Pit Bulls: What's the appeal?

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...

http://www.travel-images.com/alaska19.jpg

Did I ever once claim NOT to have an opinion on this subject matter? Look at the language in the question, for pete's sakes, it quite obviously takes assumes a dismissive/derisive tone towards the animals. That said, I am still honestly and legitimate puzzled by the appeal of owning such an animal. As to why I continue to be puzzled, hasn't there ever been an instance in your life wherein someone handed you an explanation that you SIMPLY DIDN'T BUY? or at least simply didn't fathom?

I don't hide it under the guise of demonization and persecution.

Because Oops was getting frustrated by the mere fact that I still hadn't changed my tune and joined the happy I love Pit bulls club, he resorted to petty character assasination and Luna implied that I'm needlessly argumentative. Maybe "demonization" and "persecution" are too weighty terms for that, but I found it a bit unnecessary.

You're getting this response because people are getting frustrated with trying to discuss this with you (and, uh, certain others on this thread--like I said, if you let one bad experience color your entire perspective on a species, breed, whatever and those that associate with them, that's your own issue to be dealt with, no one else's). You can't possibly tell anyone that you don't enjoy this just a little bit, no?

I don't enjoy being reduced to a cliche, thanks very much. Perhaps I should have titled this thread: DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE: PIT BULLS! Would that have made my predisposition about the topic clearer?

They're Delicious!

I am suspicious of the categorical nature of that statement when there is ample evidence to suggest otherwise. But, maybe I'm just being Sammy Safety.

I worked at a kennel for a while and the only injury I had was from a toy poodle. The dog I adopted was a mastiff/pitbull/rottweiler mix mutt, he was the best pet available there.

If you are worried about pit bulls then you will poop a log when you hear this- check it out, a guy I know owns a 600lb Siberian Tiger. He drives it around in a limo, it sleeps in his bed every night. I got to draw it a bunch of times when he brought it to my school as a drawing model. Bringing that in a school full of students dangerous maybe? Well, they did it without worrying about liability and there's even a testimonial letter on the website.
http://qadesh.com/

They're GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRATE!

No Toronto. Who's that guy! Is he who whut I thunk I heard about that dude who tried to keep a tiger in a house without permits or anything?

Also, for the record, my parents own a German Shepard/Rottweiler mix (we think), and though he can be a little feisty sometimes, he's a generally a sweetheart. They adopted him after finding him abandoned in the woods near their friends' cabin. What would've been a better choice for them? To leave him in the woods where he'd starve? (He was, by the behavior he exhibited, obviously already domesticated.)

also, here is some stuff about dog attacks.

However I was curious as to what the demographic were on dog attacks and then found this handy web page at the Center For Disease Control. There's some interesting reading there - it appears that pit bulls and rottweilers are involved in more biting incidents, however it's potentially that's because of owners/breeders choosing more aggressive dogs than something inherent to the breed. Guess there's just a lot of meth labs out there that need defending.

Some interesting stats from Australia though - I had no idea American pit bulls were banned (maybe just in Adelaide though)

http://www.mrmodels.co.nz/diecast/1_43rdscalediecast/Corgi%20501%20%20Buick-Kojak%20Car.jpg

a couple months ago (around thanksgiving), a friend of mine witnessed a pitbull (off-leash) attack a policewoman riding a horse in golden gate park in san francisco. the pitbull took a bite out of horses leg and stomach, the policewoman was thrown from the horse, and the dog's owner was kicked in the face by the horse. the horse sprinted off and another police officer chased down the dog and shot it twice in the head.

my main problem with pitbulls is that they attract some of the worst/irresponsible pet owners but that's been mentioned upthread many times.

http://www.pbrc.net/breedspecific.html

Check it out.

Unfortunately, I think that responsible and humane pit bull owners are in the minority, but demonizing the entire breed isn't going to change things.

So the fatal dog attack stats showed an average of 12 a year for the past 36 years, the great majority on little kids left unsupervised with dogs... I can think of much bigger household hazards (drownings in buckets?) but I concede there were no lab or golden retriever attacks listed there and powerful dogs are more dangerous.

Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.

The CDC page, upon a quick glance, seems to have at least one article saying the same thing. Male dogs that aren't fixed are much more aggressive.

Responsible dog owners who aren't planning on breeding get their dogs fixed. For lots of reasons. I have a strong opinion on this obv, and it's a whole separate issue. But it can make a big difference with behavior/aggression.

Some who are otherwise very responsible are total dumbasses about this because they don't want to imagine that snipping process. But I could especially see how those looking for the dog-as-macho-image-enhancer would especially want a male, uncastrated dog.

This whole post doesn't really make much difference, it's just one more angle on the gripe that there are far too many irresponsible people who own powerful breeds of dogs.