And Yet Another Pit Bull Attack - 6 Year Old Girl

This is a discussion on And Yet Another Pit Bull Attack - 6 Year Old Girl within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; So you are advocating the elimination of an entire breed just because a very small percentage of dogs bite someone? What about the other 99 ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: And Yet Another Pit Bull Attack - 6 Year Old Girl

  1. #16
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,870
    So you are advocating the elimination of an entire breed just because a very small percentage of dogs bite someone?

    What about the other 99 percent that dont?

    That makes about as much sense as banning guns because a few of them are used to kill people.


    Self Defense...you never cease to amaze me.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    So you are advocating the elimination of an entire breed just because a very small percentage of dogs bite someone?
    Yes. You make it sound so innocent when you say a small percentage bite someone. Pit bulls kill children. And they are not isolated incidents. They occur all the time as evidenced from the small sampling reported in this forum. There is no reason to allow a breed to exist if it kills even one innocent person.

    Why should the breed exist? It was developed specifically to fight in a pit. Would you still defend the breed if it was developed to kill children?

    What about the other 99 percent that dont?
    They should live out their lives without breeding and if they pose a threat the specific individual dogs should be destroyed.

    That makes about as much sense as banning guns because a few of them are used to kill people.
    I still dont understand how anyone can make an analogy of a dangerous animal and an inanimate object.


    Self Defense...you never cease to amaze me.
    I am not trying to amaze, only to provoke thought. I am a dog lover but I see no reason to maintain or condone animals that are not only potentially dangerous, but have demonstrated an ability and penchant to maim and kill innocent people. For what reason should we continue that breed?

  4. #18
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,870
    I am not trying to amaze, only to provoke thought. I am a dog lover but I see no reason to maintain or condone animals that are not only potentially dangerous, but have demonstrated an ability and penchant to maim and kill innocent people. For what reason should we continue that breed?
    So you are a dog lover.
    What if a few bad dogs of the same breed that YOU love go on a rampage and start attacking people?

    How would you feel if everyone else wanted to ban that breed? But my dog did nothing wrong you might say. He just lays on the couch and minds his own business. You wouldn't like it at all. You are using the same logic that the gun banners use, with the same language.

    Virtually every breed of dog has attacked a person at one time or another. I got attacked by a Dachshund once. I am not advocating eliminating the whole species just because of one ill mannered dog.

    Fact of the matter is, the majority of dogs do not attack people. Not even the pit bulls. Most of them lives their lives in complete peace.

    Now read your own words.

    Pit bulls kill children
    GUNS kill children. A favorite Hillary Clinton quote.

    There is no reason to allow a breed to exist if it kills even one innocent person.
    There is no reason to allow a GUN to exist if it kills even one innocent person.

    You are using exactly the same rhetoric and emotion that most liberals use to ban things...like guns or dogs


    And then there is this...
    There is no reason to allow a breed to exist if it kills even one innocent person.
    Using that criteria, there wouldn't be any dogs left over say, 40 pounds or so. Thats a pretty radical statement.You're using pure emotion and ignoring the facts.

    Its a good thing that you aren't King.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #19
    Member Array Carpet475's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Posts
    46

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    So you are a dog lover.
    What if a few bad dogs of the same breed that YOU love go on a rampage and start attacking people?

    How would you feel if everyone else wanted to ban that breed? But my dog did nothing wrong you might say. He just lays on the couch and minds his own business. You wouldn't like it at all. You are using the same logic that the gun banners use, with the same language.

    Virtually every breed of dog has attacked a person at one time or another. I got attacked by a Dachshund once. I am not advocating eliminating the whole species just because of one ill mannered dog.

    Fact of the matter is, the majority of dogs do not attack people. Not even the pit bulls. Most of them lives their lives in complete peace.

    Now read your own words.



    GUNS kill children. A favorite Hillary Clinton quote.


    There is no reason to allow a GUN to exist if it kills even one innocent person.

    You are using exactly the same rhetoric and emotion that most liberals use to ban things...like guns or dogs


    And then there is this...


