Hot take there should be licenses and background checks for ppl to own specific dog breeds. I don’t want some meth head, or someone who can’t properly train a dog to have easy access to an aggressive dog breed, yet alone an animal abuser.
Breeds aren’t aggressive. It’s all down to bloodlines and training
9
Anonymous15h
French bulldog is a luxury item
1
Anonymous14h
This is a pretty good take, idc. Most people would agree that owning a lion or tiger should at least have some sort of background check and license.
1
🦓
Anonymous14h
Put all pit bulls down!
-4
Anonymousthemind._.ofhueyfreeman2513h
This is true. However obviously some dogs can do much more damage than others if they are improperly trained.
1
Anonymousjustinian13h
Dangerous dogs aren’t dangerous because they are naturally aggressive, they are dangerous because if the owner trains them improperly, they could physically do more damage than a tiny dog.
1
Anonymouslandtrust13h
No
8
Anonymouslandtrust13h
The fuck is wrong with you
6
🦓
Anonymous#113h
They’re dangerous
-1
Anonymouslandtrust13h
“They’re genetically aggressive”
Army of Hitlers: “We agree!”
7
Anonymouslandtrust11h
If I showed u pictures of some dog breeds u wouldn’t be able to tell me which is and isn’t a pitbull gang
1
Anonymousjustinian11h
Yea I never denied that. Most bully breeds were bred to be animal/dog aggressive but if a dog is human aggressive it’s because of improper training and possibly abuse cases.