Pit bull attacks owner and toddler, owner dies

[95EagleAWD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should the breeds be banned? No. That is like saying we can fight obesity by banning spoons

No it isn't, at all. If you banned pitbulls, and you couldn't get one, it stands to reason that 254 people would almost 100% still be alive. It's not like those stats are gonna get filled in by something else. Those dogs simply wouldn't be there to hurt anyone.

[Buster]

When people try to make an argument by way of analogy it often ends up badly.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No it isn't, at all. If you banned pitbulls, and you couldn't get one, it stands to reason that 254 people would almost 100% still be alive. It's not like those stats are gonna get filled in by something else. Those dogs simply wouldn't be there to hurt anyone.

They probably would get filled in, because a lot of ex-pitbull owners would seek out the next toughest looking dog to own, and abuse those ones until the stats become similar to pitbulls. Then we ban those ones, and the next tough breed becomes the next biggest offender. Ad nauseam.

Yes the breed is more violent, and PEOPLE bred them to be that way. So they'll do it again.

[firebane]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And the common denominator of fatal dog attacks are pitbulls.

And again.. Pitbull is NOT a breed, its a classification.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And again.. Pitbull is NOT a breed, its a classification.

Nobody cares about your semantics.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not like those stats are gonna get filled in by something else. Those dogs simply wouldn't be there to hurt anyone.

Toronto's experience with a pit bull ban disputes this claim. Yes, they reduced bites from breeds they classified as pit bulls, but overall, their dog bite numbers went up. Yet in Calgary, we have reduced the overall number of bites with no breed specific laws. And we should be using Canadian stats when debating a pit bull ban in Canada, but that probably wouldn't be effective since lethal dog attacks aren't really as big an issue is Canada as ban proponents would have you believe.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody cares about your semantics.

It is relevant though. If we are going to accept lumping several breeds into a single category and then use those numbers as proof of a problem, then we should do it for the others as well. And we should use the definitions used by a recognized body, for Canada that would probably be the CKC. Under that guideline, "pit bulls" fall into the terrier group. Which puts them behind the working dog category.

[ExtraSlow]

Well, this thread went the way we all knew it would go. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on this topic. I was hoping maybe I'd learn something by starting this thread, but maybe everyone is so rigid in thier thinking that reasonable open discourse is impossible.

Ah well.....

[Buster]

Ban by weight then?

[firebane]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody cares about your semantics.

Its not semantics its education. Its like people calling any tissue box "kleenex" when its not.

You can't say a dog is a "pitbull" because its not. The term pitbull came around because nobody knows about the real breeds so they just stuck a general term for the breeds and its aggravating as shit.

You don't know the breed? Then say you don't know.

When the world will stop with this stupid classification maybe things can change.

[Buster]

All dogs are the same species so the whole thing is arbitrary anyway.

So defining a group of little assassins as pit bulls for the sake of conversational efficiency is fine.

[GQBalla]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No it isn't, at all. If you banned pitbulls, and you couldn't get one, it stands to reason that 254 people would almost 100% still be alive. It's not like those stats are gonna get filled in by something else. Those dogs simply wouldn't be there to hurt anyone.

just like how if we ban handguns right?

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

All dogs are the same species so the whole thing is arbitrary anyway.

So defining a group of little assassins as pit bulls for the sake of conversational efficiency is fine.

I’m sure you have the stats to back up your claim/belief that “pit bulls” cause most of the dog related fatalities in Canada?

[joker]

Im going to stick with banning anything is stupid and does nothing to address the root problem.
I also dont think 400 deaths over a 13 year timeline is anything even worth discussing.

[killramos]

While I don’t agree with bans, I think the solution has always been with holding owners STRICTLY responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your dog hurts/kills someone, guess what you are the one facing the charges as if you did it yourself. Lock up a few degenerate dog owners and it might make people think twice about owning stupid aggressive animals they can’t control...

In this case the dog killed the owner, so it’s more of a Darwin Award than anything.

[firebane]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

All dogs are the same species so the whole thing is arbitrary anyway.

So defining a group of little assassins as pit bulls for the sake of conversational efficiency is fine.

My buddy has a dog named "Chino" who is a short little stout bastard who is a mix of terrier breeds and is the kindest and most gentle dog you'll meet. He has 3 kids and not a single issue with him at all.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im going to stick with banning anything is stupid and does nothing to address the root problem.
I also dont think 400 deaths over a 13 year timeline is anything even worth discussing.

And those numbers are even less relevant because they are US stats

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

While I don’t agree with bans, I think the solution has always been with holding owners STRICTLY responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your dog hurts/kills someone, guess what you are the one facing the charges as if you did it yourself. Lock up a few degenerate dog owners and it might make people think twice about owning stupid aggressive animals they can’t control...

In this case the dog killed the owner, so it’s more of a Darwin Award than anything.

Totally agree here.

I don't care if have a pitbull or a shih tzu, if it bites me, owner is fully responsible for all damages.

Banning a breed isn't fair to responsible owners.

[joker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

While I don’t agree with bans, I think the solution has always been with holding owners STRICTLY responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your dog hurts/kills someone, guess what you are the one facing the charges as if you did it yourself. Lock up a few degenerate dog owners and it might make people think twice about owning stupid aggressive animals they can’t control...

In this case the dog killed the owner, so it’s more of a Darwin Award than anything.

Agreed

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

While I don’t agree with bans, I think the solution has always been with holding owners STRICTLY responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your dog hurts/kills someone, guess what you are the one facing the charges as if you did it yourself. Lock up a few degenerate dog owners and it might make people think twice about owning stupid aggressive animals they can’t control...

In this case the dog killed the owner, so it’s more of a Darwin Award than anything.

Agree with all of this.

There will always be pro and against people when it comes to Pitbulls and whether they are inherently an unstable breed. I'm not sure if you guys recall, but the "unstable breed" used to be dobermans. And German Sheps. And Rotties. The fact is, any big dog can do some serious damage if things go awry. So you can ban one breed and let the others be unaccountable, or you can make EVERYONE accountable. Then when there is a new "bad" breed that comes along as the flavour of the decade, you're covered. Breed legislation is a short term solution and doesn't address the bigger problem of people not getting in trouble when their dog does something to someone.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

While I don’t agree with bans, I think the solution has always been with holding owners STRICTLY responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your dog hurts/kills someone, guess what you are the one facing the charges as if you did it yourself. Lock up a few degenerate dog owners and it might make people think twice about owning stupid aggressive animals they can’t control...

In this case the dog killed the owner, so it’s more of a Darwin Award than anything.

Yes. I will make a couple of more additions.

1. All dogs are permanently branded with an ID tag. That ID tag is permanently linked to the owner. Any and all damages/injury caused by that dog regardless of the whereabouts of the owner will be treated by the criminal code in an identical fashion as if the owner had committed the action with their own hand. Dogs found without the ID tags are immediately destroyed with no recourse.

2. Some recognition that dogs don't have legal "rights" in the same way a human does.

3. I'd like to see this one: dogs are only permitted in designated areas, and not the general public. One step at a time, though. But I consider dogs a nuisance beyond the danger - I think that they are filthy and annoying in general.