come up with a viable suggestion that will actually help?

Voice of reason. Thx, pp.

There are some folks on dcum that are afraid of the outside world, and always think the sky is falling. They don’t understand statistical probability. Best to just ignore them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the dogs. Its the irresponsible people who own them. No dog of any breed has any business running loose / unattended. Either manage them properly, or don't own them.

[b]I foster quite a bit and I've yet to have a pit or pit-mix NOT have some kind of aggression issue. I'm fostering two pit-mixes right now and even at 8 weeks old, they are very aggressive. One more than his brother, but both are more aggressive than any other breeds I've fostered.

Also, the group I foster through is hesitant to place pits or pit mixes with people who have young kids.

Have I met some sweet pit bulls? Yeah, definitely. However, even they had their aggression issues from time to time and had to be kept under a very close watch.

All pit bulls were sweet at one time. They are until they are, NOT. By nature, they are unpredictable. It is always said 'but he/she was such a loving dog--we can't believe she mauled and killed so and so."

Whenever I see somebody with a pit bull, I think 'now there's a f*cking idiot'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ The shelters really need to step up to the plate and quit rehoming pitbulls and pitt mixes.

The shelters lie and say a pit with a bite history is a "boxer mix" that will be "easy to train" and is "great for a family."

[Anonymous]

DH has a friend that had a rescued pit bull with a history of aggression. Friend wants to meet our new baby.

I waited until the dog died before I accepted friend's invitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I definitely think we should regulate based on categories. Men are more likely to be violent and aggressive (just look at all the mass shootings) so let's round them up and keep them carefully contained and not let them have access to guns. Because you never know when a man is going to lose it because, hey, that's what men do.

Thanks for demonstrating how crazy and unhinged pit bull people radicals are.

Wait - "pit bull people" are unhinged for a clearly tongue-in-cheek suggestion to illustrate the absurdity of the original suggestion to euthanize all pits? Who is really unhinged, here?

Pit bulls make up about 5% of the dog population (90M) - so the suggestion here is to kill 4.5M dogs - almost all of whom have done nothing wrong. That's a unjustified mass murder of people's pets. And the reason for this suggested mass murder is in retaliation for a portion of the 30 or so dog bite fatalities each year. Kill 4.5 Million innocent dogs for that? Yeah, sure that makes a ton of sense.

Also, the application of this proposal is problematic. Pit bulls aren't a breed. The four/five different kinds of breeds that can be considered to be pit bulls. Further, there millions of pit-mixes. So where does this killing proposal stop? Just euthanize those 4 - 5 breeds? Or do you include all the mixes too? Exactly how many dogs are you suggesting that we kill? Again, almost all of whom have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Instead of being hysterical, how about you research more about dog bites and dog-related fatalities and come up with a viable suggestion that will actually help?

I can live with getting rid of 4.5m of them.

Here's a quote from you about a study on dog bites "According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question." Seems pit bulls are the problem.

I say let's just kill them all and save people from this worthless breed.

The Clifton study is far from sound. https://merritcliftondebunked.blogspot.com/2017/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH has a friend that had a rescued pit bull with a history of aggression. Friend wants to meet our new baby.

I waited until the dog died before I accepted friend's invitation.

Uh, yeah, so does that mean you would have taken your baby if it had been a Golden Retriever or a Dachshund with a history of aggression? I wouldn't take my kid to see someone with any kind of dog with a history of aggression. The breed is irrelevant. The dog's and owner's behavioral history is what matters.

And regardless of how nice the dog is, I'm not letting my kid get in any dog's face, regardless of the breed. I hate videos of toddlers hugging any kind of dog at face-level. I love dogs but anyone who thinks that their dog is absolutely safe based on the breed is a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the dogs. Its the irresponsible people who own them. No dog of any breed has any business running loose / unattended. Either manage them properly, or don't own them.

I foster quite a bit and I've yet to have a pit or pit-mix NOT have some kind of aggression issue. I'm fostering two pit-mixes right now and even at 8 weeks old, they are very aggressive. One more than his brother, but both are more aggressive than any other breeds I've fostered.

Also, the group I foster through is hesitant to place pits or pit mixes with people who have young kids.

Have I met some sweet pit bulls? Yeah, definitely. However, even they had their aggression issues from time to time and had to be kept under a very close watch.

Why on earth would you foster these dogs, and why on earth would any group try to place these dogs? So what if they're not placed with people who have young kids? Do you think that mitigates the risk to young kids -- or any other people -- out and about in the world where these dogs will be?

I think it's horrifying that people are so pro-life for dogs that they won't make a rational decision to euthanize dogs -- and puppies -- that are aggressive.