So we ignore those that lived but are maimed? Those pics mean nothing? It was the children's fault? They don't matter to you. Says all I need to know about you.

Pit bulls get a bad rap there are good ones and bad ones but most of the ones you see on the news are mutts with who knows what bloodline. Go check out the video of animal control removing the dog in question it’s NOT a pit bull. One thing for sure this topic sure brings out the know nothing know it all’s.

What a ridiculous [censored] thing to assume and say about me.....I spent a decade working child deaths for Texas CPS after I spent 20 at my PD....where I helped start the NE Texas CAC..... you want to be obtuse to the facts or ignore that EVERY child death other than illness is the result of actions or inactions of other people be my [censored] guest!! Pit bulls are way the [censored] down the scale of things to worry about.

Defund pitbulls. They are systematically violent dogs. Am I doing this right?

And you can add your name to the list Mr. Kettle.

You just don’t get it and your comments just make me sick! God put pit bulls on the earth to eat a few kids for all the worlds sins! Geez.

When you see them running around town or wherever loose just shoot them in the guts with a CB cap or pellet gun.
They will just wander back home to their owner in the wife beater shirt and die in their own yard eventually

Woo! This took an unexpected, but hilarious, turn.

I don't think pit bull lovers are bad people just like I don't think most liberals are bad people - just horribly misguided.

But we still need to kill them all. I also think we should kill all copperheads, black mambas, water moccasins, and brown recluses.

You're right, it was a mix that definitely was heavy on the pit bull breed.

Kobe be ded

Yes. Cancel Culture Karen is proud of U.

Keep your Pit on a short chain in your yard. If I see one running loose it'll get shot in the face. I don't give a [censored] if it is pulling orphans from a burning building or pulling Santa's sleigh..POP right between the eyes.

Nobody bats an eye about it being difficult to own lions and tigers...because they are bread to kill, but then you get people wanting to keep a dog that's bread to kill and thats supposed to be fine. The "not the breed the owner" argument ignores the genetic aspect of the animal and the predisposition to violent acts. They have bodies selcted for heavy muscle and strong jaws, an energetic disposition etc.

I keep chickens. There are breeds of dogs that are raised to be live stock guarda and will likely never be an issue with my chickens and I can be reasonably sure those can be left with the chickens or even used to protect them . I can go get a hunting breed and train train train it until it leaves my birds alone but that dog will still one bad minute away from killing my birds and there wont be anything to be done for it in that momment. Further, it could do the same to my neighbors birds and there would be nothing for it in the momment. The same potential exists with the pit bull. The original breed stock was used for restraining cattle by biting the face and also heavily for dog fighting. That is what the animal is made to do. When you try to make a killer the family pet a lot of times it works, but sometimes it doesnt. The problem is they dont come with flashing signs that say "i could snap today" or "my killer drive has been bred out". I fall heavily on the side of personal liberty however, I think the issue here is that in the monment even a responsible owner has a level of inability to control for the momment. For example, the dog jumped out the window, tore away from leash, jumped fence, dug out, disobeyed commands, snapped at the baby, etc. Making that pitt bull a family pet is asking it to be something it isnt bread for.

As far as comparing dogs to firearms. Firearms require human action whether accidental or intentional to harm others. They are one tool among many designed to project force. No amount of laws and rules will ever stop mans intent to harm others or make it go away, thus the argument for allowing individual ownership of arms, to defend myself from those who would do me harm. Removing my right to defend myseld does nothing to the intent of evil men. Pit bulls have a level of thinking for themselves and a genetic purpose to do harm. No law will change that or remove the risk to others related to those genetics, or the ability to decide to disregard training. What level of restrictions on the ownership of pit bulls sufficiently removes the risk to innocent parties? How much of that risk does an individual have the right to project onto another? I am of the opinion that owning a pit projects a level of risk onto others that the owner can not totally eliminate, where as my ownership of firearms is only a threat to others if I intend it to be, and if I intend to cause harm taking my guns wont stop me.