People suck

[Angel]

http://www.sorryagain.com/

[STIBungy]

Get rid of those POS dogs.

[B20badboy]

Get rid of those POS dogs.
That's kind messed up Pits are sweet Dogs.

[RudysSI]

Pits are pretty cool dogs.

[stu]

What's up with all these stupid fucking sorry websites?

[Kwando]

pits are great dogs if brought up in the right enviroment... too many factors go into why they snap and attack

[doctorstupid]

If it weren't in my lease to not have a dog, I would buy a pit tomorrow.

I can think of few things more satisfying than an obediant, protective dog that will piss off a bunch of idiot hippes.

[SSJupB]

Sorry I am on the side of all the people who have been attacked. I have been attacked by too many dogs in my days...

[Angel]

Some day there will be a bill against uneducated assholes who dont actually know what they are talking about.
Banning Pit Bulls would be like banning cars because people get killed in car accidents! Who's responsible, the car or the driver/manufacturer? Any car can be deadly in the wrong hands or if built with defective parts. Same thing with dogs... Any dog. Pit Bulls are no more responsible for the way they are bred, raised and trained, than cars are responsible for the way they are designed, built and driven. Simply put, the best argument against breed bans is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are "doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise.
Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to them and might make them want to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they really don't care. They will just get another one because breed bans punish the dog, not the owner.

On the other hand, law abiding responsible owners, whose dogs love people and have never done anything wrong, can see their homes invaded, often without a search warrant, and their beloved family members dragged away (in front of their children) to be killed. Not because the dogs are unstable or mean, but simply because of their breed. Meanwhile, the owners of truly dangerous dogs (of any breed) escape punishment because their breed is not targeted by legislation and therefor is believed "safe".
A 10 Lbs Pomeranian killed a baby a few years ago... Obviously a problem with that particular dog, not the breed. "The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"
Because of a serious lack of regulation in dog breeding, too many dogs inherit defective genes and are sold to irresponsible owners. A breed ban will not resolve the problem. This non sense will continue with the next macho breed and will become an endless race between breed specific legislators and unscrupulous breeders.
A Pit Bull breeder was shut down last year because Pit Bulls were banned in Topeka, Kansas. All his dogs were seized and destroyed just for being the wrong breed at the wrong place. The man now breeds and sells "African Boerboel", a rare breed from the Mastiff family" completely unknown to legislators. Unlike American Pit Bull Terriers however, who are known for their love of people, Boerboels are serious guard dogs bred specifically as protectors. An irresponsibly bred and owned Boerboel might actually be more dangerous than an irresponsibly bred and owned Pit Bull. This is what a breed ban has accomplished in Topeka..

So in light of this, what kind of message are we telling abusive and irresponsible individuals when we make the dogs pay the price for their action?

[floored4door]

pits are great dogs if brought up in the right enviroment... too many factors go into why they snap and attack

:werd: