# They can't be that bad



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

This thread is about Pit Bulls. If you have any bad opinions about these, please leave them for yourselfs or discuss them somewhere else.

These guys were put on the dangerous dogs list a while back, and personally I think they should be taken off. It's the owners not the dogs

Stray Pit Bull Saves Woman, Child from Attacker -- Zootoo Pet News

Pit Bull saves 2 women from deadly cobra, dies wagging his tail - 2007-03-01

An 'Angel' of a pit bull saves lives of tabby kittens | L.A. Unleashed | Los Angeles Times

There's loads more too.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/other-pets-exotics/638362-pitbulls.html

There's already a discussion going on in this thread, but I'm confused as to why you want a thread about Pitbulls, but don't want any bad opinions when you're discussing such a controversial breed?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> It's the owners not the dogs


It's like saying "guns don't kill people, people do"......but i think the gun helps:whistling2:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> It's like saying "guns don't kill people, people do"......but i think the gun helps:whistling2:


But they train them to be dangerous. They put them on treadmills with a big chunk of meat hanging at the end of them.

You may say about the guns, yes they can kill. But number 1, they have to be in control of a real :censor: and in some cases they can save lives and be good.


----------



## ryanr1987 (Mar 7, 2009)

Chameleons are us said:


> This thread is about Pit Bulls. If you have any bad opinions about these, please leave them for yourselfs or discuss them somewhere else.
> 
> These guys were put on the dangerous dogs list a while back, and personally I think they should be taken off. It's the owners not the dogs
> 
> ...


now compare them very few links to all the links that have pitbulls killing people or other animals(not the dogs fault in many cases but the owners and attention they attract). I actually love the breed and think in the right care these dogs can be amazing family dogs not so much with other animals in most cases. I think that unbanning the breed would be a big mistake think how much these dogs have been through over the years it's horrible. even though these animals are still in the wrong hands illegally but it's nowhere comparable to how it was before.


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

ryanr1987 said:


> now compare them very few links to all the links that have pitbulls killing people or other animals(not the dogs fault in many cases but the owners and attention they attract). I actually love the breed and think in the right care these dogs can be amazing family dogs not so much with other animals in most cases. I think that unbanning the breed would be a big mistake think how much these dogs have been through over the years it's horrible. even though these animals are still in the wrong hands illegally but it's nowhere comparable to how it was before.


I see what your saying.. Some people shouldn't be aloud animals :devil:
My Staffy is one of the nicest dogs you'll meet. Great with kids, a real delight to own. But then you go to some places and you see scum bags walking them like there all hard and stuff. People keep them for the wrong reasons


----------



## ryanr1987 (Mar 7, 2009)

Chameleons are us said:


> But they train them to be dangerous. They put them on treadmills with a big chunk of meat hanging at the end of them.
> 
> You may say about the guns, yes they can kill. But number 1, they have to be in control of a real :censor: and in some cases they can save lives and be good.


Guns don't have a personality or walk around on there own it's a pretty terrible comparison but i understand what you meen. Not all dogs have to be trained to attack it can be in there genes from certain lines. And running on the treadmill is more for stamina not for aggression.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Chameleons are us said:


> But they train them to be dangerous. They put them on treadmills with a big chunk of meat hanging at the end of them.


Working a bull breed on a treadmill builds endurance, not aggression.

Poor canine leadership skills, limited discipline, or worse yet encouraging animal or human aggression is what makes *any* dog dangerous.

I wouldn't trust my colleague's Jack Russell near my face, that's for darn sure...

The American Pit Bull Terriers I've met were child-friendly, playful, could be "ragged around" by a kid who didn't quite know what they were doing .... they used to be considered an excellent FAMILY dog. For people who want a dog, not a child substitute and most definitely not a mobile burglar deterrent/punishment system.


----------



## ryanr1987 (Mar 7, 2009)

Chameleons are us said:


> I see what your saying.. Some people shouldn't be aloud animals :devil:
> My Staffy is one of the nicest dogs you'll meet. Great with kids, a real delight to own. But then you go to some places and you see scum bags walking them like there all hard and stuff. People keep them for the wrong reasons


staffys remind me of the modern day pit bull in the uk great dogs with great people but attract the complete wrong attention from the wrong people in so many cases. There are so many staffy bulls around here and 90% of them are with the wrong owner


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

ryanr1987 said:


> Guns don't have a personality or walk around on there own it's a pretty terrible comparison but i understand what you meen. Not all dogs have to be trained to attack it can be in there genes from certain lines. And running on the treadmill is more for stamina not for aggression.


I suppose yeah. I understand why they got banned due to the amount of bad reports about them and stuff.

But my grandad, when we told him we were getting a Staffy he was like "Oh god, why have they got one of them? There gonna be dead within a week". He came round and fell in love with Lenny. He took it all back. I just don't like it when people label a dog dangerous because the chances are the majority are like Lenny.


----------



## dreamer (May 19, 2009)

I think that the press goes through phases with 'dangerous dogs' i personally don't have any experience of pitbulls but i do know that rotties had an awful reputation in the 80's when overbreeding and horrible owners led to a lot of attacks but i love rotties - mine was an absolute softie. I do agree that owners have a lot to do with it but i think its also to do with the amount of damage a dog can do, ie the snappy little toy breeds can bite - more tha once and a few people and nobody cares but one snap of a big/powerful dog and you know about it plus their faces are often at childs hight and its when the bite a child that gets the press attention.


----------



## ryanr1987 (Mar 7, 2009)

Chameleons are us said:


> I suppose yeah. I understand why they got banned due to the amount of bad reports about them and stuff.
> 
> But my grandad, when we told him we were getting a Staffy he was like "Oh god, why have they got one of them? There gonna be dead within a week". He came round and fell in love with Lenny. He took it all back. I just don't like it when people label a dog dangerous because the chances are the majority are like Lenny.


Yeah it is a shame that many get lumped in as dangerous because of there history etc it's more of lack of education on these certain breeds as the media make out these dogs are all dangerous so you can't really blame a lot of people for things such as fear of these dogs which have been on the paper non stop for killing or fighting etc.

In my ideal world i would love the bring back the American pitbull BUT they must be chipped, checked by officials on a regular bases, a really high price tag £1000-2000 and bred by only professionals not some clowns that just bung any dog together not taking into account temperaments and health of the dogs. also that last bit i wrote should be the law for all dogs as dogs like staffs end up in rescues with are overflowing with them but that's a different story.

I have also heard many pitbulls and staffies attacking in people even though they have a great home but many where rescues and when a dog is cooped up in a rescue centre for many years it can certainly effect any dog over the years.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> But they train them to be dangerous. They put them on treadmills with a big chunk of meat hanging at the end of them.
> 
> You may say about the guns, yes they can kill. But number 1, they have to be in control of a real :censor: and in some cases they can save lives and be good.


My point exactly!!! A "real :censor:" without a gun doesn't shoot shoot anyone....it's just a "real:censor:"!

In the same vein, people aren't going to get attacked by pitbulls (which was an all too common occurence, i'm sure you'll agree), if the idiots putting them on treadmills aren't allowed to keep them in the first place!

Quod erat demonstrandum:whistling2:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> My point exactly!!! A "real :censor:" without a gun doesn't shoot shoot anyone....it's just a "real:censor:"!
> 
> In the same vein, people aren't going to get attacked by pitbulls (which was an all too common occurence, i'm sure you'll agree), if the idiots putting them on treadmills aren't allowed to keep them in the first place!
> 
> Quod erat demonstrandum:whistling2:


Yes!! Haha, don't speak the lingo so could you post in English what the last part means? :lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Yes!! Haha, don't speak the lingo so could you post in English what the last part means? :lol2:


The Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which means "what was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> The Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which means "what was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.


Right cheers :2thumb:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

mrcriss said:


> people aren't going to get attacked by pitbulls... if the idiots putting them on treadmills aren't allowed to keep them in the first place!


Except that people still *do* get attacked by "dogs of pit bull type" in the UK despite their being illegal to own (unless of course you've got one of the rare-as-hen's-teeth dogs that has been taken away under the DDA, and you successfully got the dog back from the judge on one of the exceptions....) and unfortunately every dog that attacks "must" have been a pit bull (unless it was black and tan; then it's either a rottweiler or a dobermann; if it's wolfy-looking it must have been a GSD....) and people who want a dog of pit bull type can still obtain dogs that on technicality and misbehaviour would be likely to be taken away, because several of the bull breeds are still in common circulation.

Far as it goes, there still isn't anything wrong with putting a dog on a treadmill for endurance training... what's wrong is putting that high-endurance dog in a situation where you make it clear that what you want from a dog that thinks you're God is for that dog to attack other animals or people. American Pit Bull Terriers treat their families as God - and if God tells them to go for the strange person, or the cat, or the other dog, by God they'll do the best they can.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm not saying that any of these dogs can't make lovely pets in the right hands, nor am I saying that all dog attacks are perpetrated by pitbulls or the like, but back in the 90's there was a new attack almost every week and the government were forced to act. Who were they forced by? The general population of the UK (not the members of RFUK)....the terrified parents and worried OAP's. If you were to survey the public about pitbulls, I guarantee the vast majority would be in full support of the ban. Nor can you disagree that the number of serious dog attacks has been dramatically reduced since the introduction of the DDA.

Of course it was largely the fault of irresponsible ownership, but if you are to allow any reliable people the privilege of owning these dogs, then you must also allow Skanky Pikey Pete to keep his no doubt heavily scarred dog on his dodgy caravan site in deepest Salford.....otherwise how would you police the situation?

So, in summation I am in full support of the ban on pitbulls for the REDUCTION (N.B. not the complete end) of dog attacks, and the DECREASE (not complete cessation) of dog fighting. More's the point, I believe that any animal lover should also be in support of the ban for the same reasons.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Nor can you disagree that the number of serious dog attacks has been dramatically reduced since the introduction of the DDA.


May I ask where you got this information from?
Personally I think that the biggest problem with pitbulls is that they have a higher IQ than a large proportion of their owners.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Evie said:


> May I ask where you got this information from?
> Personally I think that the biggest problem with pitbulls is that they have a higher IQ than a large proportion of their owners.


Evie, I don't know if you were alive/concious in the 90's, but there was a new case of severe attack practically every week. I hardly need to spout statistics, because there are clearly not as many attacks reported in the papers, maybe 2 or 3 a year.

And as for your ridiculous second point....the majority of pitbull owners may have been numpties, but I'm sure the fact that they have one of the most powerful bites coupled with the ability to lockjaw and generally rip humans to pieces means that these dogs can also be classed as a danger, regardless of their upbringing/temperament.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Evie, I don't know if you were alive/concious in the 90's, but there was a new case of severe attack practically every week. I hardly need to spout statistics, because there are clearly not as many attacks reported in the papers, maybe 2 or 3 a year.
> 
> And as for your ridiculous second point....the majority of pitbull owners may have been numpties, but I'm sure the fact that they have one of the most powerful bites coupled with the ability to lockjaw and generally rip humans to pieces means that these dogs can also be classed as a danger, regardless of their upbringing/temperament.


Yes I was around in the 90s, 80s 70, and even the 60s, and everything I've ever read indicates that there has been no reduction in the numbers of dog attacks since the introduction of the DDA therefore I would be very interested to know your source of information with regard to the numbers of attacks. Cheers


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Evie, I don't know if you were alive/concious in the 90's, but there was a new case of severe attack practically every week. I hardly need to spout statistics, because there are clearly not as many attacks reported in the papers, maybe 2 or 3 a year.
> 
> And as for your ridiculous second point....the majority of pitbull owners may have been numpties, but I'm sure the fact that they have one of the most powerful bites coupled with the ability to lockjaw and generally rip humans to pieces means that these dogs can also be classed as a danger, regardless of their upbringing/temperament.


That's true... I've heard the only way of getting them off is to actually kill them. Not a nice thought I suppose


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

The structure of their jaws is no different to any other breed - they are just tenacious.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Evie said:


> Yes I was around in the 90s, 80s 70, and even the 60s, and everything I've ever read indicates that there has been no reduction in the numbers of dog attacks since the introduction of the DDA therefore I would be very interested to know your source of information with regard to the numbers of attacks. Cheers


I am not referring to any particular source, only that the reporting of these attacks in the press has diminished....which may in fact be an unfortunate sign of these desensitised times. 
Suffice to say, be safe in the knowledge that the current dog attacks aren't largely committed by your precious pitbulls on account of them being correctly banned (even though i'm sure there is one around the corner form me).


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Evie said:


> The structure of their jaws is no different to any other breed - they are just tenacious.


Incorrect. The strength of a dog's jaw is proportionate to the length of it. Therefore, GENERALLY (not always) the more snubby the muzzle, the stronger the bite (mastiffs having the strongest), allowing a greater amount of pressure for less effort. Also the arrangement of muscles on the jaw of this type of dog are extremely powerful.

Therefore Evie, the structure of the jaw IS CLEARLY different to that of a poodle or greyhound, thus disproving your statement above.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> I am not referring to any particular source, only that the reporting of these attacks in the press has diminished....which may in fact be an unfortunate sign of these desensitised times.
> Suffice to say, be safe in the knowledge that the current dog attacks aren't largely committed by your precious pitbullson account of them being correctly banned (even though i'm sure there is one around the corner form me).


 Well like I said, everything I have ever read indicates that dog attacks have increased since the ban and not decreased, therefore the law is flawed and ineffective. 
Irrespective of anyones opinion of any breed of dog, it seems silly to me to have a law that doesn't do what it is intended to do; protect the public.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> Incorrect. The strength of a dog's jaw is proportionate to the length of it. Therefore, GENERALLY (not always) the more snubby the muzzle, the stronger the bite (mastiffs having the strongest), allowing a greater amount of pressure for less effort. Also the arrangement of muscles on the jaw of this type of dog are extremely powerful.
> 
> Therefore Evie, the structure of the jaw IS CLEARLY different to that of a poodle or greyhound, thus disproving your statement above.


We are talking about pit bulls which don't have a particularly short muzzle - king charles spaniels, pekes and pugs have short muzzles and no big reputation for 'jaw locking'.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Evie said:


> Well like I said, everything I have ever read indicates that dog attacks have increased since the ban and not decreased, therefore the law is flawed and ineffective.
> Irrespective of anyones opinion of any breed of dog, it seems silly to me to have a law that doesn't do what it is intended to do; protect the public.


So what would you suggest in your infinite wisdom Evie? That we ban dogs altogether? Or allow anyone to have any dog?? Or breed some form of super killer dog machine that I'm sure is only misunderstood as it would naturally be the owners fault should anything go wrong???:whistling2:

I'm bored of this now as no person has actually managed to come up with a decent reason for allowing the keeping of pitbulls, or changing the law, or finding a workable solution to the problem. It's the same old story....folk are so willing to whinge about the state of things from behind the anonymity of their keyboards, but I'd like to see you try to convince the families of the victims about the virtues of cuddly sweet pitbulls.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Evie said:


> We are talking about pit bulls which don't have a particularly short muzzle - king charles spaniels, pekes and pugs have short muzzles and no big reputation for 'jaw locking'.


Durrrrr....i said generally. And i fear you are really clutching a pathetic straws now that you're trying to seriously compare pugs to an animal with the obvious power and weapons of a pitbull!

grow up woman...i'm done!


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> So what would you suggest in your infinite wisdom Evie? That we ban dogs altogether? Or allow anyone to have any dog?? Or breed some form of super killer dog machine that I'm sure is only misunderstood as it would naturally be the owners fault should anything go wrong???:whistling2:
> 
> I'm bored of this now as no person has actually managed to come up with a decent reason for allowing the keeping of pitbulls, or changing the law, or finding a workable solution to the problem. It's the same old story....folk are so willing to whinge about the state of things from behind the anonymity of their keyboards, but I'd like to see you try to convince the families of the victims about the virtues of cuddly sweet pitbulls.


Just for the record I don't and never have kept any kind of bull breed. 
I just think the law is flawed. 
My opinion is that anyone who keeps any kind of dog should have to attend a course and be deemed competent - a bit like learing to drive a car. The welfare of dogs and the safety of the public would be much improved if such a law was in place.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Chameleons are us said:


> That's true... I've heard the only way of getting them off is to actually kill them. Not a nice thought I suppose


Apparently what you need is a breaking stick / parting stick....
http://www.thejackrusselldogsite.com/breaking-up-a-dog-fight/ 

Have never had cause to own or use one myself, but I can understand the mechanics of it.



Evie said:


> My opinion is that anyone who keeps any kind of dog should have to attend a course and be deemed competent -


Absolutely. Not everyone - no matter how nice, or friendly - is suited to be a dog owner. Reference the Jack Russell I mentioned earlier....


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

I think Evie has made some good points. Let the families of the victims see how the dogs are trained, then let them come and see my Lenny (WHO ISN'T A PITBULL) and also some others in America ect..

At one point they were a key part of life hence the name pitbull.

It's like snakes.. Blood Pythons, ETB, GTP's are supposed to have aggresion in their blood but then you can find some really tame ones.
The truth is the average Jack Russell would probably go for you more than the standard Pit Bull would.
Take a army soldier and a pit bull - They have both been trained to kill. They are in command to the owner and will do anything the owner wants them to do.
In the midst of this, they are both loyal to their owners. They will protect the owner with every ounce of it's strength. 

I don't think a poodle or anything else like that would do that.
The Bull species are very loyal, my staffy follows us everywhere we go. That's loyalness, the Jack Russell would nip your toes.

I'm dealing with a lot of stereotype here but then again that's just what they did when adding them to the dangerous dogs list. They didn't take the time to think 'Some of them were tame, we shouldn't confiscate the ones that ARE dangerous, we should all just ban all of them'.


----------



## Mini_the_Minx (Jan 15, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Incorrect. The strength of a dog's jaw is proportionate to the length of it. Therefore, GENERALLY (not always) the more snubby the muzzle, the stronger the bite (mastiffs having the strongest), allowing a greater amount of pressure for less effort. Also the arrangement of muscles on the jaw of this type of dog are extremely powerful.
> 
> Therefore Evie, the structure of the jaw IS CLEARLY different to that of a poodle or greyhound, thus disproving your statement above.


You're also incorrect. The ability to lockjaw is caused by the muscle build and structure around the head. This is what creates a powerful bite.

If what you say were correct then Wolves, Huskeys, Malamutes and Hyena's would all have incredibly weak bits and Pug's would be the deadliest of biters.


----------



## Cleo27 (Jan 9, 2010)

The DDA is the actual worstest thing ever. Understatement of 2011

It's a stupid generalising law the goverment has put forward to try and calm the public and basically get them to shut up imo. It is the most irrelevant solotion to quite a big problem. 

I totally agree with Evie on this one, the amount of negativity that surrounds bull breeds such as the Staffie & Pit bull is just atrocious, they are a highly frowned apon breed in society which is bang out of order. I have just got a staffy pup and can honestly say from the bottom of my heart I've never ever met such a loyal, loving wee affectionate dog. 

Staffies are an amazing breed, they are one out of two breeds that are accredited by the Kennel Club as having a 'natural affinity with children' they aren't nicknamed the nanny dogs for nothing you know! 

I hate the fact that people just think that all 'staffy type and bull type dogs are vicious, bloodthirsty animals that will savage your children and other dogs. How wrong can they possibly be?!

One of the main reasons you hear of these particular breeds attacking others is a simple reason that any half decent and open minded person can think of- its not rocket science
- THERE IS MORE OF THESE DOGS THAN ANY OTHER BREED IN MOST AREAS. 
- THEY DEFINITELY ATTRACT THE WRONG TYPES OF OWNERS AT TIMES, PEOPLE WANTING A 'STATUS DOG' ETC. 
- THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY SOCIALISED, THEREFORE DOWN TO OWNERS POOR OWNERSHIP AND BEING TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

The DDA should be scrapped and this BSL nonsense also! It is a complete joke, no dog should be generalised- I would trust my staffy over any other breed, they are completely bombproof with kids as with the EBT and PitBull etc. 

People should just get off the breeds case and stop talking about stuff they don't know. All those myths about 'lockjaw' etc is a lot of :censor: There is no such thing - it just so happens staffies have been bred through generations to have a large amount of muscle mass in their heads, for the job they once performed.

Anybody have anything else to say about this breed come have a look at all the responsible people with Staffies and 'Pit Bull Types' and then see what you have to say ! 




RANT OVER 
for now lmao


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

'Locking jaws' is a myth. As stated by some members previously, yes jaw structure can be different physiologically between different breeds in regards to the overall perspective, but the actual ability to have a 'locking' mechanism is simply not true. The combination of a certain jaw structure and type of muzzle teamed with a degree of determination among some dogs in some breeds is misinterpreted as an inherent physiological ability to 'lock' a bite onto something irrespective of behaviour.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> I'm not saying that any of these dogs can't make lovely pets in the right hands, nor am I saying that all dog attacks are perpetrated by pitbulls or the like, but back in the 90's there was a new attack almost every week and the government were forced to act. Who were they forced by? The general population of the UK (not the members of RFUK)....the terrified parents and worried OAP's. If you were to survey the public about pitbulls, I guarantee the vast majority would be in full support of the ban. Nor can you disagree that the number of serious dog attacks has been dramatically reduced since the introduction of the DDA.
> 
> Of course it was largely the fault of irresponsible ownership, but if you are to allow any reliable people the privilege of owning these dogs, then you must also allow Skanky Pikey Pete to keep his no doubt heavily scarred dog on his dodgy caravan site in deepest Salford.....otherwise how would you police the situation?
> 
> So, in summation I am in full support of the ban on pitbulls for the REDUCTION (N.B. not the complete end) of dog attacks, and the DECREASE (not complete cessation) of dog fighting. More's the point, I believe that any animal lover should also be in support of the ban for the same reasons.


Because people are thick enough to believe what they read in the papers. They think the ONLY dog attacks are by banned breeds or bull breeds, which is untrue. The only ones that make the papers are! 

I'll be honest, I've been petrified of bull breeds since I was a child, rotties even more so, mainly because of what I read in the paper and saw on the TV. With regards rotties, that was due to personal experience with a neighbour's dog who used to jump up and snap over our wall as we walked down our private snicket.

Recently, I've come to see that bull breeds are beautiful loving dogs just like any other when raised in good homes and cared for. The vast majority in rescues wont have any problems either, but they WILL die because of ignorant opinions like yours.



mrcriss said:


> Evie, I don't know if you were alive/concious in the 90's, but there was a new case of severe attack practically every week. I hardly need to spout statistics, because there are clearly not as many attacks reported in the papers, maybe 2 or 3 a year.
> 
> And as for your ridiculous second point....the majority of pitbull owners may have been numpties, but I'm sure the fact that they have one of the most powerful bites coupled with the *ability to lockjaw* and generally rip humans to pieces means that these dogs can also be classed as a danger, regardless of their upbringing/temperament.


My bold. Your myth. No such thing as a locking jaw. Powerful, yes. But your theory about the shorter the muzzle the more damage can be done is flawed. Ever been bitten by a boxer? 90% slobber, very little actual bite.

Do you read the daily mail by any chance? You sound like you do...: victory:


----------



## Evilshiddenclaws (May 25, 2010)

deed not breed!

every single breed of dog has a set of teeth and every single individual of a breed is more than capable of causing physical damage to humans if thats how they are brought up. 

the only difference is the power behind certain breeds... if a german shepherd decides to bite you, you can have some serious damage and the same goes for more powerful breeds, but you think of a little terrier or poodle, which can often be much more aggressive (just with less power) which would you be more scared of??

personally i would put border terriers and jack russells on the DDA but thats through my own personal experience.

i like pit bulls they are a lovely breed and are vastly misunderstood, but regardless of upbringing they were originally bred for fighting, which makes them more susceptible to aggressive or dangerous behaviour as a breed (not as individuals), and with humans being so stupid, what hope do they have?


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

So true, I happen to have been working in journalism for nearly nine years now and there is the indubitable fact that the only stories that make the news are those that are newsworthy and satisfy the imperatives that will sell papers. When it comes to dog attacks and similar events, it is highly unlikely that a story involving say a spaniel biting an old lady is going to make news, because this is something that is unlikely to evoke any form of panic or adhere to any continuity through previous news. As contrived and forced as it may seem, news stories almost always follow a formula and a pattern and it just so happens that in the case of 'dangerous dogs' that panic has been firmly established as large, nearly always bull breed dogs that are seemingly innately aggressive and terrorising society. Those who are fortunate to own such breed are generally those that would argue otherwise and try to emphasise how it is not the breed in question that is to blame, but the social conditions and the behaviour of certain owners that make it the issue it has become today, and a primary factor within the whole saga is the media and its ability to present certain breeds as being inherently bad, when in reality most people with a degree of sense and knowledge understand that it is not the breed in question but circumstances - more often those dictated by irresponsible owners - that dictate how a dog acts and essentially is responsible for any negative behaviour. But this isn't newsworthy is it. There is nothing newsworthy about an analysis of dogs' behaviour or a report into the misrepresentation of certain breeds. Of course not. What _is_ news is a child being mauled by a black and tan drooling bloodthirsty beast that had no motive other than to simply kill and cause terror. What is newsworthy is a 'banned' breed that is being bred illegally and irresponsibly in council estates, waiting to escape and maim innocent bystanders. Bull breeds fit the bill for this moral panic - they are, by all accounts to some objective bystanders, not the most appealing looking of dogs; they have a dodgy (media constructed) history and notoriety and they are seemingly responsible for more and more attacks - only this is what is being reported by the media; the media who largely under-reported one of the most 'famous' instances of dog attacks - that being the woman who was the recipient of the world's first partial face transplant after being attacked by her pet Labrador. Without going into the ins and outs of the event - this was something that was predominantly ignored by the press, which is unlikely to be the case had the dog in question been a Rottweiler or bull breed. 

This is a rant and I apologise for that, but the sooner people realise that the media have the power and ability to construct and catalyse public fear and (mis)understanding purely through the construction and dominant reporting (and indeed mis-reporting) of certain instances, the better.


----------



## Cleo27 (Jan 9, 2010)

pippainnit said:


> So true, I happen to have been working in journalism for nearly nine years now and there is the indubitable fact that the only stories that make the news are those that are newsworthy and satisfy the imperatives that will sell papers. When it comes to dog attacks and similar events, it is highly unlikely that a story involving say a spaniel biting an old lady is going to make news, because this is something that is unlikely to evoke any form of panic or adhere to any continuity through previous news. As contrived and forced as it may seem, news stories almost always follow a formula and a pattern and it just so happens that in the case of 'dangerous dogs' that panic has been firmly established as large, nearly always bull breed dogs that are seemingly innately aggressive and terrorising society. Those who are fortunate to own such breed are generally those that would argue otherwise and try to emphasise how it is not the breed in question that is to blame, but the social conditions and the behaviour of certain owners that make it the issue it has become today, and a primary factor within the whole saga is the media and its ability to present certain breeds as being inherently bad, when in reality most people with a degree of sense and knowledge understand that it is not the breed in question but circumstances - more often those dictated by irresponsible owners - that dictate how a dog acts and essentially is responsible for any negative behaviour. But this isn't newsworthy is it. There is nothing newsworthy about an analysis of dogs' behaviour or a report into the misrepresentation of certain breeds. Of course not. What _is_ news is a child being mauled by a black and tan drooling bloodthirsty beast that had no motive other than to simply kill and cause terror. What is newsworthy is a 'banned' breed that is being bred illegally and irresponsibly in council estates, waiting to escape and maim innocent bystanders. Bull breeds fit the bill for this moral panic - they are, by all accounts to some objective bystanders, not the most appealing looking of dogs; they have a dodgy (media constructed) history and notoriety and they are seemingly responsible for more and more attacks - only this is what is being reported by the media; the media who largely under-reported one of the most 'famous' instances of dog attacks - that being the *woman who was the recipient of the world's first partial face transplant after being attacked by her pet Labrador.* Without going into the ins and outs of the event - this was something that was predominantly ignored by the press, which is unlikely to be the case had the dog in question been a Rottweiler or bull breed.
> 
> This is a rant and I apologise for that, but the sooner people realise that the media have the power and ability to construct and catalyse public fear and (mis)understanding purely through the construction and dominant reporting (and indeed mis-reporting) of certain instances, the better.



