Support NeoGAF

[Daweex]

Man, dog owners and gun owners should form an alliance. Because you guys make exactly the same arguments.

Guns: "It's not the weapon, it's the person wielding it."
Dogs: "It's not the animal, it's the owner."

Guns: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."
Dogs: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles are just as safe as my tank."
Guns: "No, tanks aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have tanks."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain weapons shouldn't be owned by people, just not your weapon of choice."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, pitbulls are just as safe as my lion."
Dogs: "No, lions aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have lions."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain animals shouldn't be owned by people, just not your animal of choice."

Guns: "I'm a responsible gun owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."
Dogs: "I'm a responsible dog owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."

Guns: "It's not the type of weapon. If you ban these weapons, people would just use other weapons."
Dogs: "It's not the breed of dog. If you ban this breed, people would just use this other breed."

Guns: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."
Dogs: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

Yeah I give up.

 

[Chariot]

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

Mate, I am spitting against guns in the hands of civilist at every oppurtunity, but I am against the ban of pitbulls. You know why? Because a dog is not a weapon. The misconception is what produces all these incidents. Dogs are living beings. They should be loved and cuttled not used or feared as weapons.

 

[Jaeger]

Wolves and dogs are closely related. And so are humans and some apes.

Even beings of close genetic relationship still have phenomenal difference.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Good thing we don't see horses randomly walking on the streets nowadays.

Not that it's relevant, but horse drawn carriages can be common as fuck in cities with tourism. In my home city they are just about everywhere. And dogs shouldn't be off leash.

 

[LostCaress]

I know what they are. You just restated what I said. Canis lupus is a GENUS. And no, they are still not the same animal. You are still wrong and are attempting to take something ingerently simple and twist it to mean something else.

Wolves are not dogs. They are related and noting more.

Wolfdogs are mixes of both hence why they need to be named "wolfdogs" because it's a combination of two different animals.

I really didn't. Canis lupus familiaris is a sub-species. They have been classified as the same species. (Which is a human concept, the need to categorize things).

So your answer is what? Are they dogs or wolves? You only gave me a semantics answer. Dogs and wolfs mix in the wild, they don't need to be named "wolfdog".

Actually wolves and some dogs breed easier then a lot of dog breeds between themselves. Hell, it's easier to mix wolves and some breeds of dogs than bulldogs between themsleves.

Wolves and dogs are closely related. And so are humans and some apes.

Even beings of close genetic relationship still have phenomenal difference.

Humans are apes.

 

[Zoned]

Man, dog owners and gun owners should form an alliance. Because you guys make exactly the same arguments.

Guns: "It's not the weapon, it's the person wielding it."
Dogs: "It's not the animal, it's the owner."

Guns: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."
Dogs: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles are just as safe as my tank."
Guns: "No, tanks aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have tanks."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain weapons shouldn't be owned by people, just not your weapon of choice."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, pitbulls are just as safe as my lion."
Dogs: "No, lions aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have lions."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain animals shouldn't be owned by people, just not your animal of choice."

Guns: "I'm a responsible gun owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."
Dogs: "I'm a responsible dog owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."

Guns: "It's not the type of weapon. If you ban these weapons, people would just use other weapons."
Dogs: "It's not the breed of dog. If you ban this breed, people would just use this other breed."

Guns: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."
Dogs: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

lol this right here. Clearly tells the pathetic hypocrisy of people who say no to guns but are okay for pitbulls. They are dangerous and your ass won't save shit when they attack.

Yeah I give up.

Don't have to be dramatic about it then. You can just leave, if you are not gonna come up with something better.

 

[Dice]

If raw power is a concern then plenty of domesticated animals have the raw power to murder humans. Horses could easily break your neck or trample you.

Definitely. I can't tell you how many times I've had a horse angrily dash at me across a yard only to be restrained last second by a thin leash pegged into the dirt. Or that time my co-worker was limping around for a month because two horses* attacked him just a couple houses down where he lived before his dad heard him screaming and spent several minutes beating them off with a shovel from the garage.

Spoiler

*pit bulls

 

[LostCaress]

Definitely. I can't tell you how many times I've had a horse angrily dash at me across a yard only to be restrained last second by a thin leash pegged into the dirt. Or that time my co-worker was limping around for a month because two horses* attacked him just a couple houses down where he lived before his dad heard him screaming and spent several minutes beating them off with a shovel from the garage.

Spoiler

*pit bulls

The real danger is cows.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Definitely. I can't tell you how many times I've had a horse angrily dash at me across a yard only to be restrained last second by a thin leash pegged into the dirt. Or that time my co-worker was limping around for a month because two horses* attacked him just a couple houses down where he lived before his dad heard him screaming and spent several minutes beating them off with a shovel from the garage.

Spoiler

*pit bulls

How convenient your argument of raw power is gone when you get a chance to use sarcasm. I'm out this thread is just a display of bastardizing statistics, sarcasm and ignorance.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Holy shit this is like talking to a wall.
For the one hundreth time, dogs have been together with humans since forever and throughout centuries have learned to adapt to them, so much that dogs are literally the only animal species that willingly stares into a human's eyes to figure out the human's current emotions.
Wolves are nothing like that, because they have never been with humans.
Do you get it now or do I have to spell it?

once again you are trying to paint domesticated dogs and wolves as if they are very far away from similar when even though dogs have been domesticated to oblivion they still share many traits (both physically and instinctual) with wolves. this is true whether you are looking at phenotype or genetics or even behavior (running with packs, howling, etc etc)

and i enjoy the aggressiveness you're showing, it's quite sad when paired with your ignorance about biology

He made no reference to thousands of years of domestication in the posts I read; he referred to an individual mountain lion that been trained / domesticated.

ah i see that now

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Man, dog owners and gun owners should form an alliance. Because you guys make exactly the same arguments.

Guns: "It's not the weapon, it's the person wielding it."
Dogs: "It's not the animal, it's the owner."

Guns: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."
Dogs: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles are just as safe as my tank."
Guns: "No, tanks aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have tanks."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain weapons shouldn't be owned by people, just not your weapon of choice."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, pitbulls are just as safe as my lion."
Dogs: "No, lions aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have lions."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain animals shouldn't be owned by people, just not your animal of choice."

Guns: "I'm a responsible gun owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."
Dogs: "I'm a responsible dog owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."

Guns: "It's not the type of weapon. If you ban these weapons, people would just use other weapons."
Dogs: "It's not the breed of dog. If you ban this breed, people would just use this other breed."

Guns: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."
Dogs: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

Quoting so I may borrow your points for future arguments. Thanks.

 

[Zoned]

Mate, I am spitting against guns in the hands of civilist at every oppurtunity, but I am against the ban of pitbulls. You know why? Because a dog is not a weapon. The misconception is what produces all these incidents. Dogs are living beings. They should be loved and cuttled not used or feared as weapons.

Not every dog is a puppy you know. There are some breeds like pit bull which are just dangerous for the society, considering the fact that you can't put them down if there is a situation. They''ll chew the shit out of you.

 

[pa22word]

Don't have to be dramatic about it then. You can just leave, if you are not gonna come up with something better.

When you've gone so far beyond the pale you're comparing guns with dogs, you've gone so far off the deep end you're really not worth responding to.

 

[Dice]

How convenient your argument of raw power is gone when you get a chance to use sarcasm. I'm out this thread is just a display of bastardizing statistics, sarcasm and ignorance.

It's gone? I must have missed the part where it stopped being relevant. Perhaps you could better explain how my arguments for restrictions on ownership of potentially deadly dog breeds was invalidated by the existence of horses.

