It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Indy
Well there you go. One bite and it kills another dog. And it bit a postman. And this is supposedly a good Pit. This is the measure of good? Then what is average or below average?
From article.... Pit bull bans have been successfully introduced in a number of Canadian cities. Winnipeg was the first in 1990, with Kitchener-Waterloo and Windsor following suit.
Originally posted by Lady Lily
One thing people have to learn is animal behavior.
Originally posted by Indy
Well there you go. One bite and it kills another dog.
Originally posted by Indy
And it bit a postman.
Originally posted by Indy
And this is supposedly a good Pit.
Originally posted by Indy
Actually we've seen enough pics in the past to know what a Pit could and would do to a little child.
Originally posted by jlc163
Originally posted by Lady Lily
One thing people have to learn is animal behavior.
Animals are not particularly dangerous when you can read them, but if you assume that Pits act like normal dogs, you are going to do something stupid and get bit.
Frankly, if you are an adult, and you don't know this about the dog, it's partially your fault that you got bit when you try to pet it. If you don't teach your kids to not play with the strange doggie, it's just as much your fault. Take some responsibility for yourselves people.
[edit on 25-10-2004 by jlc163]
Originally posted by Netchicken
Oh come on this is getting plain silly....Now the owners are trying to move the responsibility to the victims themselves....
Originally posted by jlc163
I never said it was fully the "victim's" fault. I was just saying that if you do something stupid, like go onto someone else's property (which is illegal here, as it is part of the house), just to play with their pet, without them being around, no wonder you got bit. You went somewhere you wern't supposed to be, and were a threat to that dog, the property, or the owners of that house in that poor dogs mind. You are supposed to be the creature of reason, NOT the dog. There are times when the victim is just a victim of their own stupidity, and no one's at fault but THEM.
The two year old child left running the neighborhood without the thraining to know not to touch a strange animal is the PARENT'S fault. Parents whom through NEGLECT had their child mauled shold have the child taken away from them, period. They should also be steralized (me being arogant here). They are unfit.
I'm just tired of reading about people who deserved to be attacked (not the children, they are honestly victims) getting a dog put to sleep for DOING IT'S JOB. ANY fool that sneaks around your house and gets bit for being stupid is not a problem, and never will be.
Parents whom through NEGLECT had their child mauled shold have the child taken away from them, period. They should also be steralized (me being arogant here). They are unfit.
Originally posted by Netchicken
1 Why is it assumed that the victim is doing something stupid?
PARTIALLY! PARTIALLY! PPARTIALLY! Can you say that word??? Yes, parents that don't raise their kids responsibly are at fault. I made it clear to my youngest borther that he should NEVER mess with a dog he did not know without an adult present. It's rather stupid not to. This is the same child I told not to mess with our rooster (more of a danger than any dog we met, and I wanted that pain in the butt killed the first time the damned thing spurred me). I say this with having a cousin who was mauled after going in his grandmother's backyard, by his grandma's Rottwilers, after being told SEVERAL times to NEVER go back there, for ANY reasons. He still says it's his fault, his broters say it was his fault, and his parents say it was his fault because he didn't do as he was told. I still feel sorry from him, his parents were worried sick while he was in the hospitol, I don't wish it upon him or any other child, but he was still at fault for disobedience. If the dog has a real problem with biting, it should be put to sleep, always, no questions asked. (and yes, those two rotts need to be put to sleep...they were habitual biters and had a wolfpack mentality. NOT GOOD.) I never said that that the dog was ABSOLUTELY NOT AT FAULT FOR EVERY SIGNLE CASE where a child gets bit. In my cousin's case, the dogs were at fault too, and should have been put to sleep, and eventually were. FAULT IS NEVER 100%.
2. Next, its the Parents fault.
Actually, in some areas around here, as long as there's a fence up, and there's a no-tresspassers sign up, yeah, you could get away with that, lol...When they mean no tresspassing, they mean it. I didn't want to take 3 hours to discuss in detail where and when this applies. I was thinking about where there was a fence and a dog behind it, and idiots jumping the fence, expecting to cut across my yard, for whatever reason (usually to break into the house). There is a fence and a big dog, you are an idiot for jumping the fence, period. You get a hunk of tailbone missing from doing something ILLEGAL, that's your bsuiness, not mine. As for the bear traps, if they are illegal to use, then you have fault... but if there's one on your property and some fool does something illegal, they are at fault. And you can't train a bear trap, so that's a bit of a strain for an analogy. Get one that fits, please.
3.If you carried a loaded gun around with you and you shot an innocent person coming on to your property, say to retrieve a ball, or to sell girl guide cookies, just point blank, .."Excuse me mister would you like to buy ... BAM" then the person is at fault because you are doing what you are trained to do?
What amazed me about your post was its not "Oh dear how unfortunate for the poor kid, gues he's screwed for the rest of his life now" its "They DESERVED to be attacked." Am I reading you right, if somone comes onto your property legitmatly, then they deserve to die?
When your point is that SOMETIMES things are not what it seems, you have to select a few to show your side of the argument, which is all I was pulling from for the moment. Oh, and it's not selective choosing when they write up these banns??? Often times, when they decide to do a ban, they relate the deatails of the perfect cases (2-3), where the dog was totally at fault, and it's such a sob story, and then use the basic statistics in the form of this type of breed was bit this many adults and kids, irrelevant of what went on. That is not right either. This is why I'm grumpily saying things on this thread. (Do you also realise that a lot of the dogs labeled as pit bulls are often mix breeds and few have any pit bull blood whatsoever. They looked like a pit, and are reported as a pit. You can't say it's all this breed when you can't prove it was all done by this breed. Do you know how many diffrent PAPERED breeds LOOK like pits???) The data's a bit more misconstued than people would realise, mostly because they refuse to look. Don't ever tell me that we are going to bann mongrels/mutts now, lol...just becase they have the higest biting rate out of all dogs?
What you are doing is not examining the facts in total, but instead are taking a small proportion of dog bites, those of people inncently coming on to the dogs property, and using that as justification for blaming ALL attacks on the victims. Its a deliberate selective choosing of the cases to support your view.
EASIER IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. It was honestly easier to keep blacks and whites seperated in the segregation ALREADY IN PLACE than it was to right the wrongs of segregation and FIGHT for equality. It was easier to STAY OUT of WWII and let Hitler kill the Jews than for america to get up and fight. To just say we're going to bann the whole breed because the statistics (which are often NOT fully checked out) says they are bad, becuase the word of mouth is that they';re evil, oh boy, what a LAZY way to go about it! Reminds me of most politicans, lol....Quick fixes *shakes head sadly...*
At the end of the day, what is easier... get rid of the kids / adults who are innocnetly attacked, or just get rid of the source of the problem... the dogs.