Oh lordy.


"Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period"


How bout them facts?

Anonymous wrote:

And I didn't say a pit bull was more likely to attack than a retriever. I said they were likely to do more damage in any given attack. Can't argue with that.

Actually, retrievers are usually much larger than pit bulls and could overpower more easily. Pit bulls are usually 40-50 lbs. Retrievers are 55-75 lbs. And, if you are thinking pit bulls have magical locking jaws, that is a myth. Look it up.

And I didn't say a pit bull was more likely to attack than a retriever. I said they were likely to do more damage in any given attack. Can't argue with that.

You keep conflating temperament with physicality. Not the same thing. But I agree, collies can actually be quite nasty, I wouldn't own one either.

Anonymous wrote:

You're joking right? You don't see how a pit bull is more likely to kill a kid in an attack than say, a retriever? Really? That's actually frightening, considering you own one. How would you defend a child if your dog suddenly lost it and, out of character, attacked them? Would you be able to stop it? I'm not sure I'd be able to, and that's why I don't own one. It's pretty simple really. Not bigotry, just common sense.

Please read more closely. I did not say a retriever is more likely to attack than a pit bull. An objective temperament test indicated pit bulls have better temperaments than golden retrievers. It is not my opinion, it is a fact based on this test. And, for the record, I love goldens. LOVE them. I am not say pit bulls are better. Just putting FACTS out there.

If you cannot properly train and control a pit bull, then you are correct, you should not own one. Mine are trained and under control. Kids have fallen on them, pulled their tail, hugged there neck, etc. and my dogs turn on them...with kisses. Love a dog and train it well (no matter the breed) and you get good results. The fact that you single out pit bulls is the definition of pit bulls. Pit bulls are not the biggest dog, nor do they have the strongest bite. Yet, they are repeatedly singled out. Bigotry, my friend. Get your facts straight.

You're joking right? You don't see how a pit bull is more likely to kill a kid in an attack than say, a retriever? Really? That's actually frightening, considering you own one. How would you defend a child if your dog suddenly lost it and, out of character, attacked them? Would you be able to stop it? I'm not sure I'd be able to, and that's why I don't own one. It's pretty simple really. Not bigotry, just common sense.

Anonymous wrote:

but why have a dog breed that was selectively bred over many many generations to have a huge powerful jaw and an unyielding tenacity? There is no need for those characteristics in a family pet. Just get a collie.

Actually, pit bulls are breed to be extremely human friendly. In case you missed it the first time, the American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) which is a national not-for-profit organization for the promotion of uniform temperament evaluation of dogs, found pit bulls to have better temperaments than collies. That is an objective, unbiased measure. Sorry, you really can't dispute that.

Anonymous wrote:

a shining example of the ways the people have personified their pets. We're not bigots because we think owning a dog that could easily kill a child is not worth the risk, no matter how sweet the dog is in temperament. I might be a bigot if I hated all people that owned pits though....maybe.

So, specifically, what characteristics make a dog less risky? I guess everyone should get toothless dogs that weigh no more than 5 lbs. if you don't want to runt he risk of a child being killed.

Again, by definition, a bigot a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

You are obstinately intolerant of a specific breed of dog, pit bull. That is bigotry. 1+1 = 2

Anonymous wrote:

I have never met a mean standard poodle. However, I have seen mean pit bulls. I don't understand why anyone would purchase a dog that has a reputation of being mean when there are so many other breeds to choose from EXCEPT if they want to appear tough or something. For all those pit bull advocates, why did you choose pit over another breed if you are looking for a baby sitter? Collies have a great reputation as baby sitters, so why a pit and not a collie or another shepherding type of dog which is bred to baby sit animals (translation, carry over to kids) - Oh, because you want to feel cool or something. that's why.

but why have a dog breed that was selectively bred over many many generations to have a huge powerful jaw and an unyielding tenacity? There is no need for those characteristics in a family pet. Just get a collie.

a shining example of the ways the people have personified their pets. We're not bigots because we think owning a dog that could easily kill a child is not worth the risk, no matter how sweet the dog is in temperament. I might be a bigot if I hated all people that owned pits though....maybe.