*^^ This!*


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

:no1::no1::no1:

Excellent post Pippainnit.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

pippainnit said:


> So true, I happen to have been working in journalism for nearly nine years now and there is the indubitable fact that the only stories that make the news are those that are newsworthy and satisfy the imperatives that will sell papers. When it comes to dog attacks and similar events, it is highly unlikely that a story involving say a spaniel biting an old lady is going to make news, because this is something that is unlikely to evoke any form of panic or adhere to any continuity through previous news. As contrived and forced as it may seem, news stories almost always follow a formula and a pattern and it just so happens that in the case of 'dangerous dogs' that panic has been firmly established as large, nearly always bull breed dogs that are seemingly innately aggressive and terrorising society. Those who are fortunate to own such breed are generally those that would argue otherwise and try to emphasise how it is not the breed in question that is to blame, but the social conditions and the behaviour of certain owners that make it the issue it has become today, and a primary factor within the whole saga is the media and its ability to present certain breeds as being inherently bad, when in reality most people with a degree of sense and knowledge understand that it is not the breed in question but circumstances - more often those dictated by irresponsible owners - that dictate how a dog acts and essentially is responsible for any negative behaviour. But this isn't newsworthy is it. There is nothing newsworthy about an analysis of dogs' behaviour or a report into the misrepresentation of certain breeds. Of course not. What _is_ news is a child being mauled by a black and tan drooling bloodthirsty beast that had no motive other than to simply kill and cause terror. What is newsworthy is a 'banned' breed that is being bred illegally and irresponsibly in council estates, waiting to escape and maim innocent bystanders. Bull breeds fit the bill for this moral panic - they are, by all accounts to some objective bystanders, not the most appealing looking of dogs; they have a dodgy (media constructed) history and notoriety and they are seemingly responsible for more and more attacks - only this is what is being reported by the media; the media who largely under-reported one of the most 'famous' instances of dog attacks - that being the woman who was the recipient of the world's first partial face transplant after being attacked by her pet Labrador. Without going into the ins and outs of the event - this was something that was predominantly ignored by the press, which is unlikely to be the case had the dog in question been a Rottweiler or bull breed.
> 
> This is a rant and I apologise for that, but the sooner people realise that the media have the power and ability to construct and catalyse public fear and (mis)understanding purely through the construction and dominant reporting (and indeed mis-reporting) of certain instances, the better.


100% accurate! :2thumb:

And you can add onto the end of that first paragraph "*or German Shepherd*" because they always make the bad news press too! :sad:


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I was bitten by a cat when I was a kid. Didn't make the papers. Hurt though.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Nope - sadly cats aren't big and scary enough, although they can inflict a canny bit of damage!


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Nice to see so many in my favour  thanks guys


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Nice to see so many in my favour  thanks guys


Yeah, good luck with changing that law then!:2thumb:
I'm sure a Saturday night spent whinging on an anonymous forum is going to go a long way towards revoking a law that was put in place to protect the public from a subsection of society with vicious dogs. Bravo!

I however, shall sleep soundly in my bed knowing that there is less of a chance that my nieces will get their faces ripped off by pitbulls


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Yeah, good luck with changing that law then!:2thumb:
> I'm sure a Saturday night spent whinging on an anonymous forum is going to go a long way towards revoking a law that was put in place to protect the public from a subsection of society with vicious dogs. Bravo!
> 
> I however, shall sleep soundly in my bed knowing that there is less of a chance that my nieces will get their faces ripped off by pitbulls


Pretty shallow minded I must say. You need to get your face ripped off by something. Oh wait, you've painted your face up like a victim or most probably you've double crossed the wrong guy and he's beaten you up. That's whats probably happened. Sleep soundly in your bed then. This was a civilised thread before you posted that comment


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Pretty shallow minded I must say. You need to get your face ripped off by something. Oh wait, you've painted your face up like a victim or most probably you've double crossed the wrong guy and he's beaten you up. That's whats probably happened. Sleep soundly in your bed then. This was a civilised thread before you posted that comment


ah, well there's no need to get personal...that is, after all, a little childish n'est ce pas? I think the civility of the thread was reduced to base level when a certain lady attempted to pronounce me "thick", don't you? I'm sure the string of letters after my name would disagree with that particular statement.

I merely implied that if you wish to get this piece of legislation abolished, then maybe your time would be better spent writing to the PM (for all the good that would do) rather than twittering on about how hard done by the cute little murderous (let's face it, they have murdered...fact) puppies are on this forum, a thread that has altered nothing (apart from maybe your dignity when it came to your last message). My mind is neither shallow, nor unreceptive to new ideas, but you have to admit (as was my original point all those hours ago) that by removing the aggressor, there is a reduced chance of injury with possibly fatal consequences.

I had no doubt (until your last message) that you might make a wonderful owner for a pitbull, but the fact is, that many aren't and the policing of suitable owners from the other scum would be nigh on impossible (not to say costly at the unwilling taxpayers expense). I am, therefore, merely putting forward level headed and reasonable arguements....a devil's advocate if you will.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> This was a civilised thread before you posted that comment


Just saw this bit....very amusing.

"Civilised" in that people were agreeing with you? Can't you take a little bit of healthy debate? You're going to have to if you want your precious pitbulls back, sir.


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Just saw this bit....very amusing.
> 
> "Civilised" in that people were agreeing with you? Can't you take a little bit of healthy debate? You're going to have to if you want your precious pitbulls back, sir.


Yes until you said something about your neices faces being ripped off by a pitbull? It also states in the title of the thread 'if you have another opinion use them elsewhere or keep them to yourself'. Now keep your healthy debate subjects elsewhere and stop arguing with us.


----------



## Cleo27 (Jan 9, 2010)

"mrcriss""
I think you really need to open up your eyes and see the breed for what it truly is. Yeah there may be a few dogs that have been involved in incidents, but hey, what breed hasn't?! A pitbull is no different to any other breed- wether its a chihuahua or a great dane, they are all canines- they have just been bred for certain characteristics.

I respect your oppinion.
I do, however, disagree completely !


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> It also states in the title of the thread 'if you have another opinion use them elsewhere or keep them to yourself'. Now keep your healthy debate subjects elsewhere and stop arguing with us.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can't post on a public forum and expect everyone to agree with you! By it's very definition, a forum is an assembly for open discussion. That's has really tickled me. "It's ok for you to express your views, so long as they're the same as mine"...priceless!

Oh, and to the other lady, I've never heard of death by bichon frise:Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Cleo27 (Jan 9, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can't post on a public forum and expect everyone to agree with you! By it's very definition, a forum is an assembly for open discussion. That's has really tickled me. "It's ok for you to express your views, so long as they're the same as mine"...priceless!
> 
> *Oh, and to the other lady, I've never heard of death by bichon frise*:Na_Na_Na_Na:


I

If this is aimed at me;
May not have 'death by bichon' but I bet theres a good few bites from a bichon. & btw- dogs dont just bite for nothin!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Cleo27 said:


> dogs dont just bite for nothin!


my dear, i never said they did. I completely agree that the whole sorry business is largely to do with the owner. But if you go back to the beginning, you'll see my original point. A nutter without a gun is a nutter we don't have to worry about. A chav that trains dogs to be aggressive is not dangerous if he doesn't have the dog in the first place....and you cannot deny that a pitbull (unfortunately the chav's dog of choice) has the goods to do some serious damage to a person.....much more, i assume, than a bichon frise for example.

That is why i reluctantly support the banning of this animal as it is often used as a weapon......(christ, i can't believe i'm writing this again.)


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Mrcriss, i respect your opinion too, you just came across as absent minded or arrogant. Please do not mock me though if i come across as stupid because im not. Im a straight a student


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Mrcriss, i respect your opinion too, you just came across as absent minded or arrogant. Please do not mock me though if i come across as stupid because im not. Im a straight a student


....and obviously still quite young. You clearly don't respect my opinion... firstly you chose to get personal (which only serves to highlight your immaturity), and secondly said you didn't want to hear any opinions that didn't concur with your own!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

But that's ok....I don't care a fig if you respect my opinion. Such is the nature of debate, which is really only a more civilised term for arguement


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

And that is my cue to sleep as I have been awake since 5am.


----------



## ryanr1987 (Mar 7, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> Evie, I don't know if you were alive/concious in the 90's, but there was a new case of severe attack practically every week. I hardly need to spout statistics, because there are clearly not as many attacks reported in the papers, maybe 2 or 3 a year.
> 
> And as for your ridiculous second point....the majority of pitbull owners may have been numpties, *but I'm sure the fact that they have one of the most powerful bites coupled with the ability to lockjaw and generally rip humans to pieces means that these dogs can also be classed as a danger, regardless of their upbringing/temperament.*


in terms of actual bite force pitbulls are actually not much more powerful then breeds such as huskies but they never let go as they have that will to hold on they are relentless biters no lock jaw. German shepherds,rotties, malamutes akitas and so on are more powerful biters then apbts.


feorag said:


> 100% accurate! :2thumb:
> 
> And you can add onto the end of that first paragraph "*or German Shepherd*" because they always make the bad news press too! :sad:


 sadly gsds get a lot press but many are bred by poor lines so many certainly seem to be very snappy or nervous aggressive. but they are also extremely protective aren't they so i put a lot down to the owners. most gsds i have seen have been probably 50/50 in terms of temperament which does not surprise me as these dogs are notorious for back yard breedings. How is your boy doing? sammy has improved a lot we can actually walk her pass many dogs without her usual lunging she is still very jumpy but she is getting there bless her we have also notice a huge improvement with people but soon as they get closer to her and try talking to her or try to touch her she gives them the warning.


