Replies

Just curious... Do you think pit bulls are more aggressive and prone to vicious attacks than other breeds, generally speaking? Or do you think they no more aggressive and prone to vicious attacks? Now there is a freedom issue here. I don't think it is unreasonable for people to be allowed to keep vicious breeds, as long as they control them. But as a simple factual matter, do you think there is a difference in aggressiveness between a pit bull and a Labrador retriever?

...of course so-called pitbulls are agressive BUT they CAN and SHOULD be socialized to behave by responsible owners. The keyword here is "responsible owner" because not everyone should own a so-called pitbull..just as you wouldn't want to place a .357-magnum in the hands of a child, an aggressive breed of dog (or any breed of dog for that matter) should not be owned by persons not able to become a pack leader. Dogs are naturally social animals and need a dominant, nurturing forceful to be happy and contented. More than 90 percent of attacks involving pitbulls were cases in which the dog was chained and abused or encouraged to become aggressive (a favored tactic with drug dealers).

just as you wouldn't want to place a .357-magnum in the hands of a child, an aggressive breed of dog (or any breed of dog for that matter) should not be owned by persons not able to become a pack leader.

OK, hold on here. You've used a poor analogy here. It's one thing to deny a child access to a .357; it's another thing to deny an adult such access. So let's sweep the whole child issue off the table.

Now we're limited to adults that you say are "not able to become a pack leader." Are you saying that you support some sort of regulation as to who can and cannot own pit bulls?

If so, it sounds like that's what Denver did. Only their choice was a bit, well, binary.