Pit bulls maul a defenseless dog to death

[Theinquisition]

Why does it always seem that the majority of Pitt bull owners are complete shit heads.

[Morssoe]

Beagle? wtf, kill race pitbull.

[Collegeguy]

Which is why i have a knife in my pocket.... When i'm out with my dogs and if anyone attacks them they'll be very sorry. No, I don't care if I go to jail, i'd do it with a smile on my face if it meant defending my dogs.

Just gouge the eyes out into their brain. Guarantee the dog will stop once they are blind and mortally wounded.

[Queen of Hamsters]

How to spot the deteriorating online forum: There are regular threads where neckbeard basement-dwellers hate on the Pit bull breed, spreading hyperbole and entirely overlooking the vast VAST majority of dogs within the breed that never hurt anyone or anything.

[Cedon]

This is not an argument at all, you need to do yourself a favour and ground yourself back into reality to realise how ridiculous using this as an argument is.

Now you're moving the goal post. You said VIOLENT CRIMINAL. So that means mens rea is in play.

Humans have higher reasoning. It is one of the things that sets our brains apart from most mammals. Therefore blaming simply the parents for their adult offspring's actions is stupid because each individual, absent any impairment, is self-aware and able to think about their actions. Show me a dog that is self-aware and able to think about their actions and their consequences. /gauntlet.

[Mercane]

If the risk is high enough, why not? Why should other people be at risk because you can't choose from 500 other dog breeds?

Because, for the 4th or 5th time- 'Pit Bulls' aren't a specific breed- it's a series of characteristics.

[Exeris]

Must have been a lovely owner.

My first thought in cases like this, the owners are usually fucked up.

[Deleted]

It's the bad owner!!!! That's what you wanted people to shout right?

[Bigbazz]

Now you're moving the goal post. You said VIOLENT CRIMINAL. So that means mens rea is in play.

Humans have higher reasoning. It is one of the things that sets our brains apart from most mammals. Therefore blaming simply the parents for their adult offspring's actions is stupid because each individual, absent any impairment, is self-aware and able to think about their actions. Show me a dog that is self-aware and able to think about their actions and their consequences. /gauntlet.

No I'm not moving the goal post, I was using an example in violent criminals to show how the owner (or in this case the parent) cannot always be blamed for the behaviour of their offspring, especially given that despite training (or a good upbringing) the primal instincts or basic nature of the animal (or criminal) can take over causing irrational/illogical actions that happen the heat of the moment.

Your argument about being self ware completely skips over the whole point I was making, which is that despite good upbringing (and thus selfawareness about what is right/wrong and how to act/react in each situation) it does not stop base instincts taking over and causing people to act in a certain way. Not only that, but it skips over that some humans (and animals too) take enjoyment or satisfaction from such acts despite being aware of what they are doing as being wrong.

You have dogs who are well aware they have done something wrong, when they rip up some furnature or steal some food and they will show guilt and maybe hide away, but they still did it. You can only train an animal so much, the base nature and tendancies (voluntary or otherwise) do not change.

[gushDH]

Scaremongering. ANY dog can be agressive. Anecdotal evidence won't help anyone.

I'd kick any attacking dog in the face if it came after me or my dog, I won't discriminate, fearing an attack from x breed doesn't matter.

That's the thing, though. Pitbulls are one of the strongest breeds, and are quite famous. So, more people end up having them. So, when there are more of them, the chances of some of them being aggressive due to bad ownership increases. So we see these incidents.

Any dog can be aggressive. But not every dog can be as strong as a pitbull.

- - - Updated - - -

The government should be far more strict on giving pets to people, so many examples where bad pet owners are still able to keep getting new pets knowing the problems they created with the previous pets. Like I said, have known many pitbulls, and haven't known any of them attacking anyone because they were brought up the right way. Compared to the many Labradors I've had and known, they can be very aggressive even if you raise them right.

Then again, if your dog has an aggressive nature because they're not used to social interaction, put a muzzle on your dog.

It's the combination. A labrador isn't nearly as strong as a pitbull.

When you combine a labrador with a bad owner, you end up with an aggressive labrador, but it doesn't have the strength to tear apart a dog in pieces in a few minutes.

When you combine a pitbull with a bad owner, you end up with those awful incidents that we hear of.

[Halyon]

That's the thing, though. Pitbulls are one of the strongest breeds, and are quite famous. So, more people end up having them. So, when there are more of them, the chances of some of them being aggressive due to bad ownership increases. So we see these incidents.

Any dog can be aggressive. But not every dog can be as strong as a pitbull.

