because you know your wrong? whether you agree with it or not, it makes complete sense why people would want to ban them. it is totally justified, as mentioned before it has already been done in some places. because you obviously disagree you just compare it to something completly unrelated and pointless, pit bulls eating children to trucks (wtf?). once you realized how stupid your comparison was you try to save grace by saying "well you cant just make a ban on something because it only happens sometimes" . then i provided you with an exact example of such a case and 'your not gonna waste your time'. sounds like your just unwilling to accept the fact that you were WRONG.

wearing seat belts only saves someones life once in a blue moon, guess what.... they made it a law!

Humans kill people sometimes and its their nature to kill things. In fact a large part of the human race's survival has come from enslaving and slaughtering other animals for meat. I think we should ban all human beings!

You know you're bitching about him making bad comparisons...but you're been comparing jalapenos and seatbelts to pitbulls.

I totally agree, I am a vegetarian so I will be OK... tough luck for the rest of you.

No I am not. I am justifying that banning something because it only affects a small number of people is justified if it is unnecessary and preventable. He was comparing how we should ban trucks because they kill people. We NEED trucks to further advance the human race, and the truck has nothing to do with killing the children... the driver does. Pit Bulls serve no real purpose other than companionship or protection, and that could be replaced by another dog.

Another dog that fills the same role would be violent. Dogs that protect don't do it by blowing a panic whistle at the intruder.

Actually many dogs just bark and growl, or they just bite and dont bite to kill. There is a reason this says "VICIOUS animals" and includes pit bulls.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study concerning deaths from canine attacks in 2000. [34] According to the study, between 1979 and 1998, one-third of all fatal dog attacks were caused by Pit Bull type dogs. The highest number of attacks (118) were by Pit Bull type dogs, the next highest being Rottweilers at 67.

You are really beating this to death.

Yeah, and that reason is misconception. It would be like an article saying Mexicans are more prone to doing gang related crimes. It doesn't mean we should ban Mexicans, it means we should put them in jail for impeding the rights of others. Likewise, we shouldn't ban pit bulls, we should create a situation in which they can exist without impeding the rights of others. My solution from earlier still sounds reasonable. Pitbll breeder's licenses would ensure that those who are fit to raise a pitbull can still do so peacefully and those who don't want to or are incapable of it won't or can't. However, if someone wants a pitbull on their property that is quite frankly none of your business unless you don't want to be around it in which case don't go where pitbulls will be. Though I still think thats an overblown course of action and the law should be left as is.

Did this take into consideration who raised them, how they were raised, and how other dogs were raised? I think if the research were deeper than you'd see that nurturing has far more to do with behavior than nature does. Not that nature wouldn't be a factor, but that they could be bred to not be killers.

Also, you don't have much room talking about having things banned considering you'd ban humans. You do realize we humans own the country, not you vegetables, right?

I wasnt being serious, im not even a vegetarian (although i did do a 6 month stint). It was a JOKE... although YOU did suggest it.

What the study did show was that pit bulls, whether properly trained or not, in general have a history of higher rates of fatal attacks. This was not some poor study, the CDC is one of the largest and most comprehensive research groups to date. This shows that it is NOT a misconception, that these dogs by nature are OBVIOUSLY more dangerous or vicious. PERIOD.

Seriously though, quit trying to throw in stupid **** suggesting that banning mexicans, humans, or trucks is the same as banning a certain breed of violent dogs. I actually agree with you the breeders licenses would possibly be a reasonable way to deal with the situation; instead of discussing this I end up having to waste my time explaining to you that banning mexicans is not the same as banning a certain bread of dog. Its starting to look hopeless... I got faith in you though, you seem bright enough.

How is it different? They're both violent breeds of living things.

Hispanics are not a 'violent breed of living things', certainly not comparable to pit bulls. I don't even really think this conversation needs to go any further, if you cant see the difference I pity you. I think I will do you a favor and stop now. Have a good evening.