PDA

View Full Version : Good God I just had a 'gun grabber' moment


Mike402
03-28-2013, 1:43 PM
So I was reading the story out of Georgia where the two year old girl was mauled to death by the family's 7 pitbulls. I had an epiphany where I could see through the eyes of your typical gun grabber.

I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all wreckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better.

I always knew this to be the case, but I never really 'got it' until I found myself thinking the same way about pit bulls. Once I applied the same thinking to how I feel about guns, I realized its not the pit bull's fault. It usually boils down to irresponsible owners and their actions (or lack therof) that cause the problems.

So what's the takeaway - the same that has been said here many times before. Find at least one non-gun person that you can take out shooting responsibly, and show them that our guns are not the evil killing machines that so many are trying to portray these days. If all of the millions of gun owners did this, it would be a great first step towards stemming the tide IMHO.

a1c
03-28-2013, 1:45 PM
Ignorance breeds stupid ideas indeed. We've all been guilty of those moments when faced with foreign things. Some even live by them.

jackdhammer
03-28-2013, 1:53 PM
Ignorance breeds stupid ideas indeed. We've all been guilty of those moments when faced with foreign things. Some even live by them.

Good point. I think we all have had those moments. We are after all human. Its natural that the first thing to hit is the emotion, but what separates rational people from "the mob" is that we dont act or live by those emotions.

ScottB
03-28-2013, 1:57 PM
Big difference between a pit bull and a gun. The pit bull actually CAN, all by itself, pick itself up off the whereever and decide to go kill somebody. It can form intent and volition. A gun cannot.

Inanimate vs animate. Not the same thing at all.

ExcuseMe
03-28-2013, 2:07 PM
Big difference between a pit bull and a gun. The pit bull actually CAN, all by itself, pick itself up off the whereever and decide to go kill somebody. It can form intent and volition. A gun cannot.

Inanimate vs animate. Not the same thing at all.

http://replygif.net/i/184

dmckean44
03-28-2013, 2:14 PM
I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all reckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

The thing about pitbulls is they were bred the have the temperament of a terrier but the size and strength of a bulldog. This makes them unpredictable like most terriers. Terriers were bred over hundreds of years to kill large rodents by picking them up and shaking them to death. It's not too big of a deal when a Jack Russell attacks a child because they only weighs 14 lbs and a seven year old can fend it off. Children stand no chance of fending off a 50 lb Mastiff.

P5Ret
03-28-2013, 2:20 PM
The biggest difference in your comparison is that even when a gun is used to save someone's life "gun grabber's" are still outraged. If you hear about a pit bull pulling a child away from danger you will probably realize it is not all pits that are bad.

dmckean44
03-28-2013, 2:21 PM
I just want to add that I'm not against pitbull ownership. Full grown men can handle one fine. But owners need to keep them away from children, elderly and even smaller women that cannot defend themselves.

winnre
03-28-2013, 2:25 PM
I just want to add that I'm not against pitbull ownership. Full grown men can handle one fine. But owners need to keep them away from children, elderly and even smaller women that cannot defend themselves.

Tell me you are kidding. Do you blame guns for killings too?

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/pitbulls-used-be-considered-perfect-nanny-dogs-children-until-media-turned-them

Pitbulls Used to Be Considered the Perfect "Nanny Dogs" for Children -- Until the Media Turned Them Into Monsters

http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljm8z67YLX1qj1a0to1_4002.jpg

http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pitbull-and-boy-vintage-picture-pitbull-extreme.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rX_oqLqwCKQ/TFzDbh_pdaI/AAAAAAAAACE/kRCgfZbJbh0/s400/1935PeteyNannyDog.jpeg

http://animaladvocatesalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/old-pit-bull-and-baby-picture.jpg

timdotm
03-28-2013, 2:30 PM
I used the "pit bull" example on my wife years ago. She is very much into dogs, especially terriers. She feels strongly that "dog bans" are wrong-headed reactions to irresponsible dog owners. I would say "kinda like banning guns, huh?". She got it loud and clear, and had a pivitol moment in understanding of what gun banning was really about. Now she's an NRA member herself!

