Little Scrapper!

[Partymember]

well, it says they have the dogs in the pound, ready to be put down, so i guessthey would know if its a pitbull or not. I don't have anything against them, but i know they are the choice dog for sickos to breed "mean", like Dobermans, i stay away from them.

I think a good "defense" dog would be a female German Shepherd, they're supposed to be great with kids, very motherly and protective. I hope to get another malmute/husky, it seems to be a good mix. My uncle had a Timber Wolf, thats always an option, too.

[pitbulllady]

Originally Posted by Partymember

well, it says they have the dogs in the pound, ready to be put down, so i guessthey would know if its a pitbull or not. I don't have anything against them, but i know they are the choice dog for sickos to breed "mean", like Dobermans, i stay away from them.

I think a good "defense" dog would be a female German Shepherd, they're supposed to be great with kids, very motherly and protective. I hope to get another malmute/husky, it seems to be a good mix. My uncle had a Timber Wolf, thats always an option, too.

Trust me-dog pounds, news media, animal control officers have NO CLUE if a dog is or is not a "Pit Bull"! They really, honestly do label everythng from Jack Russells to Walker Hounds as "Pit Bulls" if those dogs do something that someone objects to. It is not as easy as you think to determine a dog's breed by looking at it; I've bred purebred, registered Pit Bulls for over 20 years, and I've been fooled by mongrels. I've seen dogs that I would have sworn were Pit Bulls, that were known crosses of other breeds. Even still, though, I have also seen many, many dogs that had no resemblence to a Pit Bull Terrier whatsoever that were labled as such by animal control officers of the reporters. Many dog owners don't know what they've got, especially if they are actually wanting a mean, tough dog to promote their own image. It's like the two mutts who killed that kid in Richmond, VA, a couple of years ago-they looked NOTHING like each other at all, both were strays of completely unknown background, and neither looked like a Pit Bull in the slightest, yet both were called that by their owner(who was a known crack addict), by the law enforcement and animal control officers who responded, and of course, by the news media who reported it. No thug or wannabe thug wants to tell his buds that he has a mutt; mutts don't get respect or generate fear, but tell everyone it's a Pit Bull, and suddenly you're straight-up gangsta! If I had a dime every time someone called one of my Catahoula Leopard Dogs a "Pit Bull", I could buy out Donald Trump, and I've had vets, police officers, and a boarding kennel operator call them that and argue with me that this was what they were! I also know of a family who adopted a probably-purebred Chinese Shar-Pei from the local animal shelter, and two months later, it was involved in a fight with a neighbor's dog. The neighbor's dog lost, and the neighbor called animal control. The VERY SAME SHELTER that had adopted out that dog as a Shar-Pei NOW insisted that it was a PIT BULL, and put it to sleep under their "No Pit Bulls Shall Leave This Facility Alive" policy! That's a really good example of how any dog acts aggressively towards anything, be it a human or a squirrel or whatever, suddenly gains new breed status as a "Pit Bull"! I've already seen this happen so many times it's not funny.

The recent spate of dog attacks in New Zealand should serve as a really good example of the failure of BSL, by the way. Pit Bulls and "Pit Bull TYPES"(anything that looks remotely like one in someone's opinion)are already banned, which means that they should have all been killed off by now, yet dog attacks still occur. BSL is supposed to be the End-All, Cure-All to the problem of dog attacks, according to the politicians, the panic-mongers and the Animal Rights community(that's right, nobody would love to see dogs banned more than these folks; kill 'em all...for their own good, of course). Instead of making owners control their dogs, and holding them responsible when their dogs do something bad, hold the dogs' breeds responsible, and punish everyone who has one of those breeds. Yeah, that'll work...It's basically the same as the gun control arguement; that if we get rid of guns, people can't hurt other people anymore, and YOU know as well as I do how much sense THAT makes!

pitbulllady

[Partymember]

Originally Posted by pitbulllady

Trust me-dog pounds, news media, animal control officers have NO CLUE if a dog is or is not a "Pit Bull"!

...Instead of making owners control their dogs, and holding them responsible when their dogs do something bad, hold the dogs' breeds responsible, and punish everyone who has one of those breeds. Yeah, that'll work...It's basically the same as the gun control arguement; that if we get rid of guns, people can't hurt other people anymore, and YOU know as well as I do how much sense THAT makes!

Ahhh...like when a shooting happens and the media automatically says "AK-47", no, turns out it was a pistol/shotgun/levergun, etc. I know EXACTLY what you mean.