 

[Mumei]

his point is that if you were able to domesticate lions over thousands of years, would that be an acceptable pet to have. your lion is kind and nice and most of them don't have problems, but the few that revert back to their instinctual aggressiveness can fuck your shit up worse than other pets

He made no reference to thousands of years of domestication in the posts I read; he referred to an individual mountain lion that been trained / domesticated. If he had been making the point you are making, I might have responded slightly differently, but it wouldn't have made his point more valid.

No, it's perfectly relevant but you are ignoring the part that is relevant about it to focus solely on the aspect of wild nature. I am not making an argument for domestication of mountain lions. That should be plainly obvious, so whatever matter there is concerning their nature is clearly not what is in view. So then, if I'm not talking about that, what am I talking about? Raw power to kill. Clearly, my chosen animal was meant to exaggerate this aspect to a level that even pit bull advocates would be uncomfortable with.

So my point still stands, IF WE DID manage to domesticate mountain lions, would you be comfortable with public ownership? Is nature and nurture really the only thing of concern here, or is raw power also a major concern? Enough to put regulations and controls on them?

I really don't understand why I had to spell this out for you. Maybe you really are that oblivious to what people feel when they walk down the sidewalk unarmed and there is some massive, muscular dog furiously barking at them behind a precariously secured screen door.

It depends on how domesticated they are. For instance, it is widely debated exactly how domesticated cats are - and certainly everyone agrees that cats, which are thought to be essentially self-domesticated animals at most, are far less domesticated than are dogs. I think we've all heard jokes about how we're lucky that cats aren't as big as wild ones, right?

So, if you managed to domesticate a population of a large species of wild cat so that it was as domesticated as a dog is, then yes. I would feel comfortable with that. If you managed to domesticate it only to the point that our house cats are domesticated, well... no. I don't have a death wish.

And pibbles aren't "massive:. They're comparable to Australian Shepherds or Boxers or Collies or a GSP; all breeds typically in the 50 - 70 pound range

 

[suzu]

Strap guns to dogs.

Seriously though, there is a middle ground that can be reached. It's just difficult when people are seemingly handwaving owners responsibility (neuter and spay your pets!) in favor of an all out ban or worse, eradicating the entire breed.

 

[Zoned]

When you've gone so far beyond the pale you're comparing guns with dogs, you've gone so far off the deep end you're really not worth responding to.

Oh please. Statistics already prove the point. If you can command your pitbull to literally kill someone then it is a dangerous weapon in the society. Period.

 

[entremet]

Dogs are classified as Canis lupus, canis lupus familiaris if you want.



Yes they are



Maybe you yourself don't get something so simple?

Tell me for example, the Czech wolf dog is what according to you? A dog? A wolf? Do tell.

You're still incorrect. Modern taxonomy disputes you.

 

[Musician]

Dogs are not wolves; although they share a common ancestor. Get with the times people!

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2014/20140116-domesticated-dogs.html

 

[Dice]

So, if you managed to domesticate a population of a large species of wild cat so that it was as domesticated as a dog is, then yes. I would feel comfortable with that.

Amazing.

I don't understand this mindset at all. Unless you mean like, contained to a ranch or something, well away from neighborhoods and the larger public.

 

[LostCaress]

You're still incorrect. Modern taxonomy disputes you.

The national center for biotechnology information (the US one) classifies the dog as Canis Lupus Familiaris, a sub-species of wolf.

 

[Musician]

The national center for biotechnology information (the US one) classifies the dog as Canis Lupus Familiaris, a sub-species of wolf.

The study that refutes that is from 2014. Perhaps it's too soon for it to be part of general knowledge.

 

[Jaeger]

I really didn't. Canis lupus familiaris is a sub-species. They have been classified as the same species. (Which is a human concept, the need to categorize things).

So your answer is what? Are they dogs or wolves? You only gave me a semantics answer. Dogs and wolfs mix in the wild, they don't need to be named "wolfdog".

How is...

Wolves are not dogs. They are related and nothing more.

...semantics? I don't think you know what the word means.

