Posted on 02/14/2010 5:49:48 PM PST by Chet 99
Strong breeds in unusual situations all need a muzzle when around people in my opinion. I remember the case of a movie starlet sitting around the swimming pool/patio as a guest and the owner's doberman attacked her without warning. It was serious facial injury ... especially for a starlet.
I was seriously attacked by a pit bull when I was about 5. I have seen many dogs chosen and trained as handicap dogs for people that can not function well without one. The usually are large breeds. All I have seen have been wonderful gentle dogs when working.
“”You people” who only approach this problem with your “doggy parent” emotions rather than with clear-headed sense that respects the realties of NATURE, are the pit bulls’ worst enemy.”
I believe I referred to them as a large, powerful aggressive dog breed. That seems pretty realistic. You seem very emotional for someone railing against emotional behavior. The rest of your garbage isn’t worth responding to. I’m on record here as being for dog owners being charged with the crime their dog commits.
I don’t own, nor have I ever owned, and will never own an APBT. My only interest is freedom, and the responsibilities that accompany that freedom. You built a mighty strawman...sorry to knock it down so easily.
News flash: That's how the justice system of a free people works. You don't get to punish people for having the capability to do harm.
YOU are saying that it's better to let the kid to jail and have the government handle it.
No, I'm saying that the people for whom peer pressure works, have already banded together. What's left are the willfully negligent and the irredeemably irresponsible; take their pitbulls away (along with everyone else's) and I guarantee you they'll find another way of inflicting harm on the innocent.
When the GOVERNMENT goes nanny-state, that's one thing, and a very bad thing indeed. When private citizens come down on other citizens that abuse a privilege to the point of making it likley that it will be taken away, that's the right thing if they want to protect their rights and keep the government from stepping in.
So *I* should become my neighbor's nanny? How about this; how about I control my animals,and take responsibility for my own family's safety, without preemptively impinging on anyone else's rights?
I’ve been around pit bulls quite a bit. They are, after all, still dogs. Their behavior is the responsibility of their owner and, with a few exceptions common to all dogs, can be controlled and modified.
The real difference is similar to that between a BB gun and a 38 pistol. Both can be handled safely, both can go off with improper handling. But the the 38 is capable of much greater damage because of its power and speed.
The problem with pit bulls is owners who don’t know dogs and even more don’t know that they don’t know. Rachael Ray is in the second category.
These types should not own pit bulls.
Just "isolated incidents."
Places that have banned pit bulls have not seen any declines in serious attacks. See Denver, Colorado and especially the UK, whose attacks have increased. However, places that have not banned breeds but instead enforce responsible ownership laws (see Calgary) have seen huge declines in their serious attacks.
Whatever you believe to be the cause of this issue, you must see that the solution that works is not bsl, but greater accountability for dog owners. After all, 19 people died last year from non-pit bull-type dogs, and bsl would not protect them at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.