Posted on 10/22/2010 8:10:34 PM PDT by Chet 99
Let me apply your analysis to a different subject, to see if it reveals anything.
“Firearm owners feel that society should adjust and accept the disproportionate fatalities and maimings caused by firearms.
While deaths and maimings from firearms cost our society financially and personally, firearm owners feel that they should be exempt from addressing these issues or submitting to additional measures to try to bring the fatality level down. They just don’t care and don’t want to hear about it.
It makes them angry when others discuss it.
Statistics, the experience of shooting instructors, the experience of the military which apply to these firearms should be considered invalid if some people own a firearm that hasn’t shot anyone yet.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid, irrational, ignorant or a ‘tool’.”
I live and work in an animal world. You seem to believe in your total human arrogance that somehow you have the ability to change 500 years of breeding and evolution. Good try. Which goddess do you believe you are??? We can try and have some affect on how animals act but none of us can remove what they are born with. Not even you. In training an animal all we are doing is asserting our dominant power over them. That fits right into their instinctual reactions. Back to the pecking order thing.
That pecking order thing and knowing how animals think and naturally react is how animal trainers get their job done. We use some of those instincts to manipulate them into a conditioned response to get what we want out of them. One must know and understand how they tick to do that.
You don’t get it and you never will. Go back and watch more of the Disney channel.
damn those vicious yorkies.....LOL
Firearms are inanimate objects - unlike the unpredictable animals that sometimes kill and maim people. You may want to compare the unusual physical and behavioral properties to lions or some other unpredictable wild animal and run your analysis again. It just doesn’t make sense when you use ‘firearms’ or other inanimate things.
“Firearms are inanimate objects - unlike the unpredictable animals that sometimes kill and maim people.”
And yet, the people who want to ban guns use the same kinds of arguments that the people who want to restrict pit bull ownership use. The result is the same: restricting liberty and expanding the power of government in pursuit of their pet agenda, while punishing the responsible citizens for the acts of the irresponsible. In both cases, they won’t really achieve their desired end either, since criminals and scumbags will flaunt the regulations like they always do.
For every issue where we go running to the government to solve our problems, we sacrifice that much more liberty. Really, do I need to spell that out on FreeRepublic of all places? Soon, we’ll all be living in a fascist state, wondering where our freedoms went... in fact a lot of us here are already asking that question. Others seem more than happy to make their own deal with the devil, thinking that somehow they will escaped getting burned.
“You may want to compare the unusual physical and behavioral properties to lions or some other unpredictable wild animal and run your analysis again.”
Wild animal being the operative term. Lions aren’t domesticated, and are therefore not really trainable animals. Dogs have been domesicated for thousands of years, so comparing them to a wild animal is fraught with similar problems as comparing a pit bull to a firearm. However, I didn’t mean to equate the nature of a firearm with the nature of a pit bull, I meant to highlight that the same arguments used against pit bulls can be used against a freedom that you probably hold dear, so that maybe you will think twice before adopting the arguments of the statists when it suits your purposes.
“You don’t get it and you never will. Go back and watch more of the Disney channel.”
This attitude of yours shows whys it’s fruitless to continue discussing this subject with you, so I’ll just bid you good day.
Requiring people to have a permit to own a dog breed that requires handling and enclosures not typical of other dogs is not similar to banning handguns.
Criminals and scumbags flaunting animal regulation laws is not the problem. Most pitbull maimings and killings are done while the animals run free. These animals would be removed bu animal control if allowed to run free - criminals would have to keep them indoors or secured in some way if they want to keep them without a license. So regulation would work well. Handguns can’t run down the street, while the owner’s away, and attack people sitting in wheel chairs the way a pitbull can (and did - in this article). No indeed, regulation would work well because, otherwise, pitbull owners refuse to accept responsibility.
Don’t worry - reducing the number of deaths and mauling by pitbulls allowed to run free will not lead to fascism. Requiring people who want to own cougars, panthers etc. to have an exotic animal license has not defeated democracy so adding pitbulls won’t be enough to sink us.
I wasn’t comparing pitbulls to wild animals - I was comparing the unpredictable nature of pitbulls to the unpredictable nature of wild animals. It is the attack behavior of pitbulls (people who seen it speak in shocked terms and stress that any other animal would give up but the pitbull kept attacking and wouldn’t stop) and the physical attributes that amaze and horrify. Two pit bulls jumped through a closed screen door to attack and kill a toddler - this is more similar to the behavior of a wild animal than to a domesticated animal. This is not normal pet behavior - but this kind of ‘you would not believe what that animal did’ kind of story is not unusual for pits that attack. And though rotties are much much larger, pits are much much more aggressive and damaging when they attack. That is why they are featured predominately in news accounts - they are known to startle and shock with aggression and tenacity.
