Started By
Message

re: Delta bans pit bulls as service dogs due to safety concerns

Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:16 pm to
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:16 pm to
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

Good. Hopefully more places ban them too where it’s at a point the only place you can have them is at home



I love when conservatives support unconstitutionally vague ordinances. "But AR doesn't even mean assault rifle!"

Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:21 pm to
quote:

isn’t that the point



If so, it's a stupid point.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:23 pm to
quote:


If so, it's a stupid point.
so showing that pit bulls are in fact more dangerous than other dogs by presenting data that their attacks are more fatal is a stupid point? Makes sense
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:24 pm to
quote:


I love when conservatives support unconstitutionally vague ordinances. "But AR doesn't even mean assault rifle!"
where is the right to bear pit bulls in the constitution
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:25 pm to
Beautiful dog. I love pitties, even mixed.

Bad dogs result from bad owners. Every breed has problem examples and pitties are no exception. However, pitties seem to have more bad owners who get them for the wrong reason and raise them to be aggressive.
This post was edited on 6/22/18 at 1:26 pm
Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
32095 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:26 pm to
Very few in our modern society are as stupid as pitbull owners.
This post was edited on 6/22/18 at 1:27 pm
Posted by NotGrammarKnotsi
Member since Jan 2018
314 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:26 pm to
quote:

unconstitutionally vague ordinances


pretty sure a business can do what they want...

quote:

AR doesn't even mean assault rifle


it doesn't...not sure what you're trying to point out by being wrong twice in one sitting
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
53243 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:27 pm to
Pop-up on the side from this thread.

Posted by al_cajun
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2017
2442 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:29 pm to
quote:

A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds. In other words, a whopping two-thirds of the hospital's dog-attack injuries involved just two breeds, pit bulls and Rottweilers.
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:30 pm to
quote:

so showing that pit bulls are in fact more dangerous than other dogs by presenting data that their attacks are more fatal is a stupid point?


Yes, because it's almost self-evident. Of course a bigger, stronger dog is going to be more dangerous when it attacks. If you look at data on dog bites overall, other breeds bite at higher rates. Furthermore, less than 1% of the fatal attacks by pitbulls occur with restrained dogs off the owners' property. So, now we have Delta vaguely banning "pit bull" dogs based on something that has a likelihood of .0000001%.

Neat.
This post was edited on 6/22/18 at 1:33 pm
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:31 pm to
quote:

A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds. In other words, a whopping two-thirds of the hospital's dog-attack injuries involved just two breeds, pit bulls and Rottweilers.


Why are you posting this data as if it somehow proves a new point?
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:32 pm to
quote:

So, now we have Delta vaguely banning "pit bull" dogs based on something that has a likelihood of .0000001% of the time.

Neat.
ok, whether we agree or disagree with the ban, they have every right to do it. Not sure where the unconstitutionality it comes from
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

but i still wouldn't leave it alone with my dogs or children.


You shouldn't leave your smaller dogs or children alone with any large dog. No breed is perfect, even the much-ballyhooed golden retriever.

All dogs are the result of intensive breeding and this can result in unforeseen, and sometimes very unfortunate, genetic outcomes. The term "psycho dog" exists for a reason. Dogs can "lose their minds" just as humans can. While it's exceedingly rare, it only has to hapoen once to a child to ruin someone's life.
Posted by al_cajun
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2017
2442 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

If you look at data on dog bites overall, other breeds bite at higher rates


Seems to contradict the statement you made earlier
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:36 pm to
quote:

ok, whether we agree or disagree with the ban, they have every right to do it.


And I have every right to call it stupid. Because it is.

quote:

Not sure where the unconstitutionality it comes from


The unconstitutionality comes from breed specific legislation overall, not the Delta incident in particular. 14th amendment.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:45 pm to
quote:

The unconstitutionality comes from breed specific legislation overall, not the Delta incident in particular. 14th amendment.


dogs aren’t people
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:48 pm to
No, they're property.
Posted by NotGrammarKnotsi
Member since Jan 2018
314 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:49 pm to
quote:

No, they're property.



So, you're ok with telling me what gun to own, but not me telling you what dog to bring on a flight for an airline I own...
This post was edited on 6/22/18 at 1:50 pm
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/22/18 at 1:52 pm to
quote:

So, you're ok with telling me what gun to own


No.

quote:

but not me telling you what dog to bring on a flight for an airline I own...



No.

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram