the thought of the Pit Bull ban being lifted in the UK terrifies me. There are enough Chav scum owning Staffies, imagine if they were aloud to own twice the weight Pit Bulls? *shudders*

.

Many laws are stupid, but they are laws, and when we break them we are breaking the law""

Pit bulls are Banned, they are ILEGAL!! simple as!

You're right I don't.

You visited any Staffy rescues in the UK recently?

Well considering you live thousands of miles away, it does nto really matter what you think of our laws does it

Why not go fight your own stupid dog laws in the USA!

So none of those sorts own Rottweilers? Cane Corsos? Various mastiff-types? Here they sure do and some of those dogs weigh well over 100 pounds.

Also, the American Pit Bull Terrier is NOT a huge dog. It's a medium-sized dog:

Male 35 to 60 lb (16 to 27 kg)
Female 30 to 50 lb (14 to 23 kg)

Wow you're a friendly one there Jack. I do fight our laws here, so thanks. And I'm allowed to have an opinion on your law. I have plenty of friends in the UK who disagree with the law and would love to own an pit bull if they could. I have one friend who has a dog she got as a puppy from a Staffy rescue who she's pretty sure is actually a pit bull and she's in constant fear that someone will take the dog away from her. She has a lot of mental problems and the dog has become a sort of therapy dog for her.

[QUOTE=Crysania;2014629]So none of those sorts own Rottweilers? Cane Corsos? Various mastiff-types? Here they sure do and some of those dogs weigh well over 100 pounds.

Also, the American Pit Bull Terrier is NOT a huge dog. It's a medium-sized dog:

Male 35 to 60 lb (16 to 27 kg)
Female 30 to 50 lb (14 to 23 kg)[/QUOT

yes, they do own these too but Staffs are seen as a status dog. AP's would be the ultimate status dog.

Being from the States i don't think you understand what a problem the whole Chav culture is over here. AP's are a lot bigger and stronger than Staffs.

And Rotties are a lot bigger and stronger than APBTs.

Here we call it "thug culture" or "gang culture" but from what I've gathered it's very much the same thing. Many people from the "hood" have status dogs. Sometimes they're pits, but they're also just as often Rottweilers and other massive looking dogs. In the cities, especially, it's a huge problem.

Edited to add: I just looked up the technical definition of Chav and read this: "The typical "chav"—known also as a charver in Yorkshire and North East England[1]—is said to be an aggressive teenager, sometimes unemployed or of white working class background, who repeatedly engages in anti-social behaviour,[2] such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency."

If that's fairly accurate, it's similar to thugs, but not as dangerous as our gang violence (which involves street fights, gun violence, knives, and a lot of death and injury, even to people caught in the crossfire). And a lot of gang members keep status dogs of varying kinds.

I may be reading this wrongly, so forgive me if I am, I don't think its whether they are or are not illegal that is the issue, I think any responsible dog owner no matter what country they live in would not willingly take on a banned breed as they run the risk of bonding and providing a good life for that dog, say in this instance a pit, and then having the dog seized, held in poor conditions and possibly(probably) destroyed I doubt any of us would want that for an animal we felt compelled to, regardless of breed. I think the issue is how sensible/enforcible/rational is the law

I will abide by the law as long as it stands in this country, but just because I abide by it this does not mean I agree with it. It is my opinion that it is severely flawed.

The issue of dangerous OWNERS and dogs certainly has to be addressed but I believe the banning of specific breeds to be severely flawed.

It was not all that long ago that, lets say certain colours of skin, meant that you were branded dangerous (there were ill-advised laws put in place based on this assumption, which have now thankfully been abolished - in civilised society) - I abhor that as well, I am glad that people, in the main, in civilised societies, are now judged on their actions and not their appearances after all the most dangerous beast is the human

People who want the breed or breed type for unsavoury purposes still get there hands on breed or type, and then breed (as is the case, probably, with the Dogos) to create more type dogs - this goes on even though the breed is illegal. There are probably a handful of Pit or Pit type dogs in loving well meaning homes in the UK who will not be subjected to fighting, I do admit that the majority will be subjected to pain suffering etc but why is this the fault of the breed, it is the fault of the humans and the shawdyness of the laws.

Many Pit Types are actually what would be considered crosses in america (and yes I know the Pit bull here is not a recognised breed) and they are Pits or Pit crosses bred to larger mastiff/molasser types .

so why contribute to it in the UK by making the AP legal? Would do so much harm. This is my personal opinion, this breed is not needed in the UK. As it has already been mentioned there are so many Staffy types in dogs homes, bought by people who do not or cannot control them. AP's would add to this.