Actually wolves and some dogs breed easier then a lot of dog breeds between themselves. Hell, it's easier to mix wolves and some breeds of dogs than bulldogs between themsleves.

Err. Ok. What does that have to do with being two separate types of animals?

Humans are apes.

And yet we are not Gorillas, Chimpanzees, or Orangutans just as Gray Wolves are not Poodles.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Dogs are not wolves; although they share a common ancestor. Get with the times people!

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2014/20140116-domesticated-dogs.html

to be fair, that's saying current domesticated dog breeds are closer related to one another than current wolf species, which is sort-of obvious. that does not mean that domesticated dogs and wolves are nothing alike (especially what they do share including common recent ancestry)

 

[Mumei]

Amazing.

I don't understand this mindset at all. Unless you mean like, contained to a ranch or something, well away from neighborhoods and the larger public.

Well, again, I think you don't understand the difference between domestication and taming. I would not feel comfortable with people owning gray wolves in public, which can be ~70 - 100 pounds (with the largest individual topping out at 190 pounds). I am comfortable with people owning pit bulls, rottweilers, st. bernard's, german shepherds, and so forth. Why? Because the former is still a wild animal, no matter how trained it is and the latter are all domesticated dog breeds. If you managed to domesticate, say, a cougar to the same degree as a domesticated dog (e.g. as different in behavior from a wild mountain lion as a dog is compared to a wolf), I would not be categorically against it.

 

[Volimar]

I'm somewhat surprised to see this amount of people blaming the breed on GAF. Seems out of character.

 

[Fitts]

Humans kill far more people than pitbulls. Humans senselessly murder far more animals in general than anything else. Humans should be outlawed.

Am I typing silly bullshit? Yes, but so are many in this thread. I just wanted to fit in.

 

[suzu]

I'm somewhat surprised to see this amount of people blaming the breed on GAF. Seems out of character.

Well, dog owners are also similar to gun owners now. lol

 

[Crash Station]

Erm, dogs are wolves.

Just like how humans are monkeys.

 

[boiled goose]

This is a similar topic to gun control. Freedom vs more deaths.

Responsible owners will be responsible.
Bad owners will do bad things.
Accidents happen.

Let's have an honest discussion.

Sure all breeds can lead to harm, but some are more likely to do more harm, if not for their temperament then because of their physique.

Saying we should ban high capacity magazines is not the same thing as banning all handguns.

Pitbull owners HAVE TO RECOGNIZE that their freedom to own Pitbulls has a societal cost.

The extent of this cost is a fact.

If as a society we tolerate this cost is for all of us to decide.

 

[lazypants]

I think people are forgetting that this woman ordered her dogs to attack. They are clearly domesticated, well trained dogs. It's just that they were trained to attack people, unlike most dogs(including pitbulls) who would never attack anyone.

 

[Dice]

Well, again, I think you don't understand the difference between domestication and taming. I would not feel comfortable with people owning gray wolves in public, which can be ~70 - 100 pounds (with the largest individual topping out at 190 pounds). I am comfortable with people owning pit bulls, rottweilers, st. bernard's, german shepherds, and so forth. Why? Because the former is still a wild animal, no matter how trained it is and the latter are all domesticated dog breeds. If you managed to domesticate, say, a cougar to the same degree as a domesticated dog (e.g. as different in behavior from a wild mountain lion as a dog is compared to a wolf), I would not be categorically against it.

I don't care about wild vs domestic so long as domestic can still end up with powerful violent killer animals when the owners are not educated and diligent. We clearly don't have anywhere close to the sort of overseeing authorities to ensure that the animals are being raised properly, so the breeds that can come out to those results should be off-limits until we do.

Where do you draw the line? I'm sure we can figure it out. I have a yorkie/shih tzu mix that is maybe kinda small for both those breeds. She's scared of bunnies. If somehow she went out of her mind and attacked someone, they could easily punt her across the street. I'm pretty sure she would make it on the "safe for public ownership without oversight" list. I think we can come out to reasonable evaluations for all breeds.

Such rulings also wouldn't have to take dogs away from their owners. We could write them so that you just couldn't acquire new ones, but if you already had them, they are allowed.

I think people are forgetting that this woman ordered her dogs to attack. They are clearly domesticated, well trained dogs. It's just that they were trained to attack people, unlike most dogs(including pitbulls) who would never attack anyone.

So then domestication is not the sole matter to consider when determining whether or not we want these powerful creatures in our society.

 

[Kaervas]

This is the price of freedom.

I rather have this happen that the goverment deciding what I can or can't do.

 

[Crash Station]

Man, dog owners and gun owners should form an alliance. Because you guys make exactly the same arguments.

Guns: "It's not the weapon, it's the person wielding it."
Dogs: "It's not the animal, it's the owner."

Guns: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."
Dogs: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles are just as safe as my tank."
Guns: "No, tanks aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have tanks."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain weapons shouldn't be owned by people, just not your weapon of choice."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, pitbulls are just as safe as my lion."
Dogs: "No, lions aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have lions."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain animals shouldn't be owned by people, just not your animal of choice."

Guns: "I'm a responsible gun owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."
Dogs: "I'm a responsible dog owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."

Guns: "It's not the type of weapon. If you ban these weapons, people would just use other weapons."
Dogs: "It's not the breed of dog. If you ban this breed, people would just use this other breed."

Guns: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."
Dogs: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

If you really can't see the difference between an inanimate object and a living being, I don't know what to tell you.

You could make an easier argument over how the anti-pitbull people in this thread echo discussions on race, which is still a bad comparison.

This is a similar topic to gun control. Freedom vs more deaths.

Responsible owners will be responsible.
Bad owners will do bad things.
Accidents happen.

Let's have an honest discussion.

Sure all breeds can lead to harm, but some are more likely to do more harm, if not for their temperament then because of their physique.

Saying we should ban high capacity magazines is not the same thing as banning all handguns.

Pitbull owners HAVE TO RECOGNIZE that their freedom to own Pitbulls has a societal cost.

The extent of this cost is a fact.

If as a society we tolerate this cost is for all of us to decide.

See above. This comparison is thrown out the window when you add in a living being with their own free will into the mix. All guns are weapons. Not all dogs of ANY breed are trained to be weapons.

 

[boiled goose]

I think people are forgetting that this woman ordered her dogs to attack. They are clearly domesticated, well trained dogs. It's just that they were trained to attack people, unlike most dogs(including pitbulls) who would never attack anyone.

Sure. The issue is if you ordered Chihuahuas to attack the result would be quite different.

Private citizens are not allowed to own tigers,no matter how trained

 

[Musician]

to be fair, that's saying current domesticated dog breeds are closer related to one another than current wolf species, which is sort-of obvious. that does not mean that domesticated dogs and wolves are nothing alike (especially what they do share including common recent ancestry)

Novembre said this tells a different story than he and his colleagues anticipated. Instead of all three dogs being closely related to one of the wolf lineages, or each dog being related to its closest geographic counterpart (i.e. the basenji and Israeli wolf, or the dingo and Chinese wolf), they seem to have descended from an older, wolf-like ancestor common to both species.

"One possibility is there may have been other wolf lineages that these dogs diverged from that then went extinct," he said. "So now when you ask which wolves are dogs most closely related to, it's none of these three because these are wolves that diverged in the recent past. It's something more ancient that isn't well represented by today's wolves."

Accounting for gene flow between dogs and wolves after domestication was a crucial step in the analyses. According to Adam Freedman, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and the lead author on the study, gene flow across canid species appears more pervasive than previously thought.

"If you don't explicitly consider such exchanges, these admixture events get confounded with shared ancestry," he said. "We also found evidence for genetic exchange between wolves and jackals. The picture emerging from our analyses is that these exchanges may play an important role in shaping the diversification of canid species."