Mike402
03-28-2013, 2:33 PM
I used the "pit bull" example on my wife years ago. She is very much into dogs, especially terriers. She feels strongly that "dog bans" are wrong-headed reactions to irresponsible dog owners. I would say "kinda like banning guns, huh?". She got it loud and clear, and had a pivitol moment in understanding of what gun banning was really about. Now she's an NRA member herself!

Win!!!

kaligaran
03-28-2013, 2:44 PM
The difference OP, is that you realized what was happening.
That your opinion has been swayed by what you are familiar with and what you heard.
I would assume that this logic would also be applied before you got behind a pit bull ban, you would be open to the other information (such as dogs saving lives, etc).

Whereas anti-gunners such as the Yee crowd shrug off statistics from even our own FBI and put on blinders.

Yeah, we've all had these moments...

woods
03-28-2013, 2:54 PM
If you mistreat a cat it will scratch or bite. Ban cats, dogs, guns , cars ,gravity,knives, marking a fist, etc. Once every object that has mass is banned then we will be safe.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

Edwood
03-28-2013, 4:01 PM
Don't take away my right to have my Evil Black Dog.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/imagemonkey/Pets/Maddie_Bite_Hand_Feedcopy.jpg

CBruce
03-28-2013, 4:11 PM
So I was reading the story out of Georgia where the two year old girl was mauled to death by the family's 7 pitbulls. I had an epiphany where I could see through the eyes of your typical gun grabber.

I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all wreckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better.

I always knew this to be the case, but I never really 'got it' until I found myself thinking the same way about pit bulls. Once I applied the same thinking to how I feel about guns, I realized its not the pit bull's fault. It usually boils down to irresponsible owners and their actions (or lack therof) that cause the problems.

So what's the takeaway - the same that has been said here many times before. Find at least one non-gun person that you can take out shooting responsibly, and show them that our guns are not the evil killing machines that so many are trying to portray these days. If all of the millions of gun owners did this, it would be a great first step towards stemming the tide IMHO.

"Pit bulls" are the "assault weapons" of dogs. There isn't actually a "pit bull" breed. There's a number of breeds that are generally identified as a "pit bull", including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes American Bulldogs, Boxers, or any sleek, short-haired, *****-eared, muscular dog.

People who don't know dogs think "Pit Bulls" are the most dangerous, most viscious, most violent type of dog. Unsavory people are often drawn to own these types of dogs because of their reputation, and those dogs tend to be poorly cared for if not outright abused. They're not socialized, they're barely domesticaed, and they aren't responsibly contained. They get out, attack someone, and it's one more tick mark in the column against the breed. It's a vicious cycle.

But otherwise you're correct. It's largely ignorance and irrational fear of something you're not familiar with, but assume you understand.

I haven't owned one of these dogs myself. But we did have a Rottweiller and a rescued GSD mix. We also, at one point, owned a couple of ferrets...so I'm very familiar with various policies and ordinances that regulate or ban these type of animals. They are all, without exception, based laregly on misinformation and broad assumptions.

Carnivore
03-28-2013, 5:21 PM
Tell me you are kidding. Do you blame guns for killings too?



Pitbulls Used to Be Considered the Perfect "Nanny Dogs" for Children -- Until the Media drug dealers, dog fighters, low lifes and gang bangers Turned Them Into Monsters There, fixed it for ya.

JDay
03-28-2013, 5:46 PM
Pitbulls are one of the least likely dogs to maul you. If you look at attacks by breed they are low on the list. The media just has a hardon for them.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Shotgun Man
03-28-2013, 5:53 PM
I don't like pitbulls either. I agree they shouldn't be banned.

BerryG
03-28-2013, 9:32 PM
Back in the '80s it was Dobermans and Rottweilers that were the evil dogs. The press sells perception of evil based on what gets viewers and ratings. Pit Bull just sounds nasty to most people.

Assault Rifle sounds nasty compared to Sporting Rifle or whatever you want to call it.

