Certain dog breeds...I just don't get it.

[eldirector]

If YouTube is the benchmark, then don't get a dog. Almost 3 million "dog attack" videos. Even cats get 1.5 million. At least fish are down at 600K, and that includes WILD fish, not just your home guppy variety. Fish definitely make the YouTube cut.

Ferret's have only 33K. And they are cute. That's even less than hamsters.

Wild boars only have 67K attack vids. Maybe they make good pets?

 

[yote hunter]

Grease just hates the so called "pitbulls" and thinks they should all be put down on sight and that's his right, but no matter how anyone puts it he will never change his mind... I don't care for yippy dogs but sure don't mind if someone else likes them or even wants ones or owns one and by no way do I believe they should all be put down on sight just because I don't care/like them... To each there own in my book... Hell I dislike cats too but others like them and they have the right to and if I went to a friends house and they had a cat and it came up to me I would pet it and treat it with respect because my friend likes it... Kind of simple ? You know if Grease would of just said he dislikes "pitbulls" and would never own one, I think it would of been a fair statement but to just throw a blanket statement down that they should all be put down is a bit harsh.. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Tadd AKA; CZB1962 just hates the so called "pitbulls" and thinks they should all be put down on sight and that's his right, but no matter how anyone puts it he will never change his mind... I don't care for yippy dogs but sure don't mind if someone else likes them or even wants ones or owns one and by no way do I believe they should all be put down on sight just because I don't care/like them... To each there own in my book... Hell I dislike cats too but others like them and they have the right to and if I went to a friends house and they had a cat and it came up to me I would pet it and treat it with respect because my friend likes it... Kind of simple ? You know if CZB1962 would of just said he dislikes "pitbulls" and would never own one, I think it would of been a fair statement but to just throw a blanket statement down that they should all be put down is a bit harsh.. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, no. That was member "Grease" in post #71 who said they should all be killed on sight.

 

[rhino]

Actually, no. That was member "Grease" in post #71 who said they should all be killed on sight.

Hey! Don't confuse this conversation with an objective, unambiguous fact!

 

[yote hunter]

Actually, no. That was member "Grease" in post #71 who said they should all be killed on sight.

I apologize to Tadd AKA; CZB1962 and edited my post #242.... To reflect the proper member Grease... Thx Bill for pointing that out..

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hey! Don't confuse this conversation with an objective, unambiguous fact!

I can't help it. It's my own particular...

[video=youtube;-jO1EOhGkY0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jO1EOhGkY0[/video]

...idiom! (see video at 1:00 in)

 

[Bill of Rights]

I apologize to Tadd AKA; CZB1962 and edited my post #242.... To reflect the proper member Grease... Thx Bill for pointing that out..

If anyone is to be held to fault, it should be for their own thoughts, not those of others. I can't really fault you: That was almost 200 posts ago.

Good on you for setting things aright. Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CZB1962]

I apologize to Tadd AKA; CZB1962 and edited my post #242.... To reflect the proper member Grease... Thx Bill for pointing that out..

No problem. There have been some extreme statements made on both sides of this but I have never advocated banning or killing of any breed.

 

[CindyE]

Most pit owners are underachievers, makes them feel better about themselves, kinda like tattoos.

I didn't know tattoos were supposed to make me feel better about myself. Huh. My dog does, because he makes me laugh and smile, and has done so for the last 11 yrs. I doubt many people would consider me an underachiever. Does posting closed-minded statements like this make you feel better about yourself?

 

[seedubs1]

I agree with the earlier post in this thread. Start holding the owners responsible. If their dog attacks someone, charge them as if they attacked the person. If their dog kills someone, charge with murder. See if dog owners are willing to accept responsibility.

It's not about the breed. It's about training and the ability of the dog to do serious damage. I still hold to my opinion that anyone owning a dog capable of seriously mauling or killing should be mandated to be licensed to own that dog. We're required to be licensed to exercise a constitutional right to bear arms.....Why are people not required to be licensed to walk around town with a dog that is fully capable of killing someone? It makes no sense.

An ill-trained chihuahua.....I'll punt it. I could care less.
An ill-trained dog over about 25 or 30 pounds can do serious damage.

Just an FYI. I was riding my bicycle earlier today, I was roughly 20 miles from my house, and I was almost attached by 2 lab retrievers. They were laying in the backyard, and when they saw me, they ran out into the road and started chasing me. Barking and growling. I hauled ass, and I could feel one of the dogs' breath on my ankle.

I'm shocked I was able to make it without getting bit. I'm also surprised I didn't **** myself.

Moral of the story is, I have come across pit bulls before while on my bike, but they never paid me any attention. But, I have almost been attached by 2 black lab retrievers.

 

[jamil]

I agree with the earlier post in this thread. Start holding the owners responsible. If their dog attacks someone, charge them as if they attacked the person. If their dog kills someone, charge with murder. See if dog owners are willing to accept responsibility.

It's not about the breed. It's about training and the ability of the dog to do serious damage. I still hold to my opinion that anyone owning a dog capable of seriously mauling or killing should be mandated to be licensed to own that dog. We're required to be licensed to exercise a constitutional right to bear arms.....Why are people not required to be licensed to walk around town with a dog that is fully capable of killing someone? It makes no sense.

An ill-trained chihuahua.....I'll punt it. I could care less.
An ill-trained dog over about 25 or 30 pounds can do serious damage.

We're kinda trying to make constitutional carry the law of the land. So are you saying we should rethink that so that we can make special licensing a requirement to own a "dangerous" dog?