    Using that criteria, there wouldn't be any dogs left over say, 40 pounds or so. Thats a pretty radical statement.You're using pure emotion and ignoring the facts.

    Its a good thing that you aren't King.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,708
    Quote Originally Posted by deadeye72 View Post
    All I can say is if you had come in my yard and said that, you would have had more problems than you could deal with. Your dog gets out of your yard and into mine, it does not matter what I did to provoke it, it was not where it should have been. Also, there would not be any vet bills for anybody to have to worry about paying. You might be digging a hole for it though.
    Mine is not a pit bull. Second, there is no leash law here (but I keep mine where they belong at home... this was a one time occurrence). And 3rd, you would have the problem. Here that would fall under a Animal Cruelty Class B felony and with atmosphere here... you would be sitting at least 5-8 years in prison .... and that's after you had to deal with me. It also might be wise to remember that people here do have a right to protect their property, no matter where it is.

    There's a guy who killed 4 kittens because he considered them a nuisance... he's sitting in jail facing 20 yrs in prison.

    To me, that's an amazing response to a dog being a dog., who means absolutely no harm to you or you son... and if it came up to your son... would probably wag it's tail and give him a friendly lick. Do you have some irrational fear of dogs ?

    Do you kill the squirrels, rabbits, cats, etc. that also enter your yard.

    You probably wouldn't survive here long... lmao. We had a lion on the loose once. We have coyotes that walk into town, but have no incidents with them. There have been foxes as well. There are a few Timber Wolves that you may run into too... and they've never attacked anyone either... but if they come in your yard, (LMAO) I sure wouldn't recommend your approach.

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    Why not go here and discuss it with them. We could argue about dogs in general ad naseum, and in fact it seems there is a dog thread here weekly that results in mostly the same members arguing the same sides. Dogs and laws on dogs aren't really our focus. However, the forum I linked to does have that as their focus.

    Also as per usual with dog threads this one is flirting with closure due to members getting testy with each other.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  8. #22
    Member Array Wolf357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    I don't think they should be outlawed. You sound like a gun banner. With that said I don't understand why any sane person would own one. I would think that supply and demand would take care of the problem, yet people continue to buy them in droves. I don't get it. There is no limit to human stupidity.
    Logically, there is a big difference between banning possession of potentially dangerous animals, and banning the possession of firearms.

    Even though animal owners often claim their pet won't bite anyone, they really don't know what's going through the mind of their pet.

    However, those who possess firearms can truthfully assure others that their firearms won't discharge until they pull the trigger because firearms are inanimate objects that are completely dependent on the deliberate actions of those who handle them.

    The possession of potentially dangerous exotic animals is already prohibited in my township, along with any animal that is considered livestock. Personally, I would rather hear chickens cackling next door than hear the frightful snarling of some breed of attack dog.

    Many moons ago I had to deal with the legal stink that followed an incident in which I had to kill an attack dog before it killed me. People who think it's macho or cool to own such an animated menace to society are the real problem.

    Yes, I think the private possession of all potentially dangerous animals, exotic or domestic, can and should be prohibited. And I don't think doing this will further threaten our right to bear arms.
    And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

    I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array deadeye72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Central Mississippi
    Posts
    4,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Mine is not a pit bull. Second, there is no leash law here (but I keep mine where they belong at home... this was a one time occurrence). And 3rd, you would have the problem. Here that would fall under a Animal Cruelty Class B felony and with atmosphere here... you would be sitting at least 5-8 years in prison .... and that's after you had to deal with me. It also might be wise to remember that people here do have a right to protect their property, no matter where it is.

    There's a guy who killed 4 kittens because he considered them a nuisance... he's sitting in jail facing 20 yrs in prison.

    To me, that's an amazing response to a dog being a dog., who means absolutely no harm to you or you son... and if it came up to your son... would probably wag it's tail and give him a friendly lick. Do you have some irrational fear of dogs ?

    Do you kill the squirrels, rabbits, cats, etc. that also enter your yard.