LuvLRBs
03-28-2013, 9:37 PM
I think we need to carry guns around in case we run into those pit bulls.

heedless619
03-28-2013, 9:44 PM
I used the "pit bull" example on my wife years ago. She is very much into dogs, especially terriers. She feels strongly that "dog bans" are wrong-headed reactions to irresponsible dog owners. I would say "kinda like banning guns, huh?". She got it loud and clear, and had a pivitol moment in understanding of what gun banning was really about. Now she's an NRA member herself!

:jump:

westsiderippa
03-28-2013, 9:50 PM
why does it always gotta end with the rottwieler huh? LOL!!! probably the most gentle giants you will ever meet. my boy is 110 lbs of dumb floppy drool and love. he plays with cats for gods sake. if i put a tail on him and died his fur you would think hes a freakin golden retriever....

i know a lot of pits and the majority of then have a scetchy look in there eye. there always wired a little different and you cant get a true reading on them imo. the same with dobi's.

with that said, i have only been bitten buy 1 dog in my life, a choclate lab and it was the most evil sob you ever laid eyes on.

Rider1k
03-28-2013, 9:56 PM
why does it always gotta end with the rottwieler huh? LOL!!! probably the most gentle giants you will ever meet. my boy is 110 lbs of dumb floppy drool and love. he plays with cats for gods sake. if i put a tail on him and died his fur you would think hes a freakin golden retriever....

i know a lot of pits and the majority of then have a scetchy look in there eye. there always wired a little different and you cant get a true reading on them imo. the same with dobi's.

with that said, i have only been bitten buy 1 dog in my life, a choclate lab and it was the most evil sob you ever laid eyes on.

funny! I have labs that are hunters and family pets. My neighbor tried to tell me that my male black tried to bite him. LMAO! I raised this guy and all my dogs from birth. He plays unattended in the back yard with my 4 year old niece and 5 year old nephew. Always brings his toys to them gently and hands it to them gently. A little slobbery but gently. Same dog lays with and plays with my 2 yr old grand daughter. Even lets her ride on his back like a pony.

myk
03-28-2013, 9:56 PM
Pitbulls are one of the least likely dogs to maul you. If you look at attacks by breed they are low on the list. The media just has a hardon for them.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I did NOT know that; so what's the most notorious breed, then?

Sleighter
03-28-2013, 9:57 PM
Big difference between a pit bull and a gun. The pit bull actually CAN, all by itself, pick itself up off the whereever and decide to go kill somebody. It can form intent and volition. A gun cannot.

Inanimate vs animate. Not the same thing at all.

+1. The pit bull/gun analogy isn't a great analogy.

Sputnik
03-28-2013, 10:40 PM
+1. The pit bull/gun analogy isn't a great analogy.

True. My AR has never bitten anyone, nor do I expect it ever will. :)

LoneYote
03-29-2013, 12:51 AM
I did NOT know that; so what's the most notorious breed, then?

Highest Rate is Lab right now I believe.... followed by Golden Retrievers....
Most Dangerous Breed tends to be the most popular breeds... higher rate of ownership = higher rate of mistreatment = higher incident rates

While I agree it is in many ways a bad association it's not the worst. Firearms are more like toasters. They don't hurt anyone on their own but if stick a fork in one while its on(unintended discharge) or throw it at someones head they are pretty dangerous....

myk
03-29-2013, 1:20 AM
Highest Rate is Lab right now I believe.... followed by Golden Retrievers....
Most Dangerous Breed tends to be the most popular breeds... higher rate of ownership = higher rate of mistreatment = higher incident rates

While I agree it is in many ways a bad association it's not the worst. Firearms are more like toasters. They don't hurt anyone on their own but if stick a fork in one while its on(unintended discharge) or throw it at someones head they are pretty dangerous....

Alright, so if we take into account the higher rate of ownership, how do 'Pits fare then?

rpuppet
03-29-2013, 1:42 AM
The CDC and Wikipedia, (if you trust anything on there), both list Pit bull as the dog breed with the most fatal attacks by far. I'm sure this has to do with the owners more than the breed. Google 'dog attacks by breed'.