 

[seedubs1]

Would you be willing to plead guilty to a murder charge if one of your dogs killed someone? What about guilty to a mauling?

I'm interested to hear what you have to say about this subject. I could care less about putting your dog down. Are you personally willing to accept responsibility for the actions of your dog?

Short, simple answer: Mine haven't done it and won't, and if one did, it would be visiting the vet for the last time. Yes, that would sadden me, but I won't have a dog like that, because we train them not to be that way. Not every pit or every whatever breed is an attacker, any more than every Black person is a thief (to go back to my first post in this thread) You have no issue with having friends who happen to be Black, and welcome them as friends, race being irrelevant. Why would the breed (or "race") of the dog matter?

 

[seedubs1]

No. And your post is nonsensical. A gun law has no legal bearing on dog laws. I was comparing how asinine it is to require licensing to exercise a constitutional right, yet we allow other potentially dangerous activity to happen unlicensed and nobody bats an eye.

My point was that at this time, we require licensing for a constitutional right, yet we allow other potentially dangerous activity to go on without licensing. It's backasswards. Handgun law has no bearing on dog law and vice versa. The only point in my statement was that constitutional rights are infringed, yet other potentially dangerous activity is not required to be licensed. That is all. Don't read in-between the lines any further.

We're kinda trying to make constitutional carry the law of the land. So are you saying we should rethink that so that we can make special licensing a requirement to own a "dangerous" dog?

 

[eldirector]

Depending on your location, all dogs ARE required to be licensed. Much like firearms, if we want to keep that comparison going.

So, if you want a licensing requirement for guns and dogs, there are places you can live with like-minded people. Some of these places even have leash laws, poop laws, and barking laws. Along with registries for both guns and dogs, and training requirements for both guns and dogs.

Now, if you want to turn MY state/county/town into one of these places, I would have to take exception. I specifically chose to live here, so I don't have to deal with this crap.

Now that I think about it... I wonder if "dog laws" are as effective as "gun laws"? Off to Google... be right back....

 

[seedubs1]

Google knows all.

Depending on your location, all dogs ARE required to be licensed. Much like firearms, if we want to keep that comparison going.

So, if you want a licensing requirement for guns and dogs, there are places you can live with like-minded people. Some of these places even have leash laws, poop laws, and barking laws. Along with registries for both guns and dogs, and training requirements for both guns and dogs.

Now, if you want to turn MY state/county/town into one of these places, I would have to take exception. I specifically chose to live here, so I don't have to deal with this crap.

Now that I think about it... I wonder if "dog laws" are as effective as "gun laws"? Off to Google... be right back....

 

[eldirector]

Well, let's see here....

In LA, all dogs are required to be licensed and "fixed":
Animal Licenses | Los Angeles Animal Services

Additionally, they have pretty tough Dog Bite Laws:
Regulation of Dangerous and Vicious Dogs

And, they are still the Dog Bite Capital of the Nation:
Los Angeles is the "Dog Bite Capital of the Nation" - Top Dogs - Curbed LA

So, with a data set of "one", gun laws and dog laws work pretty much the same.

 

[Rookie]

Now hold on, are you trying to convince me that laws didn't make dog owners become instantly responsible? I don't believe it because we all know that laws are the answer for every problem.

 

[eldirector]

No, no, no! We need MORE LAWS. These don't make it illegal ENOUGH. It needs to be double.... no... TRIPLE illegal. A felony to even THINK about it. That aught to do it.

 

[jamil]

No. And your post is nonsensical. A gun law has no legal bearing on dog laws. I was comparing how asinine it is to require licensing to exercise a constitutional right, yet we allow other potentially dangerous activity to happen unlicensed and nobody bats an eye.

My point was that at this time, we require licensing for a constitutional right, yet we allow other potentially dangerous activity to go on without licensing. It's backasswards. Handgun law has no bearing on dog law and vice versa. The only point in my statement was that constitutional rights are infringed, yet other potentially dangerous activity is not required to be licensed. That is all. Don't read in-between the lines any further.

I wasn't reading between lines. Your wording made your statement seem more in support of requiring special licensing for dogs capable killing people than against the special licensing allowing people to carry guns. If your point was the absurdity of the gun law, I didn't detect any language you used to identify it as that. So I suppose I should have read that between the lines?

Google knows all.

Although not representative of the whole country, I've lived in 7 different states. Most places I've lived, states or local governments required dogs to be licensed. It allows the government some pretense of control over their requirements for immunizations and/or spay/neutering.

 

[seedubs1]

Screw it.....Deregulate everything. Laws don't work. Let people regulate themselves. Most people have consciences and know right from wrong.

I really do have mixed feelings on these types of laws. On one hand, there's a LOT of morons out there with dogs capable of mauling or killing, and I've been bit more than once when minding my own business in public. Preferably, I'd like to think people are capable of not being idiots.....but they aren't. I also think you can't effectively regulate idiots and idiotic actions.

Really, the only thing I'm 100% in line with in this thread is that dog owners should be prosecuted as though the actions of their dog were their actions. Ex. - Your dog kills someone, you get charged with murder.

Well, let's see here....

In LA, all dogs are required to be licensed and "fixed":
Animal Licenses | Los Angeles Animal Services

Additionally, they have pretty tough Dog Bite Laws:
Regulation of Dangerous and Vicious Dogs

And, they are still the Dog Bite Capital of the Nation:
Los Angeles is the "Dog Bite Capital of the Nation" - Top Dogs - Curbed LA

So, with a data set of "one", gun laws and dog laws work pretty much the same.