Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[strange1]

People are free to choose the dogs they like. Lots of people - make that, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE who choose pit bulls do so because they like them, they like their temperament. Why does anyone choose any dog?

This lead right to the point I was implying. The government alredy interferes with citizens' rights to do things that are harmful to themselves and others. For example, the ban on smoke in public places. Although many more people die in car accidents than die from second hand smoke, smoking in all places with public access was banned.

The government (either provincial or municipal) also has the duty to on other perceived threats (yes I used the word perceived).

People like to smoke but are not allowed to do so in public. People may like the way a rocket launcher looks and works but they can't own them either. People may like to have pitt bulls but the government should ban them from other public places as well if the public feels they are a threat.

Many (if not most) breeds of dogs have similar unquestioned loyalty to their owner that a pitt has WITHOUT the ability to or GENETIC PREDISPOSITION to do as much damage.

My question was why does someone want a pitt and all you answered was because they like them. If the public feels that pitts are a threat than it's time for the government to say that you better start liking another dog's temperment.

The only thing to oppose this is for pitt bull owners to start a massive public education campaign about how "safe" the dogs are. I agree that it's a perception that the dogs are a public threat but the job of the government to enforce the public's will. It's probably that most people would rather not have the slightest chance of being attacked rather than let you have exactly the dog you want. The media has a role in this but it comes down to the fact that the public's perception is the politicians reality. When it comes to safety, I feel much safer away from those dogs.

As for definitions: (From thefreedictionary.com)

guard dog - a dog trained to guard property (in other words, a dog that keeps a property safe by creating a fear of injury to anyone that enters)

attack dog - a watchdog trained to attack on command

(from USlegalforms.com)
Dog fighting is an illegal practice in which two dogs, usually of a Pit Bull breed, are put into an enclosed area for the purpose of attacking and quite frequently, killing each other. (why do you think pitts are used? Is it their temperment?)

(from dictionary.com)
dan·ger·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dnjr-s)
adj.

1. Involving or filled with danger; perilous.
2. Being able or likely to do harm.


(being able to do harm - sounds pretty apt to me)

 

[strange1]

by the way ranger, a quote from your article

" The attack on the Pomeranian is the latest of several recent incidents in which Rottweilers have become violent in Manitoba this summer.

Two nine-year-olds suffered severe bites in the past three weeks, and a Rottweiler was destroyed by the city after biting and seriously injuring the leg of an eight-year-old boy in the North End last June. "

To me that adds up to 4 since last june (that means about a year and 3 months). Even the sun chain would have trouble creating an uproar over this.

" "I don't think Rottweilers should be allowed at all," she said."

I think the point of this article isn't that the ban doesn't work but that it should be expanded.

 

[tzahal]

I think the point of this article isn't that the ban doesn't work but that it should be expanded.

the point of the article should be the ban doesnt work but its time we held the owners accountable for their dogs actions. problem is there are many people who are scared of their own fucking shadow right now and fopr some reason mcguinty probably feels he can scare them into voting for him again if he passes this ban. when its time for his reelection he will have little league baseball banned because you might get hit with a ball.

asses all around

 

[strange1]

Also, from a pro pitt bull site

http://www.pitbullsoforegon.com/breed_history.html

A couple of excerpts.

" In the early part of the 19th century, the Bulldog was bred in England for the purpose of bull baiting"

"The dog would attempt to grab on to a nose or ear, and hang on until the bull collapsed from exhaustion or lack of oxygen"

" With bull baiting banned, dog breeders turned their attention to dog fighting. These dogs were preferred because of their fierceness, courage, and tenacity. The dog breeders began with the Bull Dog, mixed in some terrier blood for gameness, and produced the Bull and Terrier, a dog that met all of their expectations. The Bull and Terrier was bred for aggression to other dogs, unrelenting bravery, a high pain threshold, a superior blood clotting ability to aid him when wounded, a willingness to fight to the end"

"Not only were the dogs bred to be aggressive towards other dogs, but they also had to be loyal to people"

"breeders of the Bull and Terrier began to selectively breed for a larger dog"

It seems to me that this is a FIGHTING DOG, bred to be all the things that the media claims they are. It was bred to attack other dogs (an infringement of other owners rights) and not stop its attack, essentially unless it was dead. It has the jaw stength to hold onto a flailing bull, even as it is being crushed and is even slow to bleed out when injured. I would believe that they are extremely loyal but even this is a danger in the wrong hands.

