• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why all states should ban pit bulls

Firearms are a regulated product in America, far more in most cases then dogs
So are dogs. You can't have too many dogs (look up all the dogs that are taken away from hoarding situations).
The owner is at fault in the sense of being liable for their dog attacking, but it’s not possible to prevent dog attacks in the same sense as a gun. In California I have to have my gun stored in a metal safe when not in use, if I locked a dog in that safe and forgot about it like I can with a gun I would be charged with animal cruelty
In many places, dogs have to be on a leash. They can't be running around the neighborhood by themselves.
 
I am not writing to dispute this...in general. But I have written about my friend who has ten dogs, some of which are wolf-hybrids. She also had three cats (she recently lost one to cancer) and some chickens. All are pets and stay indoors unless the dogs are having playtime outside since she is in Maine. One of the dogs, one I mentioned because I have slept with him, is a Pit Bull she rescued as a puppy. What I never bothered to say was that his "mate" (each of her dogs sleeps with a friend so that he is not alone) is a cat. He is the only dog she has that she can trust with this cat. The other two cats had each other and this cat, Bob, who used to be an outdoor cat became very attached to the Pit Bull, Leroy. They are constant companions. Her more wolf-y dogs cannot be with the cats.

Unfortunately I wrote what I did because it has happened to other people who already had a cat before they got the dog without doing any research on pit bull psychology first. Bob is very lucky Leroy loves him.
 
So are dogs. You can't have too many dogs (look up all the dogs that are taken away from hoarding situations).
I’m not aware of any laws limiting the number of dogs you can have unless it’s creating a cruel or unsanitary situation
In many places, dogs have to be on a leash. They can't be running around the neighborhood by themselves.
But most pit Bull fatal attacks are on people familiar to the dog like their owner or their children or people visiting the owner. You’re not required to leash your dog on your own property
 
In many places, dogs have to be on a leash. They can't be running around the neighborhood by themselves.

San Francisco is the only U.S. city I am aware of that allows dogs to be on the streets off leash. But in France it is a different story: while there I literally saw someone carry his unleashed dog out of a Levi's store.
 
I’m not aware of any laws limiting the number of dogs you can have unless it’s creating a cruel or unsanitary situation

But most pit Bull fatal attacks are on people familiar to the dog like their owner or their children or people visiting the owner. You’re not required to leash your dog on your own property

I'd check your stats.
 
No, that is all wrong. People use firearms to kill by using them correctly.

If a pit bull kills someone, it is either rabid (like any other breed dog) or not trained and restrained (like any other breed dog).
So just like human animals then? ;)
 
I don't care who is to blame. Dangerous animals should not be allowed.


I don't care who's fault it is. Dangerous animals should not be allowed.


Total non-sequitur.
Nope, humans are much more dangerous animals. Want proof? ;)
 
You just never know with a pit bull. They were bred to kill. They are a very powerful breed that is effective in what they were bred for.

I have owned one from a puppy. Even in play he would continue to get rougher and rougher until what he was playing with was dead. Not human aggressive at all but any animal was in trouble. I returned him to the breeder when he was only 9 months old.

I have hog hunted with my uncles with pit catch dogs. They have no fear. Stretch out a hog in nothing flat. They were not pets. Kept securely penned up when not working.

You just can't trust them.
 
"assault" weapons ... including guns that aren't

see ?
The correct parallel here would be if a person is calling for the banning of "assault weapons", and then makes a comment about how much damage guns do, at which point the response is "Yeah guns, including those that aren't assault weapons."
 
What changes took place among pitbull-type species between the decade of 25 years and 15 years that you think merits updated information? I find such a point very odd.

How would I know what changes took place if any without that data?

Think of it this way. Look at all the species that we have discovered or rediscovered in recent years. If the data we use to look at species is 20 years old, then those new/rediscovered species will not be on there and we can't see the changes, let alone measure how many were found, or see if there is a trend in such discoveries.

I don't think we're looking at the "most possible" data but trendlines, and they show similar data whether it's 25 or 15 years ago. Did you find anything that broke that trend?

That's why you need the recent data. If the trend has changed within the last 5 years, you won't see it if the only data you are using is 15 or 25 years old. If you don't have the data from when the trend changes, then how are you supposed to see the change?

What I shared is from the same page that you gave. The only difference is the CDC page I shared, and which is the only one I could find from their site. Anything else mentioned in various sites show "404" errors.

I'll have to go back after work and verify, but I believe that what I referenced (shared by another originally) had data up to 2008. Yours ended before 2000, I believe. Again, I'll have to go back and check later.

If you interpret the conclusion correctly, then you will realize that it goes against the pitbull advocacy page you cited, which reports that other species are more dangerous than pitbull-types (or that pitbull types are less dangerouns than other species) given per capita data on dog bites.

I agree with you here and I made that point sometime earlier in the thread. Both the absolute number and the percentage number are truthful numbers. It when one is presented without the other that people can manipulate the truth to their position.

Rather, dog bites need to be prevented overall, and can only be done through ordinances other than those involving breed types. Notice, too, that the last point actually works for and against people who support pitbull types.

Again, you and I are in agreement here. Basically the only point where we are having a problem is the use of data to support a point.

Given such, what are those alternative ordinances?

Since I've not proposed any, I don't have a position on that.
 