Sorry for the fat block of text. I just want to show LostCaress that he's wrong in his assumption.

How much dogs evolved from their wolflike ancestor during the period of time given by the study (9000-33000 years) is hard to say.

 

[boiled goose]

If you really can't see the difference between an inanimate object and a living being, I don't know what to tell you.

You could make an easier argument over how the anti-pitbull people in this thread echo discussions on race, which is still a bad comparison.

Dogs from the perspective of human society are property.

A ban on breeding Pitbulls going forward would not really lead to suffering or any real downside to dogs currently alive.

This is about HUMANS WANTING PITBULLS. and that's fine. As humans we make the decisions of what we allow or disallow.

 

[888]

Dogs from the perspective of human society are property.

A ban on breeding Pitbulls going forward would not really lead to suffering or any real downside to dogs currently alive.

This is about HUMANS WANTING PITBULLS. and that's fine. As humans we make the decisions of what we allow or disallow.

But it isn't usually a ban on breeding alone. It is usually a ban against the dogs and from what I have seen they are not always grandfathered in. There have been people who had to give the dog away to someone outside a certain area, if not the animals are confiscated and you can guess the rest. Like I said in my last post. I am all for needing a license to breed and forced neutering etc.

Edit: and I didn't want a pit bull. I rescued a sweet dog that was dumped and was dying from heartworm. I had her treated and is healthy and loving now.

 

[boiled goose]

If you really can't see the difference between an inanimate object and a living being, I don't know what to tell you.

See above. This comparison is thrown out the window when you add in a living being with their own free will into the mix. All guns are weapons. Not all dogs of ANY breed are trained to be weapons.

So now you are getting into a discussion about dogs having free will huh?

Dogs are fucking property.
As humans we decide whatever the fuck we want to do with them. We have laws protecting animals from abuse, but these are our laws.

You call out people comparing dogs to objects yet you go ahead and equate canines with humans.

In this case (laws we make as a society) dogs are closer to objects. Sorry.

And for clarification,im not even saying Pitbulls should be banned and ive been a dog owner my entire life. Let's please stick to reality though.

I would even argue that the fact that Pitbulls are animals makes them even less predictable than a man made object. Your objection is basically irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

lol this right here. Clearly tells the pathetic hypocrisy of people who say no to guns but are okay for pitbulls. They are dangerous and your ass won't save shit when they attack.

Who is saying this in here? This is such a stupid argument. I was actually going to go take my gun for a walk after work after I feed it dinner. I was also planning on snuggling up with my gun before bed. His name is tank.

 

[Mumei]

I don't care about wild vs domestic so long as domestic can still end up with powerful violent killer animals when the owners are not educated and diligent. We clearly don't have anywhere close to the sort of overseeing authorities to ensure that the animals are being raised properly, so the breeds that can come out to those results should be off-limits until we do.

Where do you draw the line? I'm sure we can figure it out. I have a yorkie/shih tzu mix that is maybe kinda small for both those breeds. She's scared of bunnies. If somehow she went out of her mind and attacked someone, they could easily punt her across the street. I'm pretty sure she would make it on the "safe for public ownership without oversight" list. I think we can come out to reasonable evaluations for all breeds.

Such rulings also wouldn't have to take dogs away from their owners. We could write them so that you just couldn't acquire new ones, but if you already had them, they are allowed.

So then domestication is not the sole matter to consider when determining whether or not we want these powerful creatures in our society.

Well, the difference does matter when discussing whether an animal is inherently dangerous.

I've never owned a pit bull; I've only ever owned a miniature dachshund. :') I did work at a dog daycare and a veterinary clinic in for about five years, though. Always loved pibbles.

And I am more sympathetic to the idea of licensing and regulation for large breeds of dogs, though given the prevalence of bad training advice (e.g. anything involving dominance, a wildly misunderstood concept) and the huge numbers (tens of millions!) of dogs over 50 pounds, I find it difficult to imagine how exactly that would be implemented even if you grandfather in current owners the way you've suggested. How do you prevent people from simply breeding mutts on their own? In any case, "There should be regulations on ownership," is, I think you'll agree, a far cry from comparing the ownership of a medium-sized dog to a mountain lion.

