PENELOPE writes:

I had to write you on this topic of Pit Bull Discrimination.

In 2012, I was attacked by an “American Bulldog,” which is a type of pit bull. I was walking in my neighborhood. It was a gentrifying area and the Hispanic owners apparently left the dog in a confined room all day, but it had gotten out.

I turned a corner and the dog left its property; jumped in the middle of the street; bit me on my rib cage; and then locked onto my right forearm while pulling me down in the middle of the road. It would not let go. This is what these dogs do. The owner’s brother came and tried to pull the dog off of me as it shook my entire body. It took about a full minute for it to release me. If the owner had not been there, I may have been killed.

This dog had a previous bite record and I was the second victim, however the dog was only put down after I proved PERMANENT nerve damage in that liberal utopia of a city. I have discomfort everyday from this attack and will for the rest of my life.

I cannot describe the anger these groups bring to me with their naiveté. These are dogs who were bred to fight and kill bulls, just as lap dogs were meant to sit in your lap! There is just no reasoning with such liberal rationale these days, these people are part of a larger brainwashing program. I have given this great thought and believe that “nurture” is the default liberal answer to things that truly have to do with nature.

More technology can create a further ‘nurturing’ environment for non-whites to score as well as whites do on tests, men can defy nature becoming women, homosexuals can procreate through science, and so on. With this rationale if only pit bulls had more love, they wouldn’t attack. What a joke!

Nature is a more powerful force than bankrupt delusions of equality. We are truly at war for reason and logic in this deluded age.

Laura write:

What a terrifying incident for you.

Animals make wonderful companions. But animals are animalistic in everything they do. They are not worthy of so much preoccupation.

— Comments —

Dan R. writes:

As a practical matter why isn’t anyone discussing increasing the penalties for dogs that attack? Apparently the pit bull is the leader in dog attacks, so rather than discriminating against the breed we could accomplish something close with increased punishment. A good part of me believes most of the problem lies with irresponsible and somewhat crazed owners. I’ve seen the pictures of the RCA dog, based on a dog named Nipper (not actually a purebreed pit bull), and call me a sucker for advertising, but I don’t think there was much of a connection made at the time between the breed and the attacks we read about today. To be fair, however, Nipper got his name because of a propensity to nip at the back of peoples’ legs! And lastly: I live in a very nice exurban town in Michigan, and a couple of months ago I saw a 20-ish woman of small stature and slight build walking her dog on one of the main sidewalks, right near the McDonald’s. It was a larger-than-average pit bull which she struggled to keep control of, notwithstanding the fact that she was using two leashes!

Laura writes:

The problem is irresponsible owners and a breed of dogs that is dangerously aggressive. Pit bulls should be banned. Period. What difference does a penalty make to someone who’s almost lost her life?

Dan R.writes:

You ask: “What difference does a penalty make to someone who’s almost lost her life?” My answer: the same difference, sadly, as with someone who’s lost his life in a crime: none. The purpose of a penalty is a) a matter of justice, and b) a matter of deterrence. If dog owners had to spend time in jail because of their irresponsibility or recklessness, it’s hard to believe it wouldn’t make a difference in the number of future victims.

As to banning pit bulls, I don’t have a ready answer. Unlike the wolf hybrid dog (usually mated with a German shepherd) that is banned in certain states, the breed has been around for a long time. Today it leads the list of breeds that attack people, but was it always so? As anecdotal as the example of Nipper is, it lends credence to the idea that it was not. There are dog owners who, for reasons best left to psychologists, gravitate toward owning dangerous dogs, and for me that’s a big part of the problem. I love dogs, but once in awhile encounter one which frightens me. “No Bad Dogs” was a popular title by Barbara Woodhouse that made the case for training of the dog as the most important factor, which I guess brings us back to the classic “nature versus nurture” debate.

Laura writes:

I realize the purpose of a penalty would be a deterrent, but whatever it would be it would be inadequate and I don’t think would make much difference. Anyway, let’s protect honesty about pit bulls. It’s okay to hate them.

A reader writes:

Here are statistics for dog attacks and dog fatalities.

George Weinbaum writes:

Just what we need, pit bull control. Just like gun control. I disagree with you, Laura. The problem with pit bulls is that many of them are used as fighting dogs. Particularly by Hispanics. Great, more diversity. After a few fights, these dogs are abandoned. These dogs are dangerous.

Pit bulls are medium to large dogs. The average female weighs about 55 pounds, the average male 80 pounds. There are many larger dogs than this, rottweilers, canne corsos, bull mastiffs, great danes and others. Should we ban all of these? What about 100 pound mutts?

As long as a “pit bull” is behind a 6.5 foot height fence, it should be no danger. That a small woman owns a large dog she might not be able to control is crazy.

Pit bulls were not always viewed as being dangerous dogs. This is a development of the last say 20-25 years. I see the pit bull danger an another product of diversity.

Laura writes:

I see what you mean. It’s the abuse of the dogs that’s the problem.

Mr. Weinbaum writes:

Here’s an image of a pit bull from decades ago. What happened in the last 80 years?

Please follow and like us: