x4740NWoman killed by her two XL bully dogs at home in east London
li10If my dogs ever tried to kill me, I’d just pin them both down. That’s the benefit of not having insanely powerful dogs.
IMO you shouldn’t have a dog that you can’t physically restrain. Any dog can snap and you need to be able to physically stop them if that happens.
mojofrododojoAny dog can snap
any animal can snap.
I guess you don’t think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I’m not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it’s not the breed, it’s the training and owner.
breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations
nooo they just look scary they’re so cuddly noooo you don’t understand
breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations
absolute bullshit, unless they’re being bred by chuds for dogfights (despicable) this is not a thing
Todd BonzalezThe term “pit bull” literally refers to a type of dog that has a history of fighting in pits. It’s in their name. They are a despicable breed that people should stop breeding. You’re so close to understanding…
You’re so close to understanding…
you’re so close to being human.
yamaniiThey are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.
IMHO, it’s not the breed, it’s the training and owner.
Your humble opinion notwithstanding, Bully dogs are demonstrably more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. It’s not some irrational fear, these dogs make up 66% of all fatal dog attacks. Pick any deceased dog attack victim, and it was a Bully or a Rottweiler that killed them.
Training is important and can make a difference in outcomes, but the data overwhelmingly points to aggression and lethality between different dog breeds being a matter of nature more than nurture, and that Bully dogs are on the far end of both spectrums leading to the worst outcomes.
This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don’t work.
The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people’s pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.
If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won’t feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.
And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.
By that logic, then ban humans, we kill more humans than any other animal.
How on earth does anything I said logically conclude to “ban humans”?
It’s like you don’t even take your own position seriously making arguments like this.
It’s your shitty logic mate, just pointing it out.
I’m curious why you feel so strongly on this situation. Like genuinely, I want to know your side. Your reasoning.
if Todd really cared about people, he’d reduce harm in a way that would actually help; persecuting a particular breed of dogs because their owners don’t spay/neuter and train them is asinine.
OK, but you can’t train a dog to not attack a person correct?
OK, but you can’t train a dog to not attack a person correct?
???
My dogs have never attacked anyone. I have a staffy/pit mix. live in the US. it’s one of the most gentle and kindhearted dogs I’ve ever had; she’s a meat-missile but is more gentle with the kids than my dalmation (passed) or hound dog.
Most dogs don’t attack people. The owners should be held accountable for their shitty stewardship of their animal. And anyone who trains animals to fight should be stoned in public, but that’s just my opinion.
People, overwhelmingly, kill way more people than pit bulls.
Most dogs don’t attack people but what happens when they do? What would happen if your dog attacked you or someone else at random? Would you feel responsible? You can’t say that it will never happen because you can’t know that and also it’s what everybody says until it does.
I’m not sure where you’re going with your last statement but it’s irrelevant. We aren’t talking about people here.
What would happen if your dog attacked you or someone else at random?
I’d be held accountable for controlling my animals.
What would happen if you attacked someone at random?
Not sure where you’re silly logic is going but it’s not productive. Talk to your sock puppets I guess.
I can say that it will never happen because I am in control of my own action. That question makes no sense. Anyway, it’s clear you are biased so what you say doesn’t mean anything until you can reasonably defend your position which you have yet to do.
“persecuting” 🤣
too many syllables for you?
You keep coming back to this thread like you’re going to get anything but downvotes.
With how unhinged you are and your apparent love of bulldogs I’m guessing we’re going to see a story about you being murdered by one before long.
bulldogs
whole 'nother breed than what’s being discussed here sparky. so uh, whatever. Thanks for wishing me dead, you have a good fuckin night lol.
what an asshole…
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death,
where is this indicated?
My brother in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn’t developed anecdotally, it’s a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog’s life that humans need to learn. Most training isn’t for the dog, it’s for the family members.
I’d recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who’s food is who’s etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I’ve had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog’s faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.
Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn’t trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man…
apply some sense to it all.
The bullshit excuses part was rhetorical I think. You didn’t actually have to answer that part.
where is this indicated?
In the fact that this keeps on happening even with experienced owners.
it’s putting words into my mouth, I never indicated any such thing.
want to make a point? don’t use me as your sock puppet to do it, be adult enough to make your own assertions sport.
My brother in buddy, they weren’t putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.
Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.
I wouldn’t waste my time talking down to you, sport.
Preciate you sweetheart. 😘
So huge dogs should just remain ownerless?
I agree in the sense that some dog breeds aren’t necessary and are actively unhealthy for the animal and the breed should be allowed to die out removing the ability for people to be owners of those breeds, and therefore ownerless
They said only own dogs you can overpower. That means nobody gets a St. Bernard. I don’t think St. Bernard is a breed that should die out.
My St. Bernard, Rosie, would agree. She’s such a big scaredy cat.
This seems nuts. Is this not an insane opinion? You want entire dog breeds to go extinct? What are your thoughts on that one governor lady? lol
Yes? I am not sure I understand what is making you upset. I am not saying kill all the pitbulls, I am saying stop dog eugenics and let dogs just be dogs and love the animal that comes out. If that means that we stop having access to purebred (inbred) Pugs, so be it. Mutts are just as good doggos.
Idk why you think I’m upset. I’m more shocked than anything.
I would think most people tend to support conservation of different animals and whatnot, except for maybe mosquitoes (and even then I’d be hesitant). It’s also blowing my mind that you’re heavily upvoted. I had no idea some of y’all thought this way.
That said, I’m just going to assume I don’t fully understand what you’re saying since it seems so batshit crazy to me. It’s clear this isn’t really an honest, open dialogue anyway, and that’s totally fine
Not the OP, but let me step in. Dog breeds are something we have created as humans, they’re not wild species that need to be preserved and don’t have any effect on ecosystems.
Dog breeding is largely negative at this point as most breeds have outlived their original use and are now seen as designer pets. We continue to breed them as there is continued demand, but quite often these breeds are so inbred that they have genetic health issues. We also oversupply and don’t fix/neuter enough, meaning there are always unwanted dogs without homes.
I love dogs, but all of mine have been rescues and I would have no problem with the vast majority of breeds being phased out. There are still some niche cases where dogs are actually used for their breed’s purpose (dog sled, search/rescue, hunting, etc) but no, I don’t think a chihuahua or a pug should exist and would not be sad if breeders stopped producing more.
Thanks for sharing your POV. It’s definitely the first time I’ve heard something that radical about dogs, which are basically the most beloved living thing in the US, but I can somewhat understand where you’re coming from.
I’d definitely support making it more difficult to own a dog, but mostly because many of the dog owners I’ve met are borderline abusive to their pets (I’m mainly thinking of neglect here). I don’t think I could ever support a ban on entire breeds. That’s where it starts to seem crazy to me. Make it a felony to own a dog that bites someone or something but don’t make it a felony to simply own the dog. We don’t even have such laws for people that own guns or swords and surely those lead to more deaths/injuries than dogs.
I feel I should clarify that I don’t hold this position because dogs are dangerous or think it should be harder to have a dog. I hold it because I think our breeding programs are creating a lot of animal suffering.
From puppy mills where dogs are kept in horrible conditions, to overproduction of animals so that there aren’t enough homes, to propagating breeds that can barely breath so that they have an “adorable” face. Dog breeding is exploitative and re-enforces that dogs are simply a commodity.
I’m not sure a law making it more difficult to own a dog would have the effect you intend, as there are already too many dogs in need of homes. I think a more palatable middle ground to elimination would be regulation of breeders to ensure that they are not producing more dogs than can be homed.
Send 'em to God.
You are condoning killing dogs simply in response to their size?
I bet more cows are killed in a year than all shelter dogs on earth.
So, for most folks, the “no death” argument is silly
Cows are killed for meat. Are you suggesting we should kill dogs for their meat?
Dogs aren’t put down for their meat, so the discussion of the acceptability of putting dogs down is not based on their meat.
Thus, the point is about humans simply killing animals.
This isn’t about the human imposed utility, it’s about if it’s fine for humans to decide what animals live and die. Humans don’t need beef to live, there are other foods, so humans make a human centric choice to kill cows.
Since humans are deciding what animals.live, based purely on human wants, why would dogs be free of that assessment?
Yes they were clearly suggesting that. Any honest reading would have arrived at that conclusion.
What is the difference between a cow and a dog that killing either is okay?
Cow farms supply food for humans. I’m not saying that’s the most ethical thing in the world, but it is done. Would dogs serve the same purpose? They would produce less, lower quality meat per head.
Oh, from an efficiency standpoint.
They should require a license to own and a reason to be bred
There’s a difference between that and policies that discourage breeding, etc.
I noticed my guinea pigs have never tried to murder me. Granted in a home invasion they are pretty useless. Unless I like throw their squeaky bodies at said invader or overpower him and make him drink from the water dish as vengeance.
They should be put down.
Any dog can snap
Dishonest statement. That’s like saying “Any ceiling fan can decapitate you”. Technically true, but so extraordinarily unlikely for most breeds that you should be more worried about car crashes if you fear for your life…
Animals are still animals. It isn’t dishonest to say that we should respect them and their space through understanding and recognizing their behavior. Don’t allow your love for an animal cloud the basic judgment that every animal may have its moment. Don’t be afraid, just be aware.
WolfehAll animals, including humans.
Any ceiling fan can fall unexpectedly, but only an absurdly sturdy and powerful one will decapitate someone when it comes down
tsonfeirWhat if you have a very dainty neck?