There is?
Cite?
You have a very generous definition of “lots”…
More than twice as many as all other breeds combined – his definition is right on point.
And you’re still a nut-case.
You’re right there, no question. Nutcases are notorious for consistent reasoning, citations to expert authority, and a steadfast refusal to deny reality, so I wouldn’t be fooling anyone if I tried to deny it.
And thread vomits…
I should have said, ‘inherently mortally dangerous’. That is their natural state, before training. ???
How about not saying a damn thing and let this thread stay dead?
Just heard it hear. That was horrible 
There is still, in court decisions about who is responsible for the death of a child who was visiting someone’s home, interacted with the dog chained in the backyard, and was attacked and killed…still the idea that the parents are the ones responsible for the child wandering into a dangerous place.
This decision is rooted in the idiotic (to me) notion, that dogs can be expected to be vicious and that they are entitled to be vicious, under some circumstances, and, further, that they are to be excused for killing people. The idea that possessing an animal that is capable of killing a human is perfectly alright? How did we reach that state of lunacy? Animals that can kill people should not be allowed to interact with people, they should be behind bars in a zoo if we want them around at all.
There is a place, I guess I am convinced, for a person possessing a gun and being careful it doesn’t get into the wrong hands. Self protection…a sense of safety and security (true or not). But guns don’t sometimes jump a fence, burst through a screendoor, become ultra aggressive with their food, or toys, or subject to being frightened to the point of attack by a stranger, or a strange noise. Guns don’t act on their own. Dogs do, and they sometimes kill. That we think dogs capable of killing us have a right to be in our homes is one of the oddest bits of delusion I can imagine.
Hallelujah.
“Vicious” is not the correct word. Dogs can be expected to be dangerous. And by “expected”, it only means “can be” - it is not something wildly outside the realm of possibility. For instance, we cannot expect a goldfish to be either vicious or dangerous. (At least not in relation to ourselves… Goldfish may very well be vicious and dangerous towards each other) But dogs are, of course, basically a subspecies of wolf and wolves are extremely dangerous apex predators, so of course dogs have the potential to be dangerous, a fact that must always be kept in mind in the way all of us deal with them. It is a parent’s responsibility to keep their children safe, period. This means not permitting them to interact with dogs without supervision. Also not permitted:
Interacting with snakes, black widows, crocodiles and porcupines.
Unsupervised or uncontrolled interaction with open windows, traintracks, pools, oceans, rivers, treetops, barnyards containing farm animals, household chemicals, racetracks, freeways and NAMBLA conventions.
And yes, just as with human beings and pretty much all sentient living things, there are circumstances under which dogs are entitled to be dangerous. It is unreasonable and unjust to expect dogs To be able to suppress their behavior under any and all circumstances. They are living things that have a right to fear, to defend themselves or others, to be unmolested.
Cows, horses and bees are all domesticated and they all regularly kill people.
And just like guns, a dog’s “right” to be in a given person’s home is the option of the person. Dogs do not have a right to be in your home, I assume, but you have yet to make an argument about why I should not be permitted to have dogs in mine.
Life is extremely dangerous. Many helpful pleasant life enhancing things kill people all the time. It is the nature of existence, we all pick what we are willing to risk.
a friendly malling
Florida boy, 4, mauled to death by pit bulls, officials say
I own a Pitbull. I adopted him from Villalobos. He is an 18 mo old happy go lucky snuggle bear. He loves everyone he meets, especially small kids. He kisses can’t be matched. He however does not like other dogs. He has been exposed to other dogs since he was a puppy and just doesn’t like them. He loves cats and ferrets go figure.
It isn’t just about the dog, it is about responsible pet ownership. My dog is never allowed outside without a member of the family even though he is behind a secure fence. We do not take him to dog parks or other places he could get in trouble with another dog. We don’t allow friends to bring their dogs over to play.
The main reason these dogs get such a bad rap is because of the amount of damage they can inflict. I’ve encountered more vicious ankle biters than I have larger bully breads.
Oh, good God, can we just let this fucking thread die already?
Then, there’s this.
Good boy: Pit bull saves deaf teenager from fire, July 20 (Google search finds this story reported in numerous publications.)
Murderous monster dogs, indeed!
The Pit Bull horror stories just keep piling in! //rolleyes//
Then, there’s this:
This Pit Bull Carried Her Injured Chihuahua ‘Soul Mate’ To Safety, Now They Need A Loving Home, July 22, 2014.
Good God, can’t people who don’t want to participate in threads any more just stop reading and commenting on them without wanting to control everyone else’s choices so they match their own?
“Wanting to control everyone else’s choices?” Hah! If I only had that kind of power. I’m just venting my frustration at the pointless resurrection of this thread. It just seems stupid to me to resurrect it with a link every time a pit mauls/saves someone, as if the pit bull debate is all about keeping score. Whatever. Fine. I’ll bow out and ignore this thread and give my little pittie a scritch.
QFT. I’m tempted to start trolling both sides out of spite.
But then, I feel that way about a lot of interminable arguments.