You said: “I meant to highlight that the same arguments used against pit bulls can be used against a freedom that you probably hold dear, so that maybe you will think twice before adopting the arguments of the statists when it suits your purposes.”
I take no instruction from you because you have shown such denial and marked disregard for the safety and rights of your fellow citizens and resort to implying the march of facism is next if you and others who own pitbulls are asked to take measures to address the serious problem with pitbull attacks. In fact - your only contribution is to suggest the owners receive steeper penalties AFTER a dog maims or kills. The present number of deaths and maimings does not concern pitbull owners in the least - do you really feel a higher financial fine might actually reach them?
It is this marked refusal to acknowledge that there’s even a problem that begins to lead me to believe that countries that have banned these animals did so because their owners were entirely unwilling to participate in these issues. I am coming around to supporting the banning of these animals.
Shoot the dogs; hang the owner.
Oh, I remember you; you’re that guy that didn’t know what a prong collar was.
I know exactly what a prong collar is. They are used by people who don’t know any other way to train a dog. I have never seen one in a professional kennel.
These animals can already be removed by animal control if they are allowed to run free, since pretty much every jurisdiction in the nation already has leash laws. So, if the leash laws and threat of confiscation and fines due to violation thereof is not stopping the occasional pit bull from getting loose, how exactly will classing them as an exotic animal accomplish this?
“So regulation would work well. Handguns can’t run down the street, while the owner’s away, and attack people sitting in wheel chairs the way a pitbull can (and did - in this article). No indeed, regulation would work well because, otherwise, pitbull owners refuse to accept responsibility.”
How would the regulation work well? Only if there is an enforcement body with the scope and authority to make it happen. Currently, exotic animals are a tiny minority of pets owned in the US, so exotic animal regulations can easily be added to the current animal control apparatus without much additional burden. Pit bull ownership, on the other hand, is very common in comparison, so it's inconceivable that enforcement on this scale will be able to be done without a commensurate increase in the scope of the bureaucracy, which means a commensurate increase in government intrusion into our private lives.
“Requiring people who want to own cougars, panthers etc. to have an exotic animal license has not defeated democracy so adding pitbulls won’t be enough to sink us.”
Well, first, I'm not worried about “democracy” being defeated, since we don't live in ancient Athens, we live in a Republic. What I am worried about is our freedoms being eroded, drip by drip, in an incremental manner. Every one who advocates more Government intervention in our lives as a solution to their pet issue argues that the intervention and loss of freedom is so minimal, it is tolerable. Taken all together, however, this type of reasoning has led us to a point where we have already lost the vast majority of our freedoms. I'm not about to agree with anyone who wants me to give up a few more.
“if you and others who own pitbulls”
Guess what? I don't own a pit bull. I don't have a dog in this fight, except the dog of liberty. I am simply standing up for one group that is being targeted for more government control and restriction, because I have been in their shoes in other circumstances already. Maybe when a freedom that you cherish is restricted in the name of the “public good”, you will understand why I stand with the pit bull owners.
“In fact - your only contribution is to suggest the owners receive steeper penalties AFTER a dog maims or kills. The present number of deaths and maimings does not concern pitbull owners in the least - do you really feel a higher financial fine might actually reach them?”
Well, I did not ever advocate higher fines as a deterrent, I advocated treating the owners as if they were negligent with a deadly weapon, which would translate to hard jail time, not fines. In addition, I said if that was not enough, we should increase the penalties, by which I meant, increase the sentences, not increase fines. You're right though, that is my only contribution, because the other options are statist solutions and not liberal (in the original sense of the word) solutions.
You see, no matter how much you try to tug at the heart stings with stories of pit bull attacks and the tragic consequences, they are just one example of the many, many tragic consequences that result, and will always result, as a side effect of living in a free society. If we have the freedom to own firearms, some people will be hurt and killed, yet this consequence is not sufficient to justify restrictions on firearms ownership. If we have the right to drive automobiles, there will be injuries and deaths that result, but this consequence is not sufficient to justify restrictions on automobile ownership. If we have the right to imbibe alcohol, there will be injuries and deaths, yet this is not sufficient to justify prohibition. If we are allowed the freedom to raise our children without government interference, then there will be child abuse and neglect, and yet this is not sufficient to justify a priori government restrictions on parenting.
There will always be unsavory, tragic, and sometimes maddening negative consequences to allowing the people to exercise their freedoms, and yet the benefits of a free society are such that we understand these consequences are a necessary burden. The statist, on the other hand, sees in every social ill and tragedy a cause to call for the expansion of government in the name of safety. I'm just not ready to throw my lot in with the statists at the expense of the pit bull owners, simply because they happen to be an unpopular group at the moment. We've gotten along for 223 years without restricting their freedoms, so if I advocate this restriction, then how could I, in good conscience, argue against government intervention against the next group who is picked to be targeted?