SilverTauron
03-29-2013, 3:31 AM
A small distinction: most people who dislike pitbulls still like dogs in general.

By comparison, someone who thinks AR15s should be banned likely doesn't wants any type of firearm be sold without strict government scrutiny.

coryhenry
03-29-2013, 3:37 AM
Don't take away my right to have my Evil Black Dog.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/imagemonkey/Pets/Maddie_Bite_Hand_Feedcopy.jpg

Awesome

putput
03-29-2013, 5:16 AM
Interestingly enough, California has state preemption on the banning of breeds of dogs. :cool:

EM2
03-29-2013, 5:49 AM
So I was reading the story out of Georgia where the two year old girl was mauled to death by the family's 7 pitbulls. I had an epiphany where I could see through the eyes of your typical gun grabber.

I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all wreckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better.

I always knew this to be the case, but I never really 'got it' until I found myself thinking the same way about pit bulls. Once I applied the same thinking to how I feel about guns, I realized its not the pit bull's fault. It usually boils down to irresponsible owners and their actions (or lack therof) that cause the problems.

So what's the takeaway - the same that has been said here many times before. Find at least one non-gun person that you can take out shooting responsibly, and show them that our guns are not the evil killing machines that so many are trying to portray these days. If all of the millions of gun owners did this, it would be a great first step towards stemming the tide IMHO.


RED = LOGICAL
BLUE = EMOTIONAL

You have discovered the great debate of our time, congratulations.
Many do not realize that much of our conflict amongst ourselves is based in two disparate ways of thinking, emotional & logical and the reaction we have to each.
There are many who act upon their emotions first without thinking of the logical consequences of doing so.

You have now identified the problem, now go out and teach others to think first then react.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-29-2013, 6:10 AM
A small distinction: most people who dislike pitbulls still like dogs in general.

By comparison, someone who thinks AR15s should be banned likely doesn't wants any type of firearm be sold without strict government scrutiny.


True. But, timdotm's example


I used the "pit bull" example on my wife years ago. She is very much into dogs, especially terriers. She feels strongly that "dog bans" are wrong-headed reactions to irresponsible dog owners. I would say "kinda like banning guns, huh?". She got it loud and clear, and had a pivitol moment in understanding of what gun banning was really about. Now she's an NRA member herself!


still fits. Can still be used by us. Because the problem is the same: irresponsibility on the part of the owner.


The Raisuli

FisterD
03-29-2013, 6:47 AM
Inner city dogs seem to get a bum rap.
http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg630/FisterD/tuco_zpsdaeb6f65.jpg

Nepa
03-29-2013, 7:25 AM
I just want to add that I'm not against pitbull ownership. Full grown men can handle one fine. But owners need to keep them away from children, elderly and even smaller women that cannot defend themselves.


Pitts have been vilified by the media, just like modern sporting rifles. How many papers will a story about a loving, family Pitt help sell?

My Pitt is the biggest baby I've ever met. Totally wears his heart and his feelings on his sleeve. Loves dogs, kids, and people. Will play at the lake with young and very young children all day until he collapses from exhaustion. (We have to help him back into the car.) The neighborhood kids love him. Their parents love him. The people who found him when he got loose loved him. Other dogs spend hours playing with him. If they snap at him, he just rolls over in submission and then plays some more. There isn't a mean bone in his body. Contrast his behavior with the Golden Retriever who lived next door and used to unexpectedly and unpredictably snap at kids, people, and dogs.

It's also about control. Who is arrogant enough to suggest they know the best four-legged fit for my kids, my self, and my friends and then attempt to legislate those options into law? I could attempt to regulate dangerous golden retrievers, but I'm intelligent enough to discern that one crotchety bad apple does not make an entire breed any worse than another breed - sort of like not pre-judging and vilifying guns and gun owners.

