Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Had a small DDOS. We're back now after I nulled some IPs.

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - mutzaki (12/23/2012) [-]
I think it's pretty extreme to take pitbulls away and have them put down, but I definitely think any large or potentially dangerous breed of dog should require a license to own, and penalty towards owners should increase.
User avatar #49 to #19 - nighkey (12/24/2012) [-]
I happen to own a large, neutered pit bull. They do in fact have so much muscle around their skull that a man once shot one in the back of the head, thinking they hit bone, and only found muscle. (It had gotten hit by a car on accident, the owner couldn't do anything, it was dying, cop saw and tried to put it down. Cop took it to vet, vet put it in freezer, the cold stopped the bleeding, and it woke up alive. Vet saved it, owner got it back.)

Working in a vet clinic myself, from experience with my own pitbull and caring for other's, they are very good family dogs. The catch that could make them dangerous is that they love their family so much, and want to protect them so much, that they aren't afraid to potentially be aggressive to someone they perceive as a threat. Like that guy trying to steal gas from my lawn mower. - - He nearly got attacked. Only time that dog's ever wanted to hurt someone before. But he cuddles and "shares his toys" with my new baby. Very caring, gentle with family.
User avatar #58 to #49 - mutzaki (12/24/2012) [-]
Yes, of course, if you are up to the task of owning a potentially dangerous breed, it's fine. People never seem to understand what I mean when I get into this, and just talk about how their dogs are well-behaved and so great; no offense.
But fact is that certain large breeds of dogs have a history of being used as basically weapons, or becoming a threat if unproperly taken care of or disciplined. If someone who doesn't know how to raise such a dog is taking care of one, it's only naïve to believe that the dog couldn't possibly endanger people it comes into contact with. Of course it's a bit different between individuals, but it's not a coincidence that breeds like rotweilers and pitbulls, etc. have the kind of infamy when absolutely anyone can adopt one. That's why I think a required license is in order.
#60 to #58 - iducur (12/24/2012) [-]
But also, wounds and bites from smaller dogs are much less likely to be reported.   

			
			You need to login to view this link
But also, wounds and bites from smaller dogs are much less likely to be reported.
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #62 to #60 - mutzaki (12/24/2012) [-]
Probably because they're usually a lot less serious, and smaller dogs are easier for people to fend off. Undisciplined large dogs have a history of sometimes killing children.
User avatar #63 to #62 - iducur (12/24/2012) [-]
Yes, almost 90% because the parents won't watch them. It's sad, and some things do need to change, but making more legal hoops to jump through before an animal can be rescued, in my opinion, may not be the best choice. They should get rid of BSL, which they even admit just cost $ and protects nobody, and have more thorough interviews with the possible owner and a background check.
User avatar #66 to #63 - mutzaki (12/24/2012) [-]
Owners need to keep watch over their dogs, rather, since they're the ones that cause danger. Obviously parents should keep watch of their children, but at the same time, a child who approaches a dog on the street should never be in danger because of that. Both are at fault, but mainly the dog owner if the animal isn't fit to be around children, since they are everywhere and aren't the ones that make up for danger upon others.

Instead of focusing mainly on the rescuing of animals, I think that something should be done about continued superfluous breeding. Much more controlled breeding and punishment for bringing unwanted puppies into the world should be established, since that helps take care of the problem. So a license to breed puppies and making sure that they're wanted should be a must.
#64 to #63 - iducur (12/24/2012) [-]
Maybe random drug tests wouldn't hurt either. There's more drugs and such involved in dog fighting rings than drug rings these days.    
Ugh, why do people have to be awful to begin with?   
They make the once called "nanny dog" fight to the death, steal, shoot up places...I say tougher psyc screenings for dogs weapons. That way, psycho's can only resort to this to hurt anyone (gif)
Maybe random drug tests wouldn't hurt either. There's more drugs and such involved in dog fighting rings than drug rings these days.
Ugh, why do people have to be awful to begin with?
They make the once called "nanny dog" fight to the death, steal, shoot up places...I say tougher psyc screenings for dogs weapons. That way, psycho's can only resort to this to hurt anyone (gif)
User avatar #65 to #64 - iducur (12/24/2012) [-]
*dogs and weapons
User avatar #22 to #19 - jessieqwertyu (12/24/2012) [-]
So even other nice family dogs? Like retrievers and labs?
User avatar #21 to #19 - pull (12/24/2012) [-]
Please. That's like saying fat people should have to have a license to be as obese as they are, or pay a special tax.
User avatar #26 to #21 - circuit (12/24/2012) [-]
... i kind of like that idea.
User avatar #27 to #26 - pull (12/24/2012) [-]
What, fat people, or dogs? One earns my respect, one makes me want to shank you with a corkscrew. Because I like dogs.
User avatar #28 to #27 - circuit (12/24/2012) [-]
no no i like dogs. fat people however.
User avatar #29 to #28 - pull (12/24/2012) [-]
Yeah lol. I'm slightly overweight at about 205 pounds, but DAMN some of these guys.
 Friends (0)