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

mrcriss said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can't post on a public forum and expect everyone to agree with you! By it's very definition, a forum is an assembly for open discussion. That's has really tickled me. "It's ok for you to express your views, so long as they're the same as mine"...priceless!
> 
> Oh, and to the other lady, I've never heard of death by bichon frise:Na_Na_Na_Na:


what about a pom?
Pomeranian Kills 6-Week-Old Girl

pitbulls were bred for dog agression , not human agression. your entitled to an opinion but you seriously need to actually know the facts before you spout this anti bull breed nonsense. most of the bites seen in hospitals are done by spaniels or labs , yet its never in the paper....just wouldnt make good news


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

I dislike Pit Bulls & Pit types profusely! In the street I live in, these are all you see dog-wise, with the typical swaggering thug on the other end of the enormous chain that could be used to tether an elephant! Thats on the rare occasions that these dogs are on a lead! This makes walking 2 Chihuahuas, a Boston Terrier & an elderly Jack Russell Terrier pretty stressful & you are always on the lookout for one of these dogs appearing from round a corner. A male Pit was siezed by police late last year, from a house a few houses away from us, along with a bitch & 10 puppies.

Plus I have been attacked by a Pit type, whilst working at the RSPCA. It was found roaming the streets, & while I held its collar in the kennel block, it lept up, bit my hand & tried to rag it. Thankfully I lifted the beast clean off the ground by its collar, choking it & threw it into its kennel.

They are one dog I hate seeing on the park when walking my dogs (Staffys too)


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

Zoo-Man said:


> I dislike Pit Bulls & Pit types profusely! In the street I live in, these are all you see dog-wise, with the typical swaggering thug on the other end of the enormous chain that could be used to tether an elephant! Thats on the rare occasions that these dogs are on a lead! This makes walking 2 Chihuahuas, a Boston Terrier & an elderly Jack Russell Terrier pretty stressful & you are always on the lookout for one of these dogs appearing from round a corner. A male Pit was siezed by police late last year, from a house a few houses away from us, along with a bitch & 10 puppies.
> 
> Plus I have been attacked by a Pit type, whilst working at the RSPCA. It was found roaming the streets, & while I held its collar in the kennel block, it lept up, bit my hand & tried to rag it. Thankfully I lifted the beast clean off the ground by its collar, choking it & threw it into its kennel.
> 
> They are one dog I hate seeing on the park when walking my dogs (Staffys too)


hate the "owners" mate, i have a staffy cross and hes not a status symbol or allowed to be a nuisance to others, and there others who also control their bull breed dogs


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

ami_j said:


> hate the "owners" mate, i have a staffy cross and hes not a status symbol or allowed to be a nuisance to others, and there others who also control their bull breed dogs


Oh I know its mainly down to the owners hun, but I just don't trust these dogs around my dogs, unless I know them! There is one nice staffy bitch who goes on our local park to play ball with her owner. Lolly chased her off the other day, when the Staffy came for a sniff. :lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

This is my last communication on this thread as it is getting tedious and all too bleeding-heart for me and i grow weary of debating with ill-informed children. I hope it clears up an earlier point.

"Bite pressures:

Turkish Kangal was 714 lbs
Mastiff (test dog was a Dogue de Bordeaux) was 556 lbs
Wolf bite force was 406
Rottweiler bite force was 328 lbs 
Wild dogs bit force was 317 lbs 
Bulldog bite was 305 lbs 
Pitbull pressure bite was 238 lbs 
German Shepherd bite was 235 lbs (taken at the back of the jaw, the front was 170 lbs.)

Contrary to popular culture, the dog's jaw has a lot to tell about its bite force. The wider the jaw, the stronger the bite. Consequently, the Bulldog (305 lb) has a stronger bite than the German Shepherd (235 lb).
As we enter into the larger breeds with shorter snouts (called brachycephalic molossoid types), we find the strongest among the canine breeds. Simply put, the jaws are wider and stronger in dogs with broad heads."


This was taken from a published article which goes on to say the last point is a GENERAL RULE OF THUMB. Of course, no facts are infallible, but I hope this puts an end to all those wild statements and guff made last night about chihuahua attacks and such like.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> i grow weary of debating with ill-informed children.


and before you all get stressed and pipe up about this comment, you know exactly which ones you are:Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Interesting that your quote shows that, of the dogs *tested* pit bulls had the second-weakest bite pressure


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> Interesting that your quote shows that, of the dogs *tested* pit bulls had the second-weakest bite pressure


........ and Turkish Kangol dogs don't have a particularly short muzzle.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> ah, well there's no need to get personal...that is, after all, a little childish n'est ce pas? I think the civility of the thread was reduced to base level when a certain lady attempted to pronounce me "thick", don't you? I'm sure the string of letters after my name would disagree with that particular statement.
> 
> I merely implied that if you wish to get this piece of legislation abolished, then maybe your time would be better spent writing to the PM (for all the good that would do) rather than twittering on about how hard done by the cute little murderous (let's face it, they have murdered...fact) puppies are on this forum, a thread that has altered nothing (apart from maybe your dignity when it came to your last message). My mind is neither shallow, nor unreceptive to new ideas, but you have to admit (as was my original point all those hours ago) that by removing the aggressor, there is a reduced chance of injury with possibly fatal consequences.
> 
> I had no doubt (until your last message) that you might make a wonderful owner for a pitbull, but the fact is, that many aren't and the policing of suitable owners from the other scum would be nigh on impossible (not to say costly at the unwilling taxpayers expense). I am, therefore, merely putting forward level headed and reasonable arguements....a devil's advocate if you will.


Letters after your name dont really mean anything when you're ignorant. For example, do we prosecute the gun when someone shoots someone? There are no "murderous" dogs, perhaps if you had less tendency to be an ignorant drama queen in your posts, people might respect your opinion.



mrcriss said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can't post on a public forum and expect everyone to agree with you! By it's very definition, a forum is an assembly for open discussion. That's has really tickled me. "It's ok for you to express your views, so long as they're the same as mine"...priceless!
> 
> Oh, and to the other lady, I've never heard of death by bichon frise:Na_Na_Na_Na:


Oh yes, letters after your name. Make your posts much more...adult, dont they? On an intellectual note, see the mention of pomeranian death. Excuse me if I dont laugh insanely in my post to make my point.



mrcriss said:


> That is why i reluctantly support the banning of this animal as it is often used as a weapon......(christ, i can't believe i'm writing this again.)


There's nothing "reluctant" about your posts.



mrcriss said:


> ....and obviously still quite young. You clearly don't respect my opinion... firstly you chose to get personal (which only serves to highlight your immaturity), and secondly said you didn't want to hear any opinions that didn't concur with your own!


TBH, out of everyone on this thread, it's you who makes me think "teen, on his school holidays". Your facts are wrong, your attitude is wrong, it's as if you thought "career choice: internet troll" today.



Zoo-Man said:


> I dislike Pit Bulls & Pit types profusely! In the street I live in, these are all you see dog-wise, with the typical swaggering thug on the other end of the enormous chain that could be used to tether an elephant! Thats on the rare occasions that these dogs are on a lead! This makes walking 2 Chihuahuas, a Boston Terrier & an elderly Jack Russell Terrier pretty stressful & you are always on the lookout for one of these dogs appearing from round a corner. A male Pit was siezed by police late last year, from a house a few houses away from us, along with a bitch & 10 puppies.
> 
> Plus I have been attacked by a Pit type, whilst working at the RSPCA. It was found roaming the streets, & while I held its collar in the kennel block, it lept up, bit my hand & tried to rag it. Thankfully I lifted the beast clean off the ground by its collar, choking it & threw it into its kennel.
> 
> They are one dog I hate seeing on the park when walking my dogs (Staffys too)


Zoodude, I love you but....how do you know they're pitbulls? There are very few genuine pitbulls left about, what we are all harping on about are mongrels made to look like them. Bred irresponsibly, raised irresponsibly, to be faux...pseudo...pitbulls. Is it fair to ban a breed possibly entirely unrelated for the actions of the look-a-likes?

And the words "pit type" really do prove you worked for the RSPCA, seeing as they're as bad as the police for accusing and killing the innocent. By their own definition, my old lurcher was more than a bit pit bull, my pedigree great dane too.



mrcriss said:


> This is my last communication on this thread as it is getting tedious and all too bleeding-heart for me and i grow weary of debating with ill-informed children. I hope it clears up an earlier point.
> 
> "Bite pressures:
> 
> ...


As someone else said, it's interesting that pitbulls came out second lowest. And some of those above it are not banned...

Now perhaps the adults could get back to acting like them, instead of melodramatics and chest puffing about how wonderful they are...


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Ssthisto said:


> Interesting that your quote shows that, of the dogs *tested* pit bulls had the second-weakest bite pressure


HAHAHA....brilliant! i knew that someone clutching at tiny ineffectual straws would try to pick up on that.

The fact is, they may not be top in terms of pressure, but there are hundreds of breeds below them! I was making the point to other folk whining about chihuahuas, german shepherds, huskies and such like.

However, the obvious and undeniable bite power of the pitbull, COUPLED with the obvious and undeniable tendancy to have a quick temper that can turn on a knife edge (surely you can't argue that), makes this breed a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. And my arguement was (please don't make me say it again) that if you ban one person from keeping them, you have to ban all people from keeping them...otherwise the problem could never be managed!