Wow! That really sucks! I know that any semi-auto or detachable-mag is labled an "assault rifle" by the morons. Even 10/22's sometimes! Must be even worse with dogs. I sympathize

[AerostarMonk]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time making a real connection between dogs and guns. I mean the whole punishing responsible people I understand. But the persecution of living creatures and which guns are legal and illegal are on two whole different levels.

[pitbulllady]

Originally Posted by AerostarMonk

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time making a real connection between dogs and guns. I mean the whole punishing responsible people I understand. But the persecution of living creatures and which guns are legal and illegal are on two whole different levels.

No, it's not different, really. One of the main arguements pro-BSL is that dogs like Pit Bulls are bred solely as weapons, to kill people and animals, and that they have no other use. Another arguement is that the only people who have dogs like that are psychos, criminals, drug dealers, gang members and the dregs of society. The BIG arguement is that if you get rid of such dogs, you automatically not only eliminate ALL dog attacks and dog bites, but you also get rid of the "bad people" who have dogs as weapons. The big arguement in favor of eliminating guns is that if you get rid of guns, you stop all violence and most crime, and all the crazy people who do awful things will just go away, too. Thus, No Pit Bulls + No Guns=Perfect World Free From Violence and Bad, Crazy People, since now the Bad, Crazy People won't have any way to hurt or kill others. They will just stop being Bad, Crazy People or they'll just disappear altogether. Of course, all that is total horse hockey, as Col Potter used to say, since neither taking away the dogs or the guns addresses the REAL problem-there are still plenty of hate-filled whackos who want to hurt and kill others, and they can be very creative when it comes to finding ways to do that.

pitbulllady

[Invader Bloo]

Aw, poor little dog.

I don't like Pitt Bulls, scrath that HATE pittbulls. No offense/sorry PBL.

[AerostarMonk]

See, but I still think there's a huge difference. We both know not all pit bulls are bred solely as weapons in fact most of them aren't. There are bred to be the companions and oftentimes protectors of families individuals. Someone being denied the companionship of a wonderful dog is a lot worse than someone being denied ownership of a semi-automatic weapon.

I'm not advocating for a gun-free world, it's just that some of the guns being argued for are just uneccessary. I'm not going to name any because, really I'm nowhere near as educated in the subject as say, Partymember. But even to us "morons" there are some guns that do seem a little, well, overkill.

All law-abiding citizens who so choose, by right should be allowed to carry a firearm. So don't put me down as one alarmist crybaby. But still this right is far and away from a dog. A dog is a friend. A dog you can love. A dog you can grow up with, share your feelings with, and bring out certain emotions in people. A gun is just an inanimate object. So, yes I see your intention, I get the parallel, but it really seems like an apples and oranges deal.

Oh, man. I should've phrased this whole thing better. I'm apologizing in advance for anything that sounded harsh. I didn't mean to come off that way.

[Partymember]

Originally Posted by AerostarMonk

See, but I still think there's a huge difference. We both know not all pit bulls are bred solely as weapons in fact most of them aren't. There are bred to be the companions and oftentimes protectors of families individuals. Someone being denied the companionship of a wonderful dog is a lot worse than someone being denied ownership of a semi-automatic weapon.

I'm not advocating for a gun-free world, it's just that some of the guns being argued for are just uneccessary. I'm not going to name any because, really I'm nowhere near as educated in the subject as say, Partymember. But even to us "morons" there are some guns that do seem a little, well, overkill.

All law-abiding citizens who so choose, by right should be allowed to carry a firearm. So don't put me down as one alarmist crybaby. But still this right is far and away from a dog. A dog is a friend. A dog you can love. A dog you can grow up with, share your feelings with, and bring out certain emotions in people. A gun is just an inanimate object. So, yes I see your intention, I get the parallel, but it really seems like an apples and oranges deal.

Oh, man. I should've phrased this whole thing better. I'm apologizing in advance for anything that sounded harsh. I didn't mean to come off that way.

No appologies necessary. It does require some explaning.

Criminals will still have guns even when a law banning them is in place. Look at the cities. Gangs still roam the streets with full-auto machineguns, yet they're illegal. Since the criminals already have all the guns they need/want to commit crimes with, why not let the civilians have guns? I would feel much safer if i saw a full-auto AK-47 in the gun rack of every car. Much safer.

If a criminal is going to rob a house, rape the woman inside, then kill her, is he really going to not use a machinegun because that gun is illegal? Kind of silly to expect that, isn't it?