Scottish Terrier Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 You can have a poodle as long as you have a licence, you cannot have a pitbull even with a licence. Much like You can have an Air rifle with a licence, but you cannot have an AK47 with a license. Poodles and Air Rifles can hurt but rarely prove fatal. Pitbulls and AK47s are designed to KILL. Not smart, or nip. KILL. You "Save Champ" pillocks are blinkered to the fact that NOBODY cares about the 'chances' of Champ attacking someone, anything more than 0% chance is too much and nobody can make the dog promise not to; what I am concerned about is the CONSEQUENCES of a Pitbull's attack IF he does attack. Regardless of the global redneck pitbull owners groups, these dogs are genetically designed to keep attacking until the target is dead. By that logic, we should ban every breed of dog which could kill. And since you can have a shotgun with a licence does that mean they should be banned. Why don't we ban everything that can kill and we can live a miserable life up until we die at 95!!! You are more likely to be struck by lightning in the UK than killed by a Pitbull. No doubt you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by a pitbull, but that's only because most of the bug*gers have been put down already! So Pitbulls don't attack because they have all been put down? What's the problem then? If any of you would like to put down your copy of the Sun for a moment and check the facts, you would be aware that the number of dangerous dog attacks has risen since the dangerous dogs act was implemented. This is because it is a terrible piece of legislation which does nothing to protect the public. Breed specific legislation will never work, only putting responsibility for dog ownership onto the owner, with real consequences should your dog attack, will work. As for PK's remark.....if you have no interest in the actual issues, please go somewhere else. Isn't there some children playing on your street you would prefer to go and beat up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 These dogs can be human aggressive, as can any dog, but no more so than any other breed. My god that is the most blinkered statement I have ever heard. Pitbulls are responsible for over 25% of dog attacks which end in a fatality in the US - CDC report. Are you going to claim they make up 25% of the dog population. Pitbulls vastly over represent dangerous dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Terrier Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 These dogs can be human aggressive, as can any dog, but no more so than any other breed. My god that is the most blinkered statement I have ever heard. Pitbulls are responsible for over 25% of dog attacks which end in a fatality in the US - CDC report. Are you going to claim they make up 25% of the dog population. Pitbulls vastly over represent dangerous dogs. You can't compare the various countries. The profile of a pitbull owner in the US isn't the same as the UK. I will concede that a lot of Pitbulls in the UK are kept by people who shouldn't be allowed out the house alone, however in the US you have a whole load of other issues to do with gangs, strays, etc., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishkettle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 You can have a poodle as long as you have a licence, you cannot have a pitbull even with a licence. Much like You can have an Air rifle with a licence, but you cannot have an AK47 with a license. Poodles and Air Rifles can hurt but rarely prove fatal. Pitbulls and AK47s are designed to KILL. Not smart, or nip. KILL. You "Save Champ" pillocks are blinkered to the fact that NOBODY cares about the 'chances' of Champ attacking someone, anything more than 0% chance is too much and nobody can make the dog promise not to; what I am concerned about is the CONSEQUENCES of a Pitbull's attack IF he does attack. Regardless of the global redneck pitbull owners groups, these dogs are genetically designed to keep attacking until the target is dead. By that logic, we should ban every breed of dog which could kill. And since you can have a shotgun with a licence does that mean they should be banned. Why don't we ban everything that can kill and we can live a miserable life up until we die at 95!!! You are more likely to be struck by lightning in the UK than killed by a Pitbull. No doubt you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by a pitbull, but that's only because most of the bug*gers have been put down already! So Pitbulls don't attack because they have all been put down? What's the problem then? If any of you would like to put down your copy of the Sun for a moment and check the facts, you would be aware that the number of dangerous dog attacks has risen since the dangerous dogs act was implemented. This is because it is a terrible piece of legislation which does nothing to protect the public. Breed specific legislation will never work, only putting responsibility for dog ownership onto the owner, with real consequences should your dog attack, will work. As for PK's remark.....if you have no interest in the actual issues, please go somewhere else. Isn't there some children playing on your street you would prefer to go and beat up. Once again Scottish Terrier, you are mis-quoting me... I did not say they have ALL been put down but that most of them have, t'was a joke with reference to that toss you belched up about lightning that no-one cares about. Please please get yourself down specsavers for a prescription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Terrier Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 These dogs can be human aggressive, as can any dog, but no more so than any other breed. My god that is the most blinkered statement I have ever heard. Pitbulls are responsible for over 25% of dog attacks which end in a fatality in the US - CDC report. Are you going to claim they make up 25% of the dog population. Pitbulls vastly over represent dangerous dogs. Yet again, you take only the bits of the report that suit you. what does the conlusion of the report you quote say..... Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. You prove my point nicely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 regardless of anybodys 'points' on dangerous/not dangerous refering to this specific animal, it is a banned breed/type in the island and under current legislation cannot be licenced to be kept here. as i said earlier there is a place in ireland willing to take it, let them have it and all would be legal. its got nothing to do with whether champ is or is not dangerous, he is banned, end of. and you also have to wonder why a pit bull sanctuary would offer to take him IF he wasn't a pit bull?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishkettle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 These dogs can be human aggressive, as can any dog, but no more so than any other breed. My god that is the most blinkered statement I have ever heard. Pitbulls are responsible for over 25% of dog attacks which end in a fatality in the US - CDC report. Are you going to claim they make up 25% of the dog population. Pitbulls vastly over represent dangerous dogs. Yet again, you take only the bits of the report that suit you. what does the conlusion of the report you quote say..... Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. You prove my point nicely! Scottish Terrier! you're the one who takes bits that suit you! What you didn't copy and paste in from the same report was the following! Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Terrier Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 These dogs can be human aggressive, as can any dog, but no more so than any other breed. My god that is the most blinkered statement I have ever heard. Pitbulls are responsible for over 25% of dog attacks which end in a fatality in the US - CDC report. Are you going to claim they make up 25% of the dog population. Pitbulls vastly over represent dangerous dogs. Yet again, you take only the bits of the report that suit you. what does the conlusion of the report you quote say..... Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. You prove my point nicely! Scottish Terrier! you're the one who takes bits that suit you! What you didn't copy and paste in from the same report was the following! Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Sorry, since I didn't want to copy and paste the whole report, I only took the bit called "Conclusions"....you know, the bit which is usually the summary of findings and recommendations. i.e. the important bit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I really should pay more attention, I've never heard of fishkettle or Scottish Terrier. Are they just here for the pitbull? Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Terrier Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I really should pay more attention, I've never heard of fishkettle or Scottish Terrier. Are they just here for the pitbull? Stav. looks like it. if only they knew what they were on about.... Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed in your private members club! I actually work for a living and generally don't have much time to mess about on my computer....you do know there is a whole big bright world out there! I have no interest in the outcome of this particular Pitbull story however I do feel stongly about the Dangerous Dogs Act and its implications. WTF - WTF have you said which is even remotely accurate or interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I really should pay more attention, I've never heard of fishkettle or Scottish Terrier. Are they just here for the pitbull? Stav. looks like it. if only they knew what they were on about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishkettle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I really should pay more attention, I've never heard of fishkettle or Scottish Terrier. Are they just here for the pitbull? Stav. looks like it. if only they knew what they were on about.... Strange that you'd draw the conclusion that because we are new to the site that we thefore have no idea what we're talking about? I assume therefore that anyone who has been here for some time only ever makes valid arguments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishkettle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Sorry, since I didn't want to copy and paste the whole report, I only took the bit called "Conclusions"....you know, the bit which is usually the summary of findings and recommendations. i.e. the important bit!!! And naturally "results" are not important then scottish terrier? We could go on like this forever so i think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic, surely we can agree on that at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Strange that you'd draw the conclusion that because we are new to the site that we thefore have no idea what we're talking about? I assume therefore that anyone who has been here for some time only ever makes valid arguments? Of course not, we just jump to conclusions! Hello doggie peoples. Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishkettle Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Strange that you'd draw the conclusion that because we are new to the site that we thefore have no idea what we're talking about? I assume therefore that anyone who has been here for some time only ever makes valid arguments? Of course not, we just jump to conclusions! Hello doggie peoples. Stav. Well that's ok then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.