Maybe those truly dedicated to keeping pitbulls would like to do so on the DWA license and follow all the rules that come with that (i.e. keeping them in enclosed surroundings on your own property), so that the VAST MAJORITY of the British public (which DO support the DDA) can continue to live in a pitbull free environment.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

And to Lisa, there really is no need for that...personal attacks when mentioning someone by name lacks nobility.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Crikey. No words for how ignorant you are.

DDA didnt help this dog did it? Because it wasn't a flipping "pitbull". DDA doesn't fix anything, just makes them even more "cool" for the inbreeds who are abusing them and turning them into these killers.

Attitudes like yours (lets face it, you're the perfect media viewer, easily led, sheep, naive) wont save any lives. Only end more.

It's not the dog that killed this animal. It's the idiot who bought it, raised it poorly, didn't socialise it, didn't train it, then let it off lead KNOWING it was not good with other dogs.

Banning the dog will REALLY help that, wont it. You dont think they'll move onto another legal breed...and another....and another...and it wont be til they start on your favourite breed that you say..hang on, this isn't right.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

LisaLQ said:


> Oh yes, letters after your name. Make your posts much more...adult, dont they? On an intellectual note, see the mention of pomeranian death. Excuse me if I dont laugh insanely in my post to make my point.
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing "reluctant" about your posts.


the first was sarcasm dear.

and to the second, I believe that banning things willy nilly is taking the freedo of choice away from the british public....never a good thing. But I support the ban as i don't believe that a large sector of the public are mature enough to own a breed such as the pitbull.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

mrcriss said:


> And to Lisa, there really is no need for that...personal attacks when mentioning someone by name lacks nobility.


Personal attacks? Have you even READ your posts?:lol2:
I have never claimed to be noble, besides, I'm just a lowly human, no letters after MY name (although I will have some soon - they dont mean that I'm any more "right" than anyone else).

My vet has letters after his name, he still cant sex a rat. My GP has letters after his name, and yet when it comes to women's health and diabetes, he's got it wrong on multiple occasions. Letters mean nothing, especially when they're flaunted along side posts filled with fake "facts" and capital letter laughing.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

LisaLQ said:


> It's not the dog that killed this animal. It's the idiot who bought it, raised it poorly, didn't socialise it, didn't train it, then let it off lead KNOWING it was not good with other dogs.


I agree dear, you'll get no arguement from me on that. Maybe instead of shooting off insults, you take a little more time to calmly read my points


I must go now, fascinating though it is chatting away here to Lisa, I have animals to feed and sh:censor: to pick up.

kisses


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> HAHAHA....brilliant! i knew that someone clutching at tiny ineffectual straws would try to pick up on that.
> 
> The fact is, they may not be top in terms of pressure, but there are hundreds of breeds below them! I was making the point to other folk whining about chihuahuas, german shepherds, huskies and such like.
> 
> ...


The point is that there is no evidence that dog attacks have decreased since the DDA came into place (unless you can share your sources?). 
It doesn't work, it doesn't keep you safe; and if you think it does than you are very sadly deluded.
Every time you ban a breed, another will step up and take it's place in the world of morons who want to keep intimidating dogs.The legislation is expensive and unworkable because the breed of dog has to be established one way or another, and those enforcing the law often don't know what a pit bull looks like. This leads to the persecution of any medium sized cross breed that someone thinks might be of 'type'.
It also puts rescue centres in a difficult situation when rehoming nondescript mongrel puppies: Technically they can be prosecuted for passing on a banned breed.
Whether you love these dogs or hate them, the law serves neither party.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I'm perfectly calm "dear", if you think I'm even the littlest bit irked by a teenager with a big head, you're sadly mistaken.

Did any of that poop fall out of your mouth when you were talking? Here - wear this *passes a gag*.

Now folks, anyone with some real intelligence want to continue talking about positive ways forward, education etc?


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

LisaLQ said:


> I have never claimed to be noble


"Nobility"....meaning class and sophistication my dear


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

mrcriss said:


> HAHAHA....brilliant! i knew that someone clutching at tiny ineffectual straws would try to pick up on that.


It's not "clutching at straws" if your quote doesn't actually support the point you're trying to make it do.



> The fact is, they may not be top in terms of pressure, but there are hundreds of breeds below them! I was making the point to other folk whining about chihuahuas, german shepherds, huskies and such like.


Note that the pit bull tested was a mere 5 PSI higher than the German Shepherd. *chuckle* I've had my nose broken by a GSD, haven't had any damage from the APBTs I've been around.

That said, I think the problem with *small* dogs is the following:

1. Some people underestimate their destructive capabilities because they're small.
2. Some people trust small dogs with their children because they're small.
3. Some people do not bother instilling basic obedience training in a small dog because it's easier to pick it up if it misbehaves instead of actually teaching it to behave in the first place.
4. Some people think it's "cute" when a small dog nips hands or jumps up with teeth flashing towards a face... and "aww, isn't it cute how Jack rags his toys..." 
5. Some people with small dogs don't seem to understand that their small dog is still a DOG and still has dog behaviours ... and that they need to learn how to read those behaviours.

Jack can also rag your toddler's hands the same way, and if Jack hasn't been taught not to jump at faces, Jack might get a child in the face, too. PSI and breed don't matter a darn bit if the dog's got hold of your nose, or a cheek, or your ear - any breed (or cross, or mongrel) has canine teeth to grab and hold, and can shake its head to tear. 



> However, the obvious and undeniable bite power of the pitbull, COUPLED with the obvious and undeniable tendancy to have a quick temper that can turn on a knife edge (surely you can't argue that)


Actually, a REAL American Pit Bull Terrier should *not* have a quick temper at all. 

Now, that doesn't mean "dogs of pit bull type" don't have quick tempers and can't turn on a knife's edge (and I am not arguing that badly bred mongrel half-ass pseudo-pitbull guard-and-weapon status dogs are not potentially dangerous) - that means "APBTs are not supposed to turn on humans." For what they were bred for, a dog that turned on a human when the human broke up the fight would not be allowed to continue in the gene pool - the aggression was very, very carefully managed to be animal-specific aggression.



> Maybe those truly dedicated to keeping pitbulls would like to do so on the DWA license


Problem is that _Canis lupus familiaris_ is not a DWA species and is not regulated by those laws in any way, shape or form - and if they added the species to the DWA, you'd have to have a DWA licence to keep ANY dog of ANY breed.... sort of the reverse of the problem you mentioned of "if you let some people keep, you have to let all people keep".


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

LisaLQ said:


> a teenager


That has made my day, and I shall now step out with a spring in my step, in spite of my aching old bones. Many thanks xxxx


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Excuse me if I just say that based on your behaviour and rather creepy photo.

In return, I'll allow you to assume I'm a beautiful little rat. A beautiful little sophistamacated nobilifried rat.


----------



## Moodie (Aug 3, 2008)

I agree that its a shame they're banned and they can be fantastic dogs in the right hands but how can you control who owns them? Answer is you cant, which means if the ban were lifted there would be a massive influx of the wrong kind of people buying them to show off or act hard or whatever. And the sad thing is if this happened, there would be hundreds of them needing to be rehomed after the novelty value wore off.
In my opinion, there are so many very similar bull terrier breeds, that we simply do not need pits. You can have the same qualities in a dog thats not banned.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I agree that I dont think the ban should be lifted. For their own safety.

But I do think it's high time we brought back a dog license and started a capability test, to stop these thick chavs getting their hands on ANY dog, regardless of breed.

I certainly dont think we need to add any more breeds though. They want a status dog and what's "harder" than a banned breed? 

The facts are that our country is filling up with a dangerous breed, and it's not a staffy, or a pitbull, or an akita. It's chavs - illiterate, thick as pigpoo, ignorant CHAVs.

The sooner we have a ban on those breeding the better.


----------



## Evilshiddenclaws (May 25, 2010)

LisaLQ said:


> I agree that I dont think the ban should be lifted. For their own safety.
> 
> But I do think it's high time we brought back a dog license and started a capability test, to stop these thick chavs getting their hands on ANY dog, regardless of breed.
> 
> ...


i agree completely. careful though, you'll get called nasty names like i did when i voiced my opinion.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I've already got a few, I'm a tough old trout, there's not much can hurt me any more lol.

I think we should trap them like feral cats. Stick a WKD in one of those humane traps, tranquilliser dart them, then chop off their nads.


----------



## Moodie (Aug 3, 2008)

Loving this, Lisa for PM!!!! 

Sad thing is there is no practical way to stop chavs owning dogs they cant control. Even with licencing. They can still get hold of pits and they just run the risk of getting caught, so I dont think they'd give a rats ass about getting a licence.
I see it round here all the time. Some chavy middle aged woman will buy her kids a puppy staff, then after the first few weeks, the garden is covered in dog turd, and the dog is locked out in the garden because they cant be bothered to train or exercise it, so it drives them mad when they're in the house.


----------



## Mini_the_Minx (Jan 15, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> HAHAHA....brilliant! i knew that someone clutching at tiny ineffectual straws would try to pick up on that.
> 
> The fact is, they may not be top in terms of pressure, but there are hundreds of breeds below them! I was making the point to other folk whining about chihuahuas, german shepherds, huskies and such like.
> 
> ...