Decoligny
03-29-2013, 7:37 AM
So I was reading the story out of Georgia where the two year old girl was mauled to death by the family's 7 pitbulls. I had an epiphany where I could see through the eyes of your typical gun grabber.

I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all wreckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better.

I always knew this to be the case, but I never really 'got it' until I found myself thinking the same way about pit bulls. Once I applied the same thinking to how I feel about guns, I realized its not the pit bull's fault. It usually boils down to irresponsible owners and their actions (or lack therof) that cause the problems.

So what's the takeaway - the same that has been said here many times before. Find at least one non-gun person that you can take out shooting responsibly, and show them that our guns are not the evil killing machines that so many are trying to portray these days. If all of the millions of gun owners did this, it would be a great first step towards stemming the tide IMHO.

The major difference between a gun and a pitbull is the ability to act without the control of a human being.

My gun has never broken through my fence and run the neighborhood.

My gun has never chased after another gun and torn it to pieces (or shot it).

My gun has never jumped out of its holster and shot another person.

A pitbull actually takes more effort and control on the part of the owner to be "safe" and even that doesn't alway work.

Pitbulls are dogs. Dogs are simply domesticated watered down wolves. Be it a Pitbull or a Chihuahua, it has the ability to slip back into instinctual behavior without warning. With a Chihuahua, you might end up with some puncture wound on your calf. With a large and powerful dog like a Pitbull, you might end up dead.

Chihuahua:
I would trust my 8 year old granddaughter with a BB gun. While the possibility of her shooting it somewhere she is not supposed to exists, the possible damage that might be done is minimal.

Pitbull:
I would not trust my 8 year old granddaughter with a Ma Duece. The possibility of her shooting it somewhere she is not supposed to exists, and the possible damage that might be done is extensive.

Since there is more involved than just the will and intentions of the dogs owner, and the dog has a will and a mind of its own, I say that with a large powerful dog like a Pitbull, there should be a "1 strike and you are out" policy. If the dog attacks another dog without provocation, or bites a human even once without provocation, it's lights out. Honestly, I wouldn't be against that same policy for every dog, even the yappy little ****zu's or the Pocket Poodles.

ZombieTactics
03-29-2013, 8:19 AM
So I was reading the story out of Georgia where the two year old girl was mauled to death by the family's 7 pitbulls. I had an epiphany where I could see through the eyes of your typical gun grabber.

I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all wreckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better.

I always knew this to be the case, but I never really 'got it' until I found myself thinking the same way about pit bulls. Once I applied the same thinking to how I feel about guns, I realized its not the pit bull's fault. It usually boils down to irresponsible owners and their actions (or lack therof) that cause the problems.

So what's the takeaway - the same that has been said here many times before. Find at least one non-gun person that you can take out shooting responsibly, and show them that our guns are not the evil killing machines that so many are trying to portray these days. If all of the millions of gun owners did this, it would be a great first step towards stemming the tide IMHO.

I'm stealing this, and hopefully I'm remember to give you credit. ;)

Davinho
03-29-2013, 8:54 AM
Pit Bulls: The Assault Rifles of the dog world. The more I think about it, the more parallels I see: mass media induced hysteria, and definitions based on superficial appearance and "purpose".

chiefcrash
03-29-2013, 9:11 AM
Alright, so if we take into account the higher rate of ownership, how do 'Pits fare then?

'Pits fare pretty well once you account for proportion of population:


I have divided the numbers of fatal dog attacks vs. the population of some of the breeds listed in fatal attacks. I have been able to obtain statistics on the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) from the American Kennel Club (AKC), American Dog Breeders Association (A.D.B.A.) and United Kennel Club (UKC) for registrations on APBT's. For the other breeds I used AKC/UKC statistics.

