5 Yr. Old TX Boy Killed By Pit Bull

[LBR]

The inanimate object doesn't jump behind the wheel on it's own, or force itself down someone's throat.

Bottom line is simply this: strictly regulate pb's because there's a possibility that one out of ?????????(1,000, 10,000, 100,000?) could cause harm. Do this before the fact, just in case. Don't regulate drunk drivers, just wait to catch them in the act, even though they average killing someone every 39 minutes. I have yet to see how that is supposed to make any sense, if concern for human life is the driving factor.

who is ignoring drunk driving ? its illegal, everyone speaks out against it, many laws are in place to stop it - that people ignore those laws you just can't really stop

but fact is, drinking IS regulated, by age limits, legal intoxications, blood/alcohol levels, bars can cut you off, stores can refuse to sell etc etc

Dog ownership is regulated also, and if your dog causes harm you will be held liable. You can't "really stop" people from owning pb's either--once again, sounds like a page from HCI. "Let's outlaw them, that way nobody will have one". Yeah, right.

I explained how its logical, they're animals that are above and beyond normal pet care because of the nature of the animals themselves. In the wrong ownership they threaten the lives of those around them - fact

A pb isn't a lion, or tiger, or bear--fact. Why stop with pb? As your "study" showed, many other breeds are credited for human fatalities.Pretty much any largebreed, in the "wrong ownership", may threaten the lives of those around them. Ban 'em all.......wait, who does that sound like again?

you tell me, I've done the research more than once on these threads, I don't have time today

Lol--I'm not going to bother trying to veryify your claims. I back up what I say, you back up what you say. That's how it works. I have looked at several sites, but none verified anything you said--most all were to the contrary, but admittedly they were pro-pb.

you know as well as I do that the chances go way, way up when leaving children with Pits and because of that, you want to dodge my point.

Well duhhhhh........what idiot leaves little kids unsupervised?That makes as much sense as saying "little children, left alone near an open fire, are more likely to get burned" or "little children, left alone with acess to sharp knives, are more likely to get cut".

give me 30 minutes and I'll have stats, facts and sites for you

I saw one site that was full of holes, and did as much to prove points I've made all along as it did to prove any you have made.

What's wrong with admitting you just don't like pb's? I honestly have no great love for them, but I can see they are getting a raw deal here.

[Big Duane]

The inanimate object doesn't jump behind the wheel on it's own, or force itself down someone's throat.

so where is that going ? laws are in place to keep drunks in check, laws are going to become commonplace to keep pits in check

Bottom line is simply this: strictly regulate pb's because there's a possibility that one out of ?????????(1,000, 10,000, 100,000?) could cause harm. Do this before the fact, just in case. Don't regulate drunk drivers, just wait to catch them in the act, even though they average killing someone every 39 minutes. I have yet to see how that is supposed to make any sense, if concern for human life is the driving factor.

so forget about drunk driver, because world wide measles and polio kill vast numbers more than drunk driving - using your logic of human loss impacted from one thing to another

look, no kid should be mauled because of an irresponsible pit bull owner. laws in place to keep those kind of dogs out of the hands of irresponsible owners need to be there, just like laws to keep kids from driving drunk etc. Don't mean it'll stop it all, but it can help, it can help bring down the # of maulings from pits and help the dogs too

Dog ownership is regulated also, and if your dog causes harm you will be held liable. You can't "really stop" people from owning pb's either--once again, sounds like a page from HCI. "Let's outlaw them, that way nobody will have one". Yeah, right.

(sigh) not outlaw, regulate and the new pit laws do more than just hold liable.

A pb isn't a lion, or tiger, or bear--fact. Why stop with pb? As your "study" showed, many other breeds are credited for human fatalities.Pretty much any largebreed, in the "wrong ownership", may threaten the lives of those around them. Ban 'em all.......wait, who does that sound like again?

its not just a killing every 20 years, pits are the #1 dog for mauling and killing - look it up

Lol--I'm not going to bother trying to veryify your claims. I back up what I say, you back up what you say. That's how it works. I have looked at several sites, but none verified anything you said--most all were to the contrary, but admittedly they were pro-pb.

I posted links and proof - now you prove pits aren't the #1 mauling/harming type of dogs

Do that and I'll be absolutely shocked and stunned

Well duhhhhh........what idiot leaves little kids unsupervised?That makes as much sense as saying "little children, left alone near an open fire, are more likely to get burned" or "little children, left alone with acess to sharp knives, are more likely to get cut".

a basset hound might nip, a pit will tear and maul, you forgot to acknowledge that

What's wrong with admitting you just don't like pb's? I honestly have no great love for them, but I can see they are getting a raw deal here.

you don't know anything about them then if you think they're not the #1 mauling/tearing type dogs in the US. Duh, they're bred to do that, what would you expect of them ?


