Pit Bulls: What's the appeal?

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0060537795.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg
In her sixth true crime book (after The Embrace), Jones displays a remarkable ability to present an enormous amount of detailed information in a thrilling narrative that is neither sensationalistic nor maudlin. Still, this is a shocking tale, as Jones provides a no-holds-barred investigation into the brutal death of 33-year-old Diane Whipple after being mauled when savage dogs owned by lawyers Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel entered the "red zone," a nonscientific term used to describe dogs "in the height of attack mode... beyond human control." The incident immediately received major national news attention, and Jones elaborates on the sordid details that emerged, including that the lawyers bred killer dogs to be sold to guard illegal methamphetamine labs, a scheme run from behind bars by Paul Schnieder, an Aryan Brotherhood member whom the lawyers not only represented but later adopted as part of a planned bizarre sexual triangle. Combining investigative reporting with exclusive access to Noel as well as to members of the San Francisco Police Department and the district attorney's office, Jones explores the lawyers' self-styled gothic world, a human "red zone" involving pornography and bestiality that had existed well before the death of Diane Whipple. With its graphic descriptions, this book is not for the squeamish.

(xpost)

haha basically you ARE a cartoon character to me, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that here

Sort of - because people don't understand anything about them and only go by what they've heard and not their own experience. However, I know what mine are like, and those of my friends and neighbors, so I kind of don't care if other people don't like it or don't get it - they don't have to. And yeah, people have crossed the street to avoid walking by my dogs - but I chalk it up to ignorance. It's very clear that I'm not walking a snarling ball of rage on the end of a leash, but a happy, sometimes drooling, always tail wagging and obedient big ball of puppy.

(goshdarned xposts!)

I agree, which is what prompts the question.

I know the Whipple case dogs weren't pit bulls, but pit bulls entertain a simillar reputation.

I'd put this same question to gun owners.

Also, what's the appeal of a shotgun? (xpost)

I'm not saying this is a factor for Luna, but she is a woman living alone in a dangerous city.

xposts, whoo hoo!

damn x-post

and if it was legal to own one of these, people would too:

http://www.supposedlysane.com/busterdog.jpg

what's your point?

There are lots of reasons to own a pit bull, which have been enumerated at length. Making a major decision like choosing the pet with whom you'll spend the next decade or so should be a personal one, and ideally not influenced by others' stereotypes.

xp-a-rama

you're the one who brought up the shotgun, I was merely pointing out that owning a dog in a city is something that is done in public.

Cause that was a total non-sequitur

I didn't bring guns into this, Luna did.

whether you can walk around with a gun has nothing to do with the question. You asked why someone would want to own something that threatened other people.

No, I asked why someone would want a pit bull. "To Threaten Someone" was someone else's explanation....and an unattractive one at that.

People have owned such things since the beginning of time.

Does that make it right?

I don't have pitbulls, or would I have a dog at all - for reasons of safety.

No, people don't walk guns - however I personally know more people who have died or been grievously wounded by them than have ever been bitten by a dog of any kind. Dogs are to be feared and reviled, while guns are 'yeah, hey okay, come look at my grandfather's arsenal, it's cool'.

You don't have to agre with me, but by the same token, don't expect me to agree with you. I have my own, personal experience going on here, something I live with every day... You have paranoia and overly hyped media horror stories. You think I'm a bad mother because I have pitbulls in my house with my child? That's okay, I respect your right to feel that way, and yes, I can even see where you're coming from. But can you see my point at all?

I'm not saying this is a factor for Luna, but she is a woman living alone in a dangerous city.

-- oops (don'temailmenicelad...), January 26th, 2004 1:33 PM. (Oops)

this sounds wrong - I'm not sure how to express what I do mean here.

The question shifted because someone explained the appeal of owning as pit bull as a means of threatening someone, which you must admit, begs further questions, no? (i.e. why do you feel the need to threaten someone, etc.)

xpost

the threatening aspect of them is just one (IMO twisted) reason why someone would own one, and isn't one that anyone here has given.

All I ever meant to say was I have pit bulls, I love them, mine and the ones I know are wonderful dogs, THOUGH I REALIZE THERE ARE LOTS OUT THERE THAT ARE NOT. That's it. Nothing else. Fini.

the threatening aspect of them is just one (IMO twisted) reason why someone would own one, and isn't one that anyone here has given.

Wrong. Nickalicious wrote:

Maybe part of their appeal IS their ability to fuck-shit-up. A well-trained fuck-shit-up dog might seem very appealing in terms of personal protection and whatnot. I guess what I'm saying is, considering a well-trained pit is more likely to fuck up some would-be attacker's shit than their owners, well...where's the non-appeal in that?

Are you always so defensive? Believe me, there are plenty of examples of threads around ILX where I am pointedly argumentative, and honestly this isn't one of them. I really don't have a stake in this, it was just curiosity. But the fact that I still remain unconvinced is no reason for you and Oops to demonize me, thanks very much. Enjoy your pit bull and may you never have any troubles with him.

FWIW I think pit bulls are hideous and I absolutely loathe dogs at this point in my life...