In Order:

Apx. 240,000 - 12 Fatal Attacks Chow Chow .705%
Apx 800.000 - 67 Fatal Attacks German Shepherds .008375%
Apx. 960,000 - 70 Fatal Attacks Rottweiler .00729%
Apx. 128.000 - 18 Fatal Attacks Great Dane .01416%
Apx. 114,000 - 14 Fatal Attacks Doberman .012288%
Apx. 72,000 - 10 Fatal Attacks St Bernard .0139%
Apx 5,000,000- 60 Fatal Attacks American Pit Bull Terrier .0012%

Please keep in mind there are more dogs of these breeds in our population, so I'm not pointing my finger at one specific breed. The Chow shows us the highest figure, but I only had AKC registrations to work with, and I'm sure there are a lot more Chows that do not become registered.

Sincerely,
Glen Bui

covingtonhouse
03-29-2013, 9:12 AM
+1. The pit bull/gun analogy isn't a great analogy.

The analogy does work when talking about responsible ownership and securing your animal from causing harm. That being said, a gun will generally not dig its way out of your safe. :)

Mike402
03-29-2013, 9:17 AM
+1. The pit bull/gun analogy isn't a great analogy.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison between pit bulls & guns. I was just relating how easy it is to get caught up in media induced hysteria & have your opinions formed for you on subjects that you know very little about. For me it was pit bulls, for a lot of people out there, its guns.

Vin63
03-29-2013, 9:18 AM
...Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better...

Unfortunately, this is the case in many communities that have already started the ball rolling to ban breed specific dogs. Very similar to shooting incidents, it picks up steam anytime there's a dog mauling reported. Just like the gun ban debate, the dogs that are perceived to be the most dangerous are usually way down on the list of actual reported attack and bite incidents, as some of the other members noted.

Blue Ridge Reef
03-29-2013, 9:23 AM
Every dog that mauls someone is a pit or a pit mix if you believe the news. Like an "assault weapon," just having certain features makes any muscular dog a pit bull. I recommend "The Pit Bull Placebo" to anyone interested in manipulation by the media.

OneLoneShooter
03-29-2013, 9:48 AM
I'm going to have to be the odd man out here:

I don't trust pit bulls. I don't fully trust any animal to be honest, but pit bulls are at the top of the list.

I want nothing to do with them. Insurance companies won't cover them unless you buy extra insurance. I'm not going to lie: I'm scared ****less of those unpredictable creatures. I won't even be in the same room with them.

A neighbor owns what looks to be a Pitt Bull/Great Dane (not entirely sure to be honest...) mix, and lets it walk free. Imagine the height of a Great Dane with the muscles of a pitt bull... I have my 12-gauge shotgun ready to go with 00 Buck Shot for personal defense against that four-legged monster.

Pit Bulls are at the top of the list of fatal dog attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Sum mary_tables

All of the reported fatal dog attacks this year 2013 have been by a Pit Bull.

They are followed closely by Rottweilers. Those dogs are vilified for a damn-good reason. They are dangerous. My AR-15, when spooked, isn't going to jump up and attack someone, I can't say the same for a pitt bull.

As far as I'm concerned the quote "They should all be destroyed." From Jurassic Park fits pitt bulls just as well as it fit those Velociraptors.

Scott Connors
03-29-2013, 10:15 AM
Many of my patients have dogs. The ones that cause me to worry are the little yappy ankle-biters. Every pitbull that I have encountered has been a sweetheart. That doesn't mean that there isn't one out there that has been twisted by evil intent into a four-legged cruise missile, but it does indicate that they are not vicious from the start. The media loves to demonize everything...except bad journalism.

Davinho
03-29-2013, 5:57 PM
Pit Bulls are at the top of the list of fatal dog attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Sum mary_tables


So the question you have to ask yourself is: Are Pit Bulls at the top of that list because of anything intrinsic to them, or because they are "cool" among the lowlife crowd who turn them into monsters with abuse? Handguns top the list of deadly weapons, and it sure as ***** isn't because they are more dangerous than rifles. Lightweight 600cc sportbike motorcycles are statistically the most dangerous motorcycles, but only because that's they're bike of choice of the knucklehead crowd (they're cheaper). Bottom line: it's pretty much always the people involved.

Socalman
03-29-2013, 7:57 PM
I think many have missed the point of the OP. He is trying to point out HOW people think. Those people are the ones not familiar with firearms.