So if more people buy them, why is there not an epidemic of mauling and killings if the breeds is so violent? That's because it's the people at fault most of the time, not the dogs. 'Dangerous' dogs are owned all the time, since ALL dogs can be dangerous. Amstaffs and pits in general have the unfortunate rep that they have due to their past and shaping by shite people. Some shite people still own them. Not the dogs fault when they can just as aptly be great dogs treasured by their families and harmless to other people and pets.

[Sanguinerd]

Just reading that gets my blood boiling.. I honestly don't know what I'd do in such a situation.

But I'll be damned if that owner would get away with it.

[Deleted]

I am living with dogs since I am a kid and I love em...but all this "its only the owners fault" really gets tiring.
Sure, with certain breeds you must have more knowledge how to handle a dog...which most people clearly don't. Denying that there
are differences within the breeds ist just plain stupid though. Some learn faster, some learn slower, some run faster, some are extremely good with kids...and guess what, some are more dominant and more aggressive. More aggressive does not mean that they are cruel or bad animals...that's what people must understand. But instincts can kick in with EVERY dog, no matter how good you think you know your pet...it always can happen. And have fun dealing with a pit on rampage mode when you don't know what the fk to do.

The problem are still not the dogs though. The problem is that any idiot can run around with one...even here in germany with stricter laws than in other countries it drives me NUTS how people treat their pets.

[Arewn]

I don't own one, I just don't see how an animal can be vicious by nature. It was raised the way it is or just not raised properly.

Why do you think we have dogs as pets and not wolves? While properly raising your animal is important, the species' nature is very important as well.

[Dezerte]

I think the problem isn't really dangerous/aggressive breeds (still a factor though) but people who think they are, and so they want those breeds when they want to look "tough" or whatever - which are very bad reasons for getting a dog. And unsurprisingly they are not very capable dog owners either, often treating their dogs badly (neglect or abuse).

[Jonnusthegreat]

Just reading that gets my blood boiling.. I honestly don't know what I'd do in such a situation.

But I'll be damned if that owner would get away with it.

I'd probably sprint over there and pin/choke the shit out the dogs. Not hard to beat a typically pitbull in a fight. The problem is, there's 2 so you'd have to do one in quick.

[gushDH]

So if more people buy them, why is there not an epidemic of mauling and killings if the breeds is so violent? That's because it's the people at fault most of the time, not the dogs. 'Dangerous' dogs are owned all the time, since ALL dogs can be dangerous. Amstaffs and pits in general have the unfortunate rep that they have due to their past and shaping by shite people. Some shite people still own them. Not the dogs fault when they can just as aptly be great dogs treasured by their families and harmless to other people and pets.

Exactly, the people is the reason that these dogs shouldn't be allowed to be given to any ordinary person.

Just like the example I gave with the guns. Not any person should own a gun, because they might use it for the wrong reasons.

The same way, not every person should get this breed (because it's an exceptionally strong breed), because they might not know how to train them properly. You solve the problem from its root, you can't teach every person about how to train their dog, that's impossible. But you can stop a certain breed from being given to any person.

[Deleted]

That's the thing, though. Pitbulls are one of the strongest breeds, and are quite famous. So, more people end up having them. So, when there are more of them, the chances of some of them being aggressive due to bad ownership increases. So we see these incidents.

Any dog can be aggressive. But not every dog can be as strong as a pitbull.

- - - Updated - - -



It's the combination. A labrador isn't nearly as strong as a pitbull.

When you combine a labrador with a bad owner, you end up with an aggressive labrador, but it doesn't have the strength to tear apart a dog in pieces in a few minutes.

When you combine a pitbull with a bad owner, you end up with those awful incidents that we hear of.

My Labrador was pretty aggressive towards anyone she didn't know, and I raise my dogs right, then again she was a female, could explain. Don't think even my 7 huskies come remotely close to that behavior, then again when I walk with them outside my properties, they always have a muzzle on.

The strength is a good point, but it's not because it's strong, it's dangerous, when a dog locks on a throat of another dog it's game over for the other dog (unless others intervene and scare the attacking dog away), doesn't need to be a pitbull, can just be any dog attacking another dog of a similar size.

[Halyon]

Exactly, the people is the reason that these dogs shouldn't be allowed to be given to any ordinary person.

Just like the example I gave with the guns. Not any person should own a gun, because they might use it for the wrong reasons.

The same way, not every person should get this breed (because it's an exceptionally strong breed), because they might not know how to train them properly. You solve the problem from its root, you can't teach every person about how to train their dog, that's impossible. But you can stop a certain breed from being given to any person.

Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

I'm all for licenses for breeds that require proper training to function in society, not all, because not all dogs are as difficult to raise properly.

[Deleted]

Just a quicky to the people that believe that selective breeding cannot produce this, please go and educate yourselves, you are arguing with 70-80 years of documented scientific research and considerable colloquial evidence from centuries before.

Environment plays a part, but so does the genetics of the dog.