    You probably wouldn't survive here long... lmao. We had a lion on the loose once. We have coyotes that walk into town, but have no incidents with them. There have been foxes as well. There are a few Timber Wolves that you may run into too... and they've never attacked anyone either... but if they come in your yard, (LMAO) I sure wouldn't recommend your approach.
    I have no fear of dogs. I have a 60 pound Golden Retriever mix that is the best dog I have ever owned. If she runs off and nips, bites, or in any other way harms someone, she will be shot in the head just as fast as I can her back to my yard. My children would not be happy about that, but it is an animal. As far as the squirrels and rabbits, if they are in season, then they will probably get shot. Cats I have a trap for and turn them over to animal control (when they will take them.)
    Glock 27
    BENELLI NOVA

  10. #24
    Member Array Carpet475's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    Why not go here and discuss it with them. We could argue about dogs in general ad naseum, and in fact it seems there is a dog thread here weekly that results in mostly the same members arguing the same sides. Dogs and laws on dogs aren't really our focus. However, the forum I linked to does have that as their focus.

    Also as per usual with dog threads this one is flirting with closure due to members getting testy with each other.
    Thank you Scott I hadn't found that site and found some good information there.

    I think for most this would be a good read. It may help you to decide if that dog you see is a threat or not.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf357 View Post
    Logically, there is a big difference between banning possession of potentially dangerous animals, and banning the possession of firearms.
    Forgive me but I don't see your logic. A ban is a ban. I believe that less government and fewer laws make us a free-er (is that even a word?) society. Banning guns, dogs, religion, farts, bad breath or french fries seems wrong to me.
    Understand that I hate Pittbulls, but in America "the land of the free" I don't believe in banning them either. I do think the owners of attack dogs should be punished severly, just like criminals who use guns to commit crime (and ones that don't).
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  12. #26
    Member Array Wolf357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Forgive me but I don't see your logic. A ban is a ban. I believe that less government and fewer laws make us a free-er (is that even a word?) society. Banning guns, dogs, religion, farts, bad breath or french fries seems wrong to me.
    Understand that I hate Pittbulls, but in America "the land of the free" I don't believe in banning them either. I do think the owners of attack dogs should be punished severly, just like criminals who use guns to commit crime (and ones that don't).


    You don't need to be forgiven by me. And if farts are banned, I'm never going to be able to eat soup beans and ham again or I'll literally explode.

    However, like it or not, we are a nation of laws. And a government that doesn't adequately represent the people who pay it should be abolished. The problem that has been developing within our government is that our employees (politicians) think that we, the people, should shut-up and pay them to do nothing for anyone except themselves, and their powerful constituents. Sadly, our government has degenerated into a bloated, self-serving mess that needs to be reformed. But ordinary individual citizens certainly aren't wrong to expect their government to enact sensible laws that help provide for their security without needlessly restricting their right to protect themselves with or without firearms.

    I do know I don't want to have to endure another ugly incident that erupted because I killed a dog that attacked me on public property. The streets belong to law-abiding citizens, not human thugs, or vicious animals. If people refuse to police themselves, as many pet owners definitely do, then the general public has a right to expect their elected representatives to enact sensible laws to punish those defiant individuals who selfishly think they have the right to do whatever they darn well please, regardless of the often ugly consequences of their careless, negligent, and downright ignorant behavior.
    And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

    I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.

  13. #27
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,870
    If people refuse to police themselves, as many pet owners definitely do, then the general public has a right to expect their elected representatives to If people refuse to police themselves, as many pet owners definitely do, then the general public has a right to expect their elected representatives to enact sensible laws to punish those defiant individuals who selfishly think they have the right to do whatever they darn well please, regardless of the often ugly consequences of their careless, negligent, and downright ignorant behavior.
    .
    In theory,that sounds great.
    However...from your own quote..

    enact sensible laws to punish those defiant individuals who selfishly think they have the right to do whatever they darn well please, regardless of the often ugly consequences of their careless, negligent, and downright ignorant behavior.

    Idiots like that dont follow the law. Period.
    In which case all the law does is restrict people, like me and you, that do follow it.

    Making a law against this or that is not the right answer.