I don't have love or hate for pit bull type dogs. I can easily see that many own them that shouldn't, and the results are many maulings and some deaths from that.

What are YOU proposing to stoo those instances ?

See, with drunk driving, we've set age limits, jail times, stores and bars and restraunts can deny you alcohol, public intox laws, some states have dry counties still, alcohol content laws ........ many laws in place to curb drunk driving, what you continually insist to compare to dog ownership.

You are against laws on pitt type dogs, but for laws on alcohol ...... like you're ignoring the kids killed and mauled because they're a lesser issue ?


gawd .......

[LBR]

so where is that going ? laws are in place to keep drunks in check, laws are going to become commonplace to keep pits in check

You seem to be in favor of laws for drunks that only apply after the fact, but for dogs regulate each and every one before anything can happen. Makes no sense to me.

so forget about drunk driver, because world wide measles and polio kill vast numbers more than drunk driving - using your logic of human loss impacted from one thing to another

Forget it because you can't argue the point. Measles and polio aren't something that you can control. A drunk driver chooses to participate--it's totally under their control, just like owning a pb, yet you are all for regulating one while the other is just fine as-is. You want more regulations on the one that has a miniscule effect on the U.S. in general, yet the one that kills 39 people a minute is doing just fine as it is. How does that make any sense?

look, no kid should be mauled because of an irresponsible pit bull owner. laws in place to keep those kind of dogs out of the hands of irresponsible owners need to be there, just like laws to keep kids from driving drunk etc. Don't mean it'll stop it all, but it can help, it can help bring down the # of maulings from pits and help the dogs too

And no kid should be killed due to an irresponsible drinker. Sure, not everyone who drinks is going to drive--but why risk it? Tighten down on restrictions--make people pass stringent requirements before they are allowed to purchase alcohol at all--not just a simple age requirement. Why is that different than with dogs, other than drunks kill a heckuva' lot more people than dogs ever will.

not outlaw, regulate and the new pit laws do more than just hold liable.

Sorry--got you confused with Big Red Porkers there for a minute.

its not just a killing every 20 years, pits are the #1 dog for mauling and killing - look it up

I posted links and proof - now you prove pits aren't the #1 mauling/harming type of dogs

Do that and I'll be absolutely shocked and stunned

Did youread your own stats? pb's were credited with 1/3 of the deaths, rottweillers had 1/2. As best I can recall, 50% is more than 33%.

a basset hound might nip, a pit will tear and maul, you forgot to acknowledge that

And you forgot to note that leaving a small child unsupervised, especially with a dog, is stupid. Basset hounds can and will do a lot more than "nip"--just because they are cute and have short legs doesn't make their jaws any weaker.

you don't know anything about them then if you think they're not the #1 mauling/tearing type dogs in the US. Duh, they're bred to do that, what would you expect of them ?

Once again, read your own stats.

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996...."

You are against laws on pitt type dogs, but for laws on alcohol ...... like you're ignoring the kids killed and mauled because they're a lesser issue ?

Man.....you are going to owe VC a ton in royaltiesfor stealing his technique......

I simply put things in perspective--i.e. calling a fire truck for a campfire while ignoring your house burning down. Putting strict regulations, or a ban, on pb's while ignoring everything else is stupid. That's basically the same thing as outlawing handguns rather than just focus on criminals who use them.

Regulate/ban pb's, there's plenty more different breeds to take their place which can be trained to be just as vicious, and which can be just as deadly--in some cases, moreso. Then what? Regulate/ban every dog breed that can get over 35#? No, wait--chow-chows were on the list of killers, and the one we own (actually he belongs to my wife) weighs 34#. Ok, drop the weight limit to 20#? Maybe require all adult dogs have their teeth pulled and go through obedience school? Strict regulations and requirements to own any dog?

Yep--the gov't has done such a fine job keeping our roads safe and getting drugs off the street--let's give them yet another project to blow tax dollars on that, even if done pefectly, will accomplish absolutely nothing.

[vc1111]

You seem to be in favor of laws for drunks that only apply after the fact, but for dogs regulate each and every one before anything can happen.Â* Makes no sense to me.

That's a stinking lie and you know it. (See I can also play the game like you, LBR...if I happen to disagree with anything you post I simply call it a lie).

Alcohol, from manufacturing to distribution to consumption is highly regulated...by law. It is hardly just regulated "after the fact." For example, you have to be of a certain age just to purchase the stuff. (Now that may not be true. I actually read about that in the papers a few times, and of course, we can't believe anything we hear or read in "the media" now can we, LBR?)

But most people, not you of course, generally accept the idea that alcohol consumption is regulated in a number of ways aside from simply enforcing laws for public intoxication and drunk driving. Most people, not you of course, know that even buying alcohol is a crime for which you can be arrested if you're underage. You could be arrested without even consuming it. Hmmm, enforcement before the fact? I thought you said that doesn't happen. LOL, were you LYING!!!????

[vc1111]

Putting strict regulations, or a ban, on pb's while ignoring everything else is stupid.Â* That's basically the same thing as outlawing handguns rather than just focus on criminals who use them.

Lol...there you go again...

Who said that society or the law is "ignoring everything else???" That' in your head, LBR. Just because there exists a spectrum of problems does not mean that society should focus only on the most severe problems on the spectrum.

Lol, I know, I know, you'll tell me next that the idea that there exists a spectrum of problems is just "my opinion" and that I probably garnered it from "da media."

[Big Duane]

You seem to be in favor of laws for drunks that only apply after the fact, but for dogs regulate each and every one before anything can happen. Makes no sense to me.

What? Laws are in place saying you cannot drink and drive and if you do you'll face harsh punishment for it. That's not after the fact at all. Its regulations and boundaries and guidelines to keep idiots off the road.

Same type thing is needed to keep idiots from carelessly owning dogs they're not fit to have.

Forget it because you can't argue the point. Measles and polio aren't something that you can control. A drunk driver chooses to participate--it's totally under their control, just like owning a pb, yet you are all for regulating one while the other is just fine as-is. You want more regulations on the one that has a miniscule effect on the U.S. in general, yet the one that kills 39 people a minute is doing just fine as it is. How does that make any sense?

An alcoholic would argue they can't control what they do LBR. Tell the family of the kid killed their loss is irrelevant and miniscule.

And no kid should be killed due to an irresponsible drinker. Sure, not everyone who drinks is going to drive--but why risk it? Tighten down on restrictions--make people pass stringent requirements before they are allowed to purchase alcohol at all--not just a simple age requirement. Why is that different than with dogs, other than drunks kill a heckuva' lot more people than dogs ever will.

I agree, mandatory 20 years in prison for DWI, make it 50, I'm all for it, make it so damn tough 1 mistake and your life is gone. Lets do it and do it NOW.

You for that or against is LBR? Because you want tough laws to keep kids safe on one hand, but on the other you want no laws in place - thats weird

Sorry--got you confused with Big Red Porkers there for a minute.

that happens a lot, another weirdness I've noticed from time to time on hunting.net

Did you read your own stats? pb's were credited with 1/3 of the deaths, rottweillers had 1/2. As best I can recall, 50% is more than 33%.

look up the laws - Rots are classified as Pits Bull type dogs

And you forgot to note that leaving a small child unsupervised, especially with a dog, is stupid. Basset hounds can and will do a lot more than "nip"--just because they are cute and have short legs doesn't make their jaws any weaker.

Stupid happens, and the difference is a bite compared to a mauling. That said, its the pits that get out of the house and maul neighbors that hit the headlines most often, isn't it ? And again, please look up stuff, pits have tremendous jaws, its what they're bred to have.

Once again, read your own stats.

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996...."

once again, read on what qualifies as a pit bull LBR

I simply put things in perspective--i.e. calling a fire truck for a campfire while ignoring your house burning down. Putting strict regulations, or a ban, on pb's while ignoring everything else is stupid. That's basically the same thing as outlawing handguns rather than just focus on criminals who use them.

wait now, I'm saying strong laws for drunk drivers AND strong laws on pit ownership, you're the one wanting one and not the other here, not me

look, drunk driving has NEVER affected me life directly nor has dog bites, but I can tell you when one affects you and the other doesn't, THAT one becomes more important. thats human nature.

for people who's kids have been killed because of pit bull's, ask them how important it is. Its VERY important.

Regulate/ban pb's, there's plenty more different breeds to take their place which can be trained to be just as vicious, and which can be just as deadly--in some cases, moreso. Then what? Regulate/ban every dog breed that can get over 35#? No, wait--chow-chows were on the list of killers, and the one we own (actually he belongs to my wife) weighs 34#. Ok, drop the weight limit to 20#? Maybe require all adult dogs have their teeth pulled and go through obedience school? Strict regulations and requirements to own any dog?

wrong, just plain wrong, its like saying ban hounds and another breed/type will step in and run rabbits just as well - no, they can't, its not what they do

the laws that have been passed aren't perfect, they might not even be ones I agree with at times, but neither are drunk driving laws perfect. they help though, you can't deny that

Yep--the gov't has done such a fine job keeping our roads safe and getting drugs off the street--let's give them yet another project to blow tax dollars on that, even if done pefectly, will accomplish absolutely nothing.

if you think DWI laws do nothing, lets repeal them too, right ?