You just never know with a pit bull. They were bred to kill. They are a very powerful breed that is effective in what they were bred for.
They were not bred to kill. Today's pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head.
I have owned one from a puppy. Even in play he would continue to get rougher and rougher until what he was playing with was dead. Not human aggressive at all but any animal was in trouble. I returned him to the breeder when he was only 9 months old.
Couldn't train a puppy?
I have hog hunted with my uncles with pit catch dogs. They have no fear. Stretch out a hog in nothing flat. They were not pets. Kept securely penned up when not working.
Did we ban that breed?
You just can't trust them.
Same can be said about the human breed. Besides that one puppy, how many of these pit-type dogs have you gotten to know? I've worked with dozens of them at the local shelter. I trust them because I know them. ☮️
 

I'd check your stats.
Do not try to confuse him with fact! His mind is made up!
 
Do not try to confuse him with fact! His mind is made up!
I think that is the biggest downside to these boards. Most of us (myself included) have made up our minds on many topics, so no one is open to having their minds' changed. Then threads just devolve into mindless conversations we all know aren't going to go anywhere.
 
I think that is the biggest downside to these boards. Most of us (myself included) have made up our minds on many topics, so no one is open to having their minds' changed. Then threads just devolve into mindless conversations we all know aren't going to go anywhere.
But does engaging in the conversations these threads provide give us pleasure? I will answer for myself: if the thread offers some wit and some interesting anecdotes, it gives me pleasure even if no minds are changed. If it is boring and consists only of fatuous insults, it does not give me pleasure and I try to leave it.
 
Prove it. My statement does follow logically from the previous one.
It's a non sequitur because assessing the danger of humans is totally irrelevant to the conversation. You might as well compare whether T Rexes were more dangerous than pitbulls. It's just a "Look at the squirrel" distraction from the conversation.
 
It's a non sequitur because assessing the danger of humans is totally irrelevant to the conversation.
So you say, I claim it is relevant. There was no assessment btw. Dangerous humans raise dangerous canines. Fact
You might as well compare whether T Rexes were more dangerous than pitbulls.
Faulty analogy.
It's just a "Look at the squirrel" distraction from the conversation.
What you are doing by claiming non sequitur, non sequitur. I don't know why that is so puzzling to you? ;)
 
I think that is the biggest downside to these boards. Most of us (myself included) have made up our minds on many topics, so no one is open to having their minds' changed. Then threads just devolve into mindless conversations we all know aren't going to go anywhere.

Take that complaint to the Basement.

Like I said earlier, the only reason to hate pit bulls is wanting to hate pit bulls. Nobody who hates pit bulls cares about the fact that when living with the right families and properly trained, pit bulls are good dogs. They do not think about the fact that this is true for all the abused dogs who end up in shelters because of bad owners. They do not care about the fact that if another breed dog was used for dog fighting, the same consequences would occur. It is bigotry in the same way as racism against black people.
 
Animals have conversations and communicate with each other.

Perhaps you should put down the shovel and stop digging this hole.
Don't worry about my hole.
 
But does engaging in the conversations these threads provide give us pleasure? I will answer for myself: if the thread offers some wit and some interesting anecdotes, it gives me pleasure even if no minds are changed. If it is boring and consists only of fatuous insults, it does not give me pleasure and I try to leave it.
Not to mention, for myself at least, I have run across arguments that have at least been thought out and are logical, even if I don't agree with the premise. And occasionally someone put the the issue in a different context that can change what I think or at least have me agree that there are some conditions where my position is wrong, even if I still feel it is right in most of the others. I find it happening between me and my husband a lot, when we discuss things.
 
It is bigotry in the same way as racism against black people.
You make my point. Ever see a bigot change his stripes?

They also don't realize...

They will defend their dogs to the death... even more than gun owners would defend their guns. I certainly would. Try to take my pit away and see what happens.
 
How would I know what changes took place if any without that data?

Think of it this way. Look at all the species that we have discovered or rediscovered in recent years. If the data we use to look at species is 20 years old, then those new/rediscovered species will not be on there and we can't see the changes, let alone measure how many were found, or see if there is a trend in such discoveries.



That's why you need the recent data. If the trend has changed within the last 5 years, you won't see it if the only data you are using is 15 or 25 years old. If you don't have the data from when the trend changes, then how are you supposed to see the change?



I'll have to go back after work and verify, but I believe that what I referenced (shared by another originally) had data up to 2008. Yours ended before 2000, I believe. Again, I'll have to go back and check later.



I agree with you here and I made that point sometime earlier in the thread. Both the absolute number and the percentage number are truthful numbers. It when one is presented without the other that people can manipulate the truth to their position.



Again, you and I are in agreement here. Basically the only point where we are having a problem is the use of data to support a point.



Since I've not proposed any, I don't have a position on that.

Exactly! So, why do you keep insisting on recent data? And why is it that what you present as recent data isn't?

You refer to the need for recent data again. What do you think happened to pitbull type species during the last five years that merits such a need?

How is 2008 better than 2000? Did something happen to pitbull types in 2008 that didn't happen in 2000?

About the absolute and relative numbers, the latter are more accurate because higher numbers of bites can be driven by higher populations. That means pitbull advocates are right.

At the same time, using non-recent data is not only correct but needed so that one can see trendlines. And I think they show that pitbull types have higher numbers of biting incidences but lower numbers when seen in light of population.

My only reason for sharing the link to the CDC page is that it's the only one I found about pitbulls in their website. I was trying to look for the data sets used in the study cited by in the pro-pitbulls site.
 
Back
Top Bottom