Do you have any facts to support that comment? Or are you simply quoting what you have read in the Daily Mail? Generalising a single breed of dogs temper is like trying to generalise a group of people, it can't be done and in the human World you would be branded as being discriminative and racist. Although in the canine World that type of discrimination by narrow minded and poorly informed people seems perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Evilshiddenclaws (May 25, 2010)

LisaLQ said:


> I've already got a few, I'm a tough old trout, there's not much can hurt me any more lol.
> 
> I think we should trap them like feral cats. Stick a WKD in one of those humane traps, tranquilliser dart them, then chop off their nads.


haha if only


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Sirlinda Hayes was working in her garden as she did every day, tending turnips and collard greens on a small plot outside her modest one-story home. Moments later she was dead, mauled by two neighborhood dogs that had gotten loose many times before but had not acted aggressively toward humans.
"Never had no trouble," Nijoku Odom, Hayes' nephew, told The Associated Press on Friday, a day after his aunt was attacked. "They've gotten loose before – anybody could tell them go on back home and everything. We call the owner and he'll come get them without any problem."
Hayes, 66, died from the attack in her yard in Dillon, a small city about 100 miles northeast of Columbia, said Capt. Cliff Arnette, spokesman for the Dillon County Sheriff's Department. It was not clear what might have provoked the pair of Rottweilers.
They belonged to a neighbor, who came over to help as Hayes lay bleeding, Arnette said. They turned on him too, biting him and causing injuries so severe he was still hospitalized Friday afternoon.
Arnette did not release the owner's name but did say that he has not been charged in the incident.
The dogs would not let emergency responders near Hayes or their owner. Deputies finally shot both of the animals, which were carted off by animal control.
Animal control officials removed two other adult dogs and one puppy from the owner's home late Thursday. County officials must decide if they will be put up for adoption or euthanized.
Authorities said they had received no formal complaints about the animals, but a woman who lives nearby says she believes the pair killed her dog earlier this week.
Georgia Thomas, who runs a florist shop in Dillon, said she was in the middle of the Valentine's Day rush Monday when her husband called to say their German shepherd puppy had been found dead.

Thomas said she then alerted neighbors and an animal control officer who lives in the neighborhood, but opted not to file a complaint.
Dogs have killed at least three other people in South Carolina in the past two years. In January 2009, the body of a 10-year-old boy was found in a man's yard after he was attacked by six dogs while walking home. The dog's owner is now serving a 5-year prison sentence for involuntary manslaughter.
In January, a 9-year-old McCormick girl was killed by a Japanese Akita three days after her grandfather bought the animal as a gift for his grandchildren. And in November, a 25-year-old man was killed in his Latta home when the family pit bull attacked him.
Also Thursday, a 3-year-old girl walking with her baby sitter in the coastal city of Port Royal was bitten in the head by a pit bull. Authorities said they planned to charge the owner of the dog, which animal control officials said they had picked up in the past six weeks after complaints of the animal running and jumping on neighbors. Across the state in Aiken County, a deputy shot and killed a pit bull that was circling and snapping at a jogger.
Authorities have not said what may have provoked the dogs that killed Hayes, but one animal control officials says it simply may have been the time of year. Female dogs typically go into heat in the spring, according to Jamie Nelson, director of Spartanburg County Environmental Enforcement, causing male dogs to become more aggressive as they look to mate.
"We deal with animals similar to dealing with a teenager," Nelson said.
Hayes' only child died in 1987, so she poured her love on her nieces and nephews, who all lived on the same land just outside of Dillon. She loved going fishing and working with her sister to grow seasonal vegetables in the garden, Odom said.
"It's one of those things that's meant to be," Odom said Friday. "She is in a better place."


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Mrcriss, I am NOT an ill-informed child as you called me, I don't have the best up bringing and don't live in the nicest town, but I am clever enough to make a prediction on you. You are a absent minded, upper class dick. You're probably sitting there now getting off over the Daily Mail. You take facts which quite frankly, don't even mean anything. About the data you researched about the bites, it's funny how the Pitbull has the second weakest bite. 

It's the upper class individuals which are two absent minded to say 'Hey, not all of them are bad'. Figures show that since the ban, there have been increasing numbers in Pitbull attacks, so what's the point? Marijuana plantations, if they can find them, I'm sure they can find a dangerous Pitbull or illegal training facilities. 

The only letters after your name is cock


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Mrcriss, I am NOT an ill-informed child as you called me, I don't have the best up bringing and don't live in the nicest town, but I am clever enough to make a prediction on you. You are a absent minded, upper class dick. You're probably sitting there now getting off over the Daily Mail. You take facts which quite frankly, don't even mean anything. About the data you researched about the bites, it's funny how the Pitbull has the second weakest bite.
> 
> It's the upper class individuals which are two absent minded to say 'Hey, not all of them are bad'. Figures show that since the ban, there have been increasing numbers in Pitbull attacks, so what's the point? Marijuana plantations, if they can find them, I'm sure they can find a dangerous Pitbull or illegal training facilities.
> 
> The only letters after your name is cock


I love this:2thumb::2thumb::2thumb: I'm not upper class mate, i just open a book occasionally and have developed my language to that above a base level. 

Oh, and all along I have said that not all pitbulls are bad and that it is largely the fault of irresponsible owners. 

Now enough with the rubbish insults, yeah?


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Chameleons are us said:


> It also states in the title of the thread 'if you have another opinion use them elsewhere or keep them to yourself'. Now keep your healthy debate subjects elsewhere and stop arguing with us.





feorag said:


> I'm confused as to why you want a thread about Pitbulls, but don't want any bad opinions when you're discussing such a controversial breed?


In this context I agree with Mrcrisis - As I said in my first post (above) you cannot start a thread on a public forum about such an emotive subject and tell everyone who disagrees with you not to post. 


ryanr1987 said:


> sadly gsds get a lot press but many are bred by poor lines so many certainly seem to be very snappy or nervous aggressive. but they are also extremely protective aren't they so i put a lot down to the owners. most gsds i have seen have been probably 50/50 in terms of temperament which does not surprise me as these dogs are notorious for back yard breedings. How is your boy doing? sammy has improved a lot we can actually walk her pass many dogs without her usual lunging she is still very jumpy but she is getting there bless her we have also notice a huge improvement with people but soon as they get closer to her and try talking to her or try to touch her she gives them the warning.


Sadly the backyard breeding and breeding from poor lines can be said about many breeds, including Staffies.

My boy is steadily improving thanks. We took him off the calming herbs after 10 months and he just got so 'twitchy' and 'fidgety' that he's back on them and will stay on them indefinitely. 

He will also walk past other dogs and if they don't bark at him will walk past them being totally silly, bouncy and occasionally with his hackles up, depending on whether we've just gone out and he's 'high' or whether we've been out for a long time and he's calmer, but he doesn't bark back and I've found if he has a ball or frisbee in his mouth he's less likely to show much interest at all. However, if they bark he'll bark back and if he was off his lead I've no doubt at all whatsover that he would go for them :sad:

Other than that he's very intelligent, obedient and willing, but his hyperactivity works against him a lot of the time. We've also found of late that he's now learning how to play. In the house he will now bring a toy to you and ask you to play with it and will play tug-of-war with a pull toy, which was something he didn't even know how to do when we got him. I have no doubt at all that no-one has ever 'played with him' which only enforces the fact that we are sure he didn't sell as a puppy and was moved outside into a kennel with little human activity when he was young.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Mrcriss, I am NOT an ill-informed child as you called me, I don't have the best up bringing and don't live in the nicest town, but I am clever enough to make a prediction on you. You are a absent minded, upper class dick. You're probably sitting there now getting off over the Daily Mail. You take facts which quite frankly, don't even mean anything. About the data you researched about the bites, it's funny how the Pitbull has the second weakest bite.
> 
> It's the upper class individuals which are two absent minded to say 'Hey, not all of them are bad'. Figures show that since the ban, there have been increasing numbers in Pitbull attacks, so what's the point? Marijuana plantations, if they can find them, I'm sure they can find a dangerous Pitbull or illegal training facilities.
> 
> The only letters after your name is cock


What is also hilarious about this (and believe me, you aren't the only person to do this) is that when someone doesn't agree with your opinions on this forum, you automatically state they must be a Daily Mail reader! Where does that come from? It's such a rubbish comeback! 

I don't actually read the Daily Mail as that rag doesn't agree with my lifestyle or my politics.

Oh, and you may want to check if your figures are from america mate....or were they from The Daily Mail too? I wouldn't know....I don't read it, you see: victory:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> What is also hilarious about this (and believe me, you aren't the only person to do this) is that when someone doesn't agree with your opinions on this forum, you automatically state they must be a Daily Mail reader! Where does that come from? It's such a rubbish comeback!
> 
> I don't actually read the Daily Mail as that rag doesn't agree with my lifestyle or my politics.
> 
> Oh, and you may want to check if your figures are from america mate....or were they from The Daily Mail too? I wouldn't know....I don't read it, you see: victory:


Actually, I tell a lie....I do flick through the horoscopes in The Metro on the way to work and they're published by the Daily Mail....does that count?:lol2:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> What is also hilarious about this (and believe me, you aren't the only person to do this) is that when someone doesn't agree with your opinions on this forum, you automatically state they must be a Daily Mail reader! Where does that come from? It's such a rubbish comeback!
> 
> I don't actually read the Daily Mail as that rag doesn't agree with my lifestyle or my politics.
> 
> Oh, and you may want to check if your figures are from america mate....or were they from The Daily Mail too? I wouldn't know....I don't read it, you see: victory:


Well you've certainly gained that stereo-type.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Well you've certainly gained that stereo-type.


Again...a rubbish insult. I'm surprised you made it twice to be honest.:lol2:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Again...a rubbish insult. I'm surprised you made it twice to be honest.:lol2:


It's not really a insult though is it? It's a judgement. Judging by your expertise wisdom I'd thought you'd know that one.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> It's not really a insult though is it? It's a judgement. Judging by your expertise wisdom I'd thought you'd know that one.