This is from a pro-pitt bull website and has convinced me that it's a breed that I want nothing to do with.

 

[red]

Okay, let's get rid of all breeds that have ever killed or mauled people.

That's most dogs.

While we're at it, let's ban alcohol, since about a MILLION times more problems stem from alcohol use and abuse than dogs. While we're at that, let's ban everything we don't like and everything that scares us.

Forget the fact that none of these bans will work ........

i am glad you agree

 

[Ranger68]

by the way ranger, a quote from your article

" The attack on the Pomeranian is the latest of several recent incidents in which Rottweilers have become violent in Manitoba this summer.

Two nine-year-olds suffered severe bites in the past three weeks, and a Rottweiler was destroyed by the city after biting and seriously injuring the leg of an eight-year-old boy in the North End last June. "

To me that adds up to 4 since last june (that means about a year and 3 months). Even the sun chain would have trouble creating an uproar over this.

" "I don't think Rottweilers should be allowed at all," she said."

I think the point of this article isn't that the ban doesn't work but that it should be expanded.

Then you should be AGAINST the pit bull ban, and FOR a ban of many (most?) dogs.
There is no evidence that they government has any plan to expand the ban.
Since there's no danger of a public outcry.
This is evidence that a pit bull ban, on its own, will do nothing to stop the problem.

I'm glad you agree.

Of course, there's no evidence that ANY breed ban or bans will work, but why bother actually *solving a problem* when you can *appear* to solve a problem and cater to the mob while doing so. A quote from one of the studies I linked mentions "false satisfaction". This is the case in Winnipeg.

Stop arguing around the point - there is NO EVIDENCE that a breed ban is workable or effective. There is evidence to the contrary, and there is authoritative opinion that it's not a good idea. Who's in favour of this ban? Not anyone who wants to stop dog attacks.

 

[Ranger68]

i am glad you agree

I don't. I was being facetious. Sorry that wasn't obvious.

But, I guess it's obvious where you're coming from - ban everything remotely objectionable.

Kindly leave my country.

 

[tzahal]

I would believe that they are extremely loyal but even this is a danger in the wrong hands.

no shit sherlock. liquid drano is dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

[tzahal]

I don't. I was being facetious. Sorry that wasn't obvious.

But, I guess it's obvious where you're coming from - ban everything remotely objectionable.

Kindly leave my country.

i think red's name says it all. he is a commie. must be

 

[wikiwild]

liquid drano is relatively inanimate.

 

[tzahal]

liquid drano is relatively inanimate.

tell that to a baby that gets a hold of some. the point is everyhting can be dangerous in the wrong hands and unless there is something done to ensure dog owners are responsible for their pets actions there will still be bites . even with the pitt bulls gone.

 

[strange1]

Hey, you're argueing a breed ban won't work while stating that winnipeg has had only 4 attacks in 15 months. Your only basis for the fact that the ban wont work is the OPINION that people will find other dogs that attack.

If the ban in winnipeg is such a failure, why has it not been repealed in the 14 years since the ban took effect. Obviously, the majority of Winnipegites think it is working well enough.

I would like to see reliable evidence that there are as many or more dog attacks now than before 1990. (beyond sun media reports)

Ranger, I'm impressed you own your own country. Where is it?

As for drano, when was the last time you heard about a drano bottle that escaped from its owner and attacked someone? Drano can be a threat to someone in that house. A dog can be a threat to anyone on the street.

My Choice?

Ban Pitts
Ban Rottys
Ban any other large breed selectively bred for agression (I can't see anyone claiming a westy is a major threat)
Legal consequences for dog owners as if they had commited the crime themselves. (I agree with you on this tzahal)

(Ban Drano if you think it will help)

 

[wikiwild]

...Winnipegites..

I blv they like to be called WinniPEGGERS or peggers for short.

*snicker*... peggers...

 

[tzahal]

As for drano, when was the last time you heard about a drano bottle that escaped from its owner and attacked someone? Drano can be a threat to someone in that house. A dog can be a threat to anyone on the street.

My Choice?

Ban Pitts
Ban Rottys
Ban any other large breed selectively bred for agression (I can't see anyone claiming a westy is a major threat)
Legal consequences for dog owners as if they had commited the crime themselves. (I agree with you on this tzahal)

(Ban Drano if you think it will help)

ok so drano wont escape and hurt someone. then how about the 16 year old that gets a hold of some booze and a car and kills someone while driving drunk. how about the people that get guns and shoot people? do you ban all guns and all booze as well? this is faulty logic behind the breed ban and eventually it will be seen as such(once all those who are scared of their own shadows stop bitching for a breed ban on dogs).