 

[Tenebrous]

I'm somewhat surprised to see this amount of people blaming the breed on GAF. Seems out of character.

It's pretty saddening to see.

 

[Volimar]

Well, the difference does matter when discussing whether an animal is inherently dangerous.

I've never owned a pit bull; I've only ever owned a miniature dachshund. :') I did work at a dog daycare and a veterinary clinic in for about five years, though. Always loved pibbles.

And I am more sympathetic to the idea of licensing and regulation for large breeds of dogs, though given the prevalence of bad training advice (e.g. anything involving dominance, a wildly misunderstood concept) and the huge numbers (tens of millions!) of dogs over 50 pounds, I find it difficult to imagine how exactly that would be implemented even if you grandfather in current owners the way you've suggested. How do you prevent people from simply breeding mutts on their own? In any case, "There should be regulations on ownership," is, I think you'll agree, a far cry from comparing the ownership of a medium-sized dog to a mountain lion.

A dachshund?!?!? Talk about vicious.

 

[CrocMother]

Pitbulls banned? Ok, I'll just get a Staffordshire terrier instead!

 

[boiled goose]

It's pretty saddening to see.

Blame is a kind of irrelevant.
Can Pitbulls cause more harm? If legal will harm occur? How much harm do we tolerate?

These are the relevant questions.

Do Chihuahuas being legal cause harm? Do Pitbulls lead to more harm than german s. Or other large breeds?

 

[888]

Pitbulls banned? Ok, I'll just get a Staffordshire terrier instead!

But but but that also falls under the pit bull title

 

[Dice]

Well, the difference does matter when discussing whether an animal is inherently dangerous.

Animals don't magically appear into existence fully mature. As such, dangerous characteristics that are "inherent" to mature animals come from 3 places.

1) Their physical capacity to do damage.
2) Their genetic nature, which can involve domestication.
3) The way they were raised.

Arguing with only #2 in mind when evaluating the safety of an animal and thus how suitable it is to public ownership is completely ridiculous to me.

In any case, "There should be regulations on ownership," is, I think you'll agree, a far cry from comparing the ownership of a medium-sized dog to a mountain lion.

I didn't expect everyone to assume I'm such a dumbass as to not understand domestication. The aspects of the illustration regarding training were simply to mimic how beside the point the good behavior of an animal is to the threat of its physical power in itself when it comes to how people feel about it. I didn't expect people to literally think that physical power is completely irrelevant so as to focus solely on domesticated nature as invalidating what was (to me) obviously not the point I was trying to make.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Arguing with only #2 in mind when evaluating the safety of an animal and thus how suitable it is to public ownership is completely ridiculous to me.

Thing is, as someone who has been reading along (and occassionally dipping a toe into the thread here and there) this isn't really happening all that frequently. It's what makes everyone quoting Scathe's post so frequently over the last three pages a little disillusioning considering the length of the thread - it goes to the point that people aren't necessarily reading anything anyone else is saying, they're simply looking for a recitation of the talking points they already agree with.

Many of the pro-pitbull arguments (such as they are) in the thread seem to be pretty measured, overall. There are a minor few people for whom the entire argument is "my dog is nice so all these dogs are nice it's just mean people make them bad," just as there are a tiny few people on the opposite side arguing "Ban them all, and then kill the ones that are left."

So with those outliers being as small as they are, and as fringe as they are, it seems better to ignore those weird satellites of poorly presented/considered opinion, so as to put more thought into engaging with people who are obviously thinking before they speak.

There are a lot of people in here on either side of the argument who actually agree with each other more than they don't.

 

[CrocMother]

But but but that also falls under the pit bull title

Oh alright, American Bully it is!

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Can you spot the Pit Bull?