If every single one of us would take just one person, not familiar with guns, to a range we might bring them to our side, as they would see that the gun itself is not the problem.

thefitter
03-29-2013, 8:16 PM
This thread once again reminds me how many rational and intelligent members there are on this forum...and how many gutless idiots there are as well.

speleogist
03-29-2013, 9:05 PM
So I was reading the story out of Georgia where the two year old girl was mauled to death by the family's 7 pitbulls. I had an epiphany where I could see through the eyes of your typical gun grabber.

I've never been into pets, much less dogs. I don't really have anything against them per se, just never something that appealed to me. I've also never had any direct contact with pit bulls, just what I've heard in the media. Naturally my impression is that they are all wreckless killing machines, ready to tear apart our children at a moments notice. Why should they be legal for the average person to own?

Christ, then it hit me - that is exactly what is going on with your average person who has had little to no experience with guns in general. They have no vested interest in firearms, and all they hear is negativity surrounding them, so it would be quite easy to get behind banning them altogether. Doesn't mean that I agree with them anymore than before, just means that I can understand & respect their perspective a little better.

I always knew this to be the case, but I never really 'got it' until I found myself thinking the same way about pit bulls. Once I applied the same thinking to how I feel about guns, I realized its not the pit bull's fault. It usually boils down to irresponsible owners and their actions (or lack therof) that cause the problems.

So what's the takeaway - the same that has been said here many times before. Find at least one non-gun person that you can take out shooting responsibly, and show them that our guns are not the evil killing machines that so many are trying to portray these days. If all of the millions of gun owners did this, it would be a great first step towards stemming the tide IMHO.

Pit bulls are a worthless breed of dog since dog fighting is illegal in this country. Comparing pit bulls to guns isn't that great.

0nTarg3t
03-29-2013, 9:56 PM
amazing !!! this went right over most of your heads. he is not comparing guns and dogs . he is saying how easy it is to be played by the media into forming an opinion of there choosing. i tell close minded emotional driven people all the time( if you didn't have a television you wouldn't have an opinion on anything) the reason we are facing all the problems we are now stems from the media telling people what there opinion is

Powerkraut
03-29-2013, 10:41 PM
I'm going to have to be the odd man out here:

I don't trust pit bulls. I don't fully trust any animal to be honest, but pit bulls are at the top of the list.

I want nothing to do with them. Insurance companies won't cover them unless you buy extra insurance. I'm not going to lie: I'm scared ****less of those unpredictable creatures. I won't even be in the same room with them.

A neighbor owns what looks to be a Pitt Bull/Great Dane (not entirely sure to be honest...) mix, and lets it walk free. Imagine the height of a Great Dane with the muscles of a pitt bull... I have my 12-gauge shotgun ready to go with 00 Buck Shot for personal defense against that four-legged monster.

Pit Bulls are at the top of the list of fatal dog attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Sum mary_tables

All of the reported fatal dog attacks this year 2013 have been by a Pit Bull.

They are followed closely by Rottweilers. Those dogs are vilified for a damn-good reason. They are dangerous. My AR-15, when spooked, isn't going to jump up and attack someone, I can't say the same for a pitt bull.

As far as I'm concerned the quote "They should all be destroyed." From Jurassic Park fits pitt bulls just as well as it fit those Velociraptors.

It's all in how you raise them, I've been around untold numbers of dogs my whole life and the only truely viscious dog I've seen was a Maltese.

Try following your line of reasoning with races of people instead of dog breeds. I mean, blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime so we should segregate them from the rest of peaceful society right?

Oh and, maybe your AR won't get spooked and shoot someone, but given your irrational fear of animals, I'm not too confident you won't.

EM2
03-29-2013, 10:52 PM
I think many have missed the point of the OP....


Sadly, a common theme on internet forums.

Cylarz
03-29-2013, 11:58 PM
I'm going to have to be the odd man out here:

I don't trust pit bulls. I don't fully trust any animal to be honest, but pit bulls are at the top of the list.