    It does nothing except provide a means of punishment IF they happen to get caught. So if I am a "good" dog owner and my dog has never bitten anyone, why should I be penalized because some yahoo dog on the other end of the state bites somebody?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #28
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Forgive me but I don't see your logic. A ban is a ban. I believe that less government and fewer laws make us a free-er (is that even a word?) society. Banning guns, dogs, religion, farts, bad breath or french fries seems wrong to me.
    Understand that I hate Pittbulls, but in America "the land of the free" I don't believe in banning them either.
    Fewer laws do not necessarily make us more free. (Freer is the word even though it looks strange.) Anarchy is not freedom. It is uncontrolled chaos.

    You seem to dislike banning some things (everything?) How about banning heroin and meth? How about banning drunk driving? How about banning the of exposing oneself in public?

    How about banning a vicious breed of animal?

    I do think the owners of attack dogs should be punished severly, just like criminals who use guns to commit crime (and ones that don't).
    I agree the owners should be punished. But guns are inanimate objects. Those who arrogantly think they can completely control an animal are very much mistaken. No gun will ever dig under a fence and terrorize children in a neighborhood.

  15. #29
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Idiots like that dont follow the law. Period.
    In which case all the law does is restrict people, like me and you, that do follow it.
    The issue is no restricting people it is restricting a dangerous breed of animal.

    Making a law against this or that is not the right answer.
    In this case it is. In communities wthout pit bulls they have no pit bull attacks. And let's not start with the gun analogy again. It doesn't hold up to minimal scrutiny. No one commits crimes with pit bulls. You can't carry a concealed pit bull. If irresponsible people blatantly disregard the wishes of the community they will be held accountable and their contraband confiscated. There are already laws preventing ownershp of dangerous animals. Extending it to another proven threat is the responsible thing to do.

    It does nothing except provide a means of punishment IF they happen to get caught. So if I am a "good" dog owner and my dog has never bitten anyone, why should I be penalized because some yahoo dog on the other end of the state bites somebody?
    All pit bull attacks begin with a dog that has never mauled anyone before. I find it disingenuous when the defenders use the word bite as if it is some innocent action. Maul, maim, disfigure, kill, disable are far more accurate descritions of a pit bull attack.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf357 View Post
    Logically, there is a big difference between banning possession of potentially dangerous animals, and banning the possession of firearms.

    Even though animal owners often claim their pet won't bite anyone, they really don't know what's going through the mind of their pet.

    However, those who possess firearms can truthfully assure others that their firearms won't discharge until they pull the trigger because firearms are inanimate objects that are completely dependent on the deliberate actions of those who handle them.

    Yes, I think the private possession of all potentially dangerous animals, exotic or domestic, can and should be prohibited. And I don't think doing this will further threaten our right to bear arms.
    Great post. I was going to say something similiar, but your post sums it up nicely. Animals are animals. I can punt a poodle a good distance. I've seen owners of pitbulls hit them as hard as they could just to 'condition' them.

    When it comes down to it, I'll be honest, I'm scared of pitbulls. Maybe that's an irrational emotion, but considering what they are capable of doing to me(and I am in great shape), much less my wife or children or nephews or neices, I would be perfectly happy if they just weren't around.

    Since pitbull owners are about as protective of their right to keep pitbulls as we are about our right to keep and bear arms, I figure we should just adopt the same rules. If my gun ever attacks somebody all by itself, then they should put me in prison. If a pitbull ever attacks somebody all by itself, they should put the owner in prison. Makes sense to me.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. How many agree with this about a pit bull attack?
    By lionassad in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: April 4th, 2009, 09:36 PM
  2. 3-year-old girl shoots 6-year-old boy after finding felon's gun
    By peacefuljeffrey in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 9th, 2007, 12:31 PM
  3. Pit bull Attack
    By Sheldon J in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 10:16 AM
  4. Pit Bull Attack
    By wasabibill in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: November 26th, 2006, 02:42 PM

Search tags for this page

dog attack on year old girl in hudson valley

,

pit bull maul maim disfigure

,

what happened when the pitbull attacked 6 girls

Click on a term to search for related topics.