Whatever...it's still rubbish:whistling2:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Whatever...it's still rubbish:whistling2:


Your mum was rubbish last night.. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! OWNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

That's how 'childish' I can really be.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Your mum was rubbish last night.. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! OWNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!
> 
> That's how 'childish' I can really be.


And someone with that attitude wants to own a potentially lethal dog???

Vindicated.: victory:

oh, and my mum's dead


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Zach, stop being a complete dick head just because someone disagrees with you... You do it all the time.

And i believe certain breeds of dogs should only be owned by them ones capable of caring for them and exercising them properly. Like the DWAL, pitbulls could easily be listed under this act... anyone incapable of looking after this breed should not be aloud to own them... Same with a lot of other breeds of dog.

Just my thoughts


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Zach, stop being a complete dick head just because someone disagrees with you... You do it all the time.
> 
> And i believe certain breeds of dogs should only be owned by them ones capable of caring for them and exercising them properly. Like the DWAL, pitbulls could easily be listed under this act... anyone incapable of looking after this breed should not be aloud to own them... Same with a lot of other breeds of dog.
> 
> Just my thoughts


Do I Paddy? You know, it's funny how you were ok on Xbox last night, and now you're being a :censor:. Also, I thought I asked you to stay off my profile and stop perving on me. Your always looking at my threads and I've had enough of it. Atleast I know what your like behind peoples backs now you two faced little :censor:. 

Yes, well done on the second part. It's just what we've been covering for just under 100 posts.

And Mrcriss, I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know, sorry if I offended you.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

Chameleons are us said:


> Your always looking at my threads and I've had enough of it.


This is a public forum...that means for everyone. This is the second time you've told people not to comment on "your" thread. Maybe you shouldn't post it in the first place then:whistling2:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> This is a public forum...that means for everyone. This is the second time you've told people not to comment on "your" thread. Maybe you shouldn't post it in the first place then:whistling2:


Yeah but it's like he's my shadow.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> This is a public forum...that means for everyone. This is the second time you've told people not to comment on "your" thread. Maybe you shouldn't post it in the first place then:whistling2:


Well, I'll grant you one of these wishes. I'm off indefinitely now because I see no sense in debating with someone that can't keep a civil tongue in their head


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Zach, you wouldn't day boo to a goose in front of people faces, your the one who sits there all day playing with his dick think what else he can buy, you have wanted almost every bloody reptile out there... Stop making bull shit threads and listen to other people advice, then i may just stop perving on your profile... Lol, your the one who told me to **** off when i offered to give you some friendly advice on bearded dragons... You even private messaged me because you didn't want to look like a complete dick on your own thread... i'm sorry, do you not want people posting on your threads because your dog has a tumour... Everything mrchris has said has been valid... But your to ignorant to realize that because you are to far up your own ass...


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Zach, you wouldn't day boo to a goose in front of people faces, your the one who sits there all day playing with his dick think what else he can buy, you have wanted almost every bloody reptile out there... Stop making bull shit threads and listen to other people advice, then i may just stop perving on your profile... Lol, your the one who told me to **** off when i offered to give you some friendly advice on bearded dragons... You even private messaged me because you didn't want to look like a complete dick on your own thread... i'm sorry, do you not want people posting on your threads because your dog has a tumour... Everything mrchris has said has been valid... But your to ignorant to realize that because you are to far up your own ass...


Teehee, oooh I didn't know you could get this fiesty, I'm liking it. Tell me more! :notworthy:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Zach, you wouldn't day boo to a goose in front of people faces, your the one who sits there all day playing with his dick think what else he can buy, you have wanted almost every bloody reptile out there... Stop making bull shit threads and listen to other people advice, then i may just stop perving on your profile... Lol, your the one who told me to **** off when i offered to give you some friendly advice on bearded dragons... You even private messaged me because you didn't want to look like a complete dick on your own thread... i'm sorry, do you not want people posting on your threads because your dog has a tumour... Everything *mrchris* has said has been valid... But your to ignorant to realize that because you are to far up your own ass...


It's actually Mrcriss


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I'll make no secrets about totally disagreeing with MrCriss, but while he's goading you, and you're responding in the same way, you're just dropping to his level.

Take a deep breathe and pop him on ignore if you're not interested in his comments.

I'm sure there'll be some very dog savvy folks along soon.

Incidentally, for the argument, I dont keep, or want to keep, bull breeds - because a. they're not my kind of dog, and b. it would be irresponsible to own one of these dogs knowing it'll probably be seized and destroyed. I've made no secret of the fact I'm absolutely petrified of anything vaguely staffy-esque, nor a secret about how irrational that fear is because it's based on media portrayal and not reality. 

Doesn't mean I have to agree with DDA though. It's prosecuting the wrong end of the lead.

I think the assumption that anyone defending the breed owns or wants to own one is ignorant and naive. Some of us just love dogs and dont want to see people have their much loved pets taken away and killed.

You should have a read about the totally non-pitbulls who've been seized as "type", some not even bull terrier related at all (eg a dane cross being one that was seized out of their owners CAR, kept for months in police kennels with no vet care, who sadly died). A pedigree lab would come under "type" if you look at the checklist these uneducated police and RSPCA officers work from.


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Zach, you wouldn't day boo to a goose in front of people faces, your the one who sits there all day playing with his dick think what else he can buy, you have wanted almost every bloody reptile out there... Stop making bull shit threads and listen to other people advice, then i may just stop perving on your profile... Lol, your the one who told me to ** off when i offered to give you some friendly advice on bearded dragons... You even private messaged me because you didn't want to look like a complete dick on your own thread... i'm sorry, do you not want people posting on your threads because your dog has a tumour... Everything mrchris has said has been valid... But your to ignorant to realize that because you are to far up your own ass...


If you flick through I have mentioned people have made valid points. And yes, I do think of what I can buy because I don't want to end up with something I don't like or cannot care for. Yeah, you seemed like it wasn't friendly at all, it seemed as though you were mocking me. 
You came on Facebook chat t'other day and were funny with me, ever since you started to hang out with Mike you've changed. Mind you, it seems everyone does these days.


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Oh and also, im not the one who fakes a thread asking for a free snake because my Boa died, You have never had a boa... Yes everyone this is true, look at his other account Zachariah.snakes.... I wonder why he changed his profile... mmmm


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Oh and also, im not the one who fakes a thread asking for a free snake because my Boa died, You have never had a boa... Yes everyone this is true, look at his other account Zachariah.snakes.... I wonder why he changed his profile... mmmm


Yeshhh, I have admitted my mistakes already teehee. FAIL!


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Its not much of a mistake... Its plain ignorance asking for a snake because your not real snake died... My ant died, can i have yours :flrt:


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Its not much of a mistake... Its plain ignorance asking for a snake because your not real snake died... My ant died, can i have yours :flrt:


It's not really ignorance either, it's called being a complete :censor:.

And yes, of course you can. Oh wait no, I'm still yet to feed my Anteater :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

At least you admit your a complete :censor:... Yeah i just don't think its morally right to lie about the welfare of an animal... I think everyone one this forum would agree


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Heard of pms folks? Back on topic? Hmm?


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> At least you admit your a complete :censor:... Yeah i just don't think its morally right to lie about the welfare of an animal... I think everyone one this forum would agree


I don't think I'm a complete :censor: now, I've cleaned myself up a lot. I meant I WAS a complete :censor:. Some people are though, like those that owned Pitbulls for the wrong reasons. That's what this thread is partly about. Me neither, not now anyway. I was new and all that crap though


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Why did you have a bath? hahaha

Pm me if your dare Zach... Piece out RFUK!


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Why did you have a bath? hahaha
> 
> Pm me if your dare Zach... Piece out RFUK!


No, I just took on advice and changed a bit. Why would I want to do that?
We've covered everything


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Why did you have a bath? hahaha
> 
> Pm me if your dare Zach... Piece out RFUK!


Wouldn't it be 'peace' not 'piece'. Unless your looking for a piece out of RFUK


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Sorry, i left my dictionary in with my daily mail...


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

What dog does everyone own?


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Sorry, i left my dictionary in with my daily mail...


It's a theasoures you'd be wanting.
That doesn't make sense about the Daily Mail thing, I don't even think you get it. Unless you're big on your politics, upper class and think almost everythings a threat, that joke would've worked.


----------



## Paddy1996 (Sep 30, 2010)

Oh well i do, you know... I'm just trying to figure out how you havn't suffocated, your head is so far up your fat flabby but crack...


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

I can't actually believe what I'm hearing.. I've stuck up for you loads Paddy, I've told you things I shouldn't have and then you throw it back in my face


----------



## Chameleons are us (Feb 12, 2011)

Paddy1996 said:


> Oh well i do, you know... I'm just trying to figure out how you havn't suffocated, your head is so far up your fat flabby but crack...


Yeah I know, it happens in the night. If your going to call me fat you can call my dad, my grandad, my great grandad the list goes on. Because it runs in our family.


----------



## pippainnit (Feb 20, 2009)

Re: Daily Mail/Pitbull saga...

I'm just surprised they haven't started reporting the link between pitbulls and cancer... or blaming immigrants for the rise in lethal canines.


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

I have now got to waste my time reading through every page of this appalling thread.

Those of you engaging in abuse toward other members will receive infractions.

There is absolutely no need for this and although I would usually bin this type of thread altogether it will stay here as a reminder that this behaviour will *NOT BE TOLERATED.*

Heated debates, fine. But remain civil.. it is all I ask!

Thankyou.


----------