I want nothing to do with them. Insurance companies won't cover them unless you buy extra insurance. I'm not going to lie: I'm scared ****less of those unpredictable creatures. I won't even be in the same room with them.

A neighbor owns what looks to be a Pitt Bull/Great Dane (not entirely sure to be honest...) mix, and lets it walk free. Imagine the height of a Great Dane with the muscles of a pitt bull... I have my 12-gauge shotgun ready to go with 00 Buck Shot for personal defense against that four-legged monster.

Pit Bulls are at the top of the list of fatal dog attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Sum mary_tables

All of the reported fatal dog attacks this year 2013 have been by a Pit Bull.

They are followed closely by Rottweilers. Those dogs are vilified for a damn-good reason. They are dangerous. My AR-15, when spooked, isn't going to jump up and attack someone, I can't say the same for a pitbull.

As far as I'm concerned the quote "They should all be destroyed." From Jurassic Park fits pitt bulls just as well as it fit those Velociraptors.

I think you're right, and personally I don't trust these things, either.

I keep hearing again and again, "It's not the dog, it's the owner" and "the dog seems to attract low life owners." Hogwash. The people who say this (and similar cliches) seem not to realize that we're talking about a breed (or group of breeds, if you prefer) which are specifically engineered for aggression, strength, and ability to cause harm. We're talking about an animal *designed* to tear human beings to pieces. As software engineers say, that's a feature, not a bug.

There is a reason they're also the dog of choice for hog hunters in areas where it is not legal to pursue game with a gun. Hogs have a reputation for aggression and so you want to bring the meanest, most vicious dog you can think of.

Many pitbull owners talk about what a softy their dog is...which is often the same thing said about this pit bull or that one right before it breaks out of confinement and mauls a child or other helpless person. If that happened to my kid, I'd shoot the dog on the spot. The owners of these abominable beasts had better keep them where they belong. They do that, and they've got nothing to worry about. It's one more reason I carry concealed during my neighborhood walks...in case one of these monstrosities appears from nowhere and assaults my family.

I'm really not interested in hearing about how your canine death machine loves kids, and it's all the fault of drug dealers for giving them a bad name. Save it. And for the record, I don't allow my children around the other notorious breeds either.

Yes, the OP's point was that we fear something (AR's, pitbulls) and perceive it based what we hear in the media...but as has been pointed out, the fear of pitbulls is based partly on rational analysis of what the breed is capable of (despite the benign intentions of the owner), not just because the media have told us what to believe.

And I will concede one other thing to the anti-gunners - the AR/AK series of rifle IS in fact designed to kill people. Where they go off the rails, is in failing to realize that is not necessarily always a bad thing. The pitbull is the same way, except unlike a gun, it is capable of acting under its own volition.

I'm not arguing for a ban on pitbulls, but I certainly won't hesitate to dispatch one if I think it's necessary.

thefitter
03-30-2013, 6:18 AM
...

Try following your line of reasoning with races of people instead of dog breeds. I mean, blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime so we should segregate them from the rest of peaceful society right?

....

Or "lower classes" etc,. Give it up you won't convince people who are basiclly liberal/leftist/socialists with a gun hobby.

waffmaster
03-30-2013, 6:39 AM
The issue more than pit bulls or guns, is the power of the media to call emotion first and rarely reason later. Plus the expectation for the government to ban the source of said emotion.

Rusty Scabbard
03-30-2013, 7:12 AM
The OP nailed it. The problem our government should be addressing is the lack of responsibility and accountability of the breeds owners. The emotional response is much more innate. The emotional response easily gains popular support when only a minority of the public is directly affected. Blame and demonize the evil dog breed, and rush to create legislation to make it illegal. And continue to chip away at the personal liberty that once made America the best country in the world.

Mr Blu
03-30-2013, 7:37 AM
Big difference between a pit bull and a gun. The pit bull actually CAN, all by itself, pick itself up off the whereever and decide to go kill somebody. It can form intent and volition. A gun cannot.

Inanimate vs animate. Not the same thing at all.

You have completely missed the point about the thread.