 

[strange1]

ok so drano wont escape and hurt someone. then how about the 16 year old that gets a hold of some booze and a car and kills someone while driving drunk. how about the people that get guns and shoot people? do you ban all guns and all booze as well? ....

No but we already have legal consequences to deal with these.

A 16 year old is already legally banned from driving with any alcohol since they will only have a G1. I understand the penalties are severe. Murderers can face life in prison for gun violence, especialy if it is used in the commision of a crime. There are no such penalties for dog owners.

A person, even at 16, has the mental ability that allows decision making that a dog does not and will never have. A dog has no conception of laws or consequences, especialy if it's what their bred for. A teenager or any person may not base their decisions on the law but they know it exists.

 

[tzahal]

right. they made those laws. they didnt overreact and ban all booze and cars now..did they?

i would argue that a 16 year old with a gun does not have any more mental abiility then a dog does. i know how alluring a gun can be when you have one in your hands.


bottom line. the government is saving their asses(or trying) and if they think that people will be appeased by them going after a dog then the other major problems,,guns booze, they are mistaken. how about all the ciggarettes. why havent they banned us from buying those yet. dont they hurt more people then all the dogs combined?

there needs to be laws for the owners of the dogs. the same way they wrote laws to deal with things that are way more harmful to the average person(ciggs, crunk drivers, guns in the hands of whoever) they need to stop overreacting and do the same with dog laws.

 

[strange1]

On the topic of laws, we have laws saying that it's illegal to drink and drive. I am sure that the vast majority of the people who (stupidly) drink and drive (even though it may only be 2 drinks to .80) make it home without killing anyone but it is potentially dangerous to society so we ban it.

We ban firing guns in public even though the majority of gun owners would be able to safely fire their gun in the backyard.

We ban the sale of narcotics even though the vast majority of users enjoy themselves without killing anyone.

The majority of the owners of the dogs we're talking about are responsible but if the elected government sees their breeding as a potential threat to public safety, it makes sense to ban them. Of couse some might choose to ignore the ban and they'll end up in the same place as the drug dealers, drunk drivers, and gunmen.

Of course, there are problems with the idea of a ban, just as there are other loopholes in the legal system. It's easy to get around ANY law. Just make sure you don't get caught.

PS. This is a fun way to relax on my first true night off in a while.

 

[tzahal]

On the topic of laws, we have laws saying that it's illegal to drink and drive. I am sure that the vast majority of the people who (stupidly) drink and drive (even though it may only be 2 drinks to .80) make it home without killing anyone but it is potentially dangerous to society so we ban it.

We ban firing guns in public even though the majority of gun owners would be able to safely fire their gun in the backyard.

We ban the sale of narcotics even though the vast majority of users enjoy themselves without killing anyone.

The majority of the owners of the dogs we're talking about are responsible but if the elected government sees their breeding as a potential threat to public safety, it makes sense to ban them. Of couse some might choose to ignore the ban and they'll end up in the same place as the drug dealers, drunk drivers, and gunmen.





Of course, there are problems with the idea of a ban, just as there are other loopholes in the legal system. It's easy to get around ANY law. Just make sure you don't get caught.

banning drinking and driving isnt the same as banning booze outright. you can ban a pitt bull from being in public without a muzzle like you can ban drinking and driving. but by banning the dogs itself would be akin to banning booze because it is the cause of drunk drivers.

the fact that bryant was made to have his peace heard in ther star today tells me he has just as many emails(of his 5000) that are aginst this ban(but he wont admit it or even show any of the emails publicly)

 

[strange1]

i would argue that a 16 year old with a gun does not have any more mental abiility then a dog does.

Damn you're cold. I'm sure at 16, you were better able to function than my last dog. I guess you kids (if you have any) are under constant supervision until they turn 21 then.

... how about all the ciggarettes. why havent they banned us from buying those yet. dont they hurt more people then all the dogs combined?

I'm completely in agreement here. At least the're out of bars.

there needs to be laws for the owners of the dogs. the same way they wrote laws to deal with things that are way more harmful to the average person(ciggs, crunk drivers, guns in the hands of whoever)

I said before, I'm in agreement here too. I just don't think it's as much of an overreaction as you do.

 

[tzahal]

"I just don't think it's as much of an overreaction as you do."



i guess we will agree to disagree then.