Forums | MacLife

Too bad about the dogs. I have seen that problem on that Animal Planet program several times.

Too bad the owner was killed. They could have coated him with beef extract and thrown him in with the dogs.

I love our priorities. Good news: person is dead. Bad news: dogs will probably die. Not that I disagree with them.

justine wrote:

He had 300 pit bulls and someone killed him in a home invasion?

the irony eh?

"It was him, your honour! The man with the furry coat!"

macnuke wrote:

justine wrote:

He had 300 pit bulls and someone killed him in a home invasion?

the irony eh?

LOL!

The dog, he like to bite my vagina!








LoL. I knew I could find it.

MrJ in OZ wrote:

The dog, he like to bite my vagina!


LoL. I knew I could find it.

Great.

They just passed a voter initiative/law in yesterdays primary for the township next door to me that bans all ownerships of Pitbulls. So I guess you just turn in your 12 year old pitbull you've had for the past years and watch it die?

baldprof wrote:

Here's a link to another pit bull story. Wouldn't surprise me to see Chicago and perhaps all of Cook county ban pit bulls.

These incidents are clearly the result of iresponsible owners. Yet how can a community protect itself from irresponsible owners without taking it out on the dogs themselves.

These incidents are indeed the result of irresponsible owners but the coverage of them is a result of an intensely biased media. It is a fact that German Shepherds cause 5 times more bites requiring hospitalization than Pit Bulls yet with the rare exception bites by GSDs and other breeds are routinely ignored while Pit Bull attacks are front page news.
Its not that there is some conspiracy against Pits so much as its more sensational to have a "killer breed" to report on. If the dog bite coverage were to reflect actual reality the story would have to be about irresponsible owners and that’s just plain boring.
But for the sake of argument lets say Pits do bite the most (they don’t but lets pretend).
Banning them is this sort of logic:
Statistically it would be easy to identify the model of car most often involved in high speed crashes. If you were to ban that model would the irresponsible people who crashed those cars at high speed stop driving because their favorite car was banned? Or do you think it is more likely they would just find another car that can go just as fast and drive that?
Irresponsible idiots who own Pits because they are fashionable now wont stop owning big powerful dogs if Pits are banned, they will simply move on to any of a few dozen breeds that would be just as bad if equally badly kept.
Bans solve nothing.

MrJ in OZ wrote:

The dog, he like to bite my vagina!








LoL. I knew I could find it.

That is hilarious.

Fried Chicken wrote:

I think banning anything is stupid.  I think something that seperates america from other countries is regulations on what you can and cannot do, and it is really un-american to say what kind of dog you can and cannot own.

Not to MiniThink this too much:
Child porn?

This thread is starting to go way off track here. If it doesn't get back on track, i'm going to lock it.