Ban the dogs and the death and maiming rate goes down. Some people cry themselves to sleep at night for fear of the march of Fascism, others get to live or escape maiming and our country survives intact. If you had argued a worthwhile point (e.g. handgun ownership), I would agree with your concern about erosion of liberty. But exagerating the ramifications of regulating vicious, aggressive dogs and refusing to address a problem by citing the march of Facism...uh..no.
“If you had argued a worthwhile point (e.g. handgun ownership), I would agree with your concern about erosion of liberty. But exagerating the ramifications of regulating vicious, aggressive dogs and refusing to address a problem by citing the march of Facism...uh..no.”
Fair enough. Just don’t come on here whining when some nanny stater wants to crack down on your own liberties, mkay?
Again you seem to be giving orders. I will protest the erosion of our rights at will without hesitation.
I realize this thread is a few days old, but I must respond to some things you were saying. Banning dogs does not make attacks and deaths decrease. Look at the UK, where many breeds have been banned for years. Their attack numbers have gone up, and they are now considering repealing their bans. Denver, Colorado has a long-standing ban on pit bulls, yet their numbers have stayed exactly the same. Several countries have already been through this and repealed breed bans in favor of responsible ownership laws that target all dog owners. Calgary is a great example of this, and one of the few places that has had a reduction in dog attacks, even serious ones. They have not had to get rid of a single dog due to breed, yet they have experienced better success than any other place that has bans.
Last year, 19 people died in this country from dogs that are not pit bulls. Before pit bulls became popular, the average number of fatalities was the same as it is now (there will be a slight increase over the years due to the increase in both human and canine populations), and in areas where pit bulls are banned or not popular, the numbers are simply taken by other dogs, not reduced. For example, in Canada, there are places where pit bulls are banned, and places like Calgary where responsible ownership is encouraged. There have been far more maulings and fatalities caused by sled dogs in Canada than pit bulls (there has been only one death from a pit bull there), yet sled dogs/huskies/mals are not banned or regulated.
In the late 1800’s, the bloodhound was considered the monster dog due to the popularity of a play portraying them as vicious man-eaters. The public then desired such a dog, and because of the type of people wanting bad bloodhounds, the death toll from them increased to the point that they were causing the majority during that time. This was around the same time that pit bull type dogs were becoming extremely popular as pets, and there were no deaths from them. The only difference between these two breeds is the owners.
There are all kinds of dogs that have been bred to possess some form of prey drive or animal aggression. Hounds, terriers, even herding dogs have an instinct that is harnessed for human benefit. It doesn’t mean that these dogs are vicious, but it does mean that genetics is only a starting point for behavior, not the conclusion.
I have worked in shelters and vet clinics for years, and have been bitten by “soft mouthed” labs, pomeranians, dachshunds, cocker spaniels, but no pit bulls or rotties, even though shelters are comprised of 60% of these types of dogs (the population of pit bulls has skyrocketed, and is estimated to be around 10 million strong). It’s a testament to the breed’s stability that more people are not being killed or attacked on average. Take the dogs away, and other dogs will fill in the gaps, as has been the case since the man-eating bloodhounds first introduced the public to mass hysteria in the 1800’s.
Regulating breed ownership, just like gun ownership, means that the people causing the problems in the first place (criminals, ignorant owners, insane people) will still be around to break the law, leaving responsible people to be judged with the minority, and deaths to continue. Personal accountability and safety/education is the only way to reduce tragedies from occurring, and this is has been proven true with pit bulls and guns over the years.
The people who live next door to me have a Yorkie. All I can say is that if that dog even looks crossways at me I’m going to take it out/s. The Pitbull down the street? Not so much/s
Like many modern breeds, it is impossible to be completely sure of the details of the American Pit Bull Terrier's long history. However, many pit bull enthusiasts believe the origins of the breed can be traced back to antiquity and the Molossian family of dogs. The Molossian family of dogs bears the name of the people with whom they were most often associated - the Molossi tribe, a group of people who lived in ancient Greece and favored the use of robust, muscular dogs in warfare.
When the Roman emperor Claudius defeated the Briton Chief Caractacus in 50 AD, the powerful pugnaces piqued his interest. He quickly seized on the opportunity and began exporting select quantities of the dogs back home to satiate his countrymen's appetite for entertainment in the arenas and coliseums of Rome.
Once in Rome, the British dogs were crossbred with their Roman counterparts. From the years 50 AD to 410 AD, the breed was widely disseminated throughout the Roman Empire for use as fighting dogs. Along the way they mixed with other indigenous breeds throughout Europe, creating a genetic melting pot for the bulldogs that are thought to have been the immediate antecedents of the American Pit Bull Terrier.
The above information is from a pro-pit bull website by the way!
Really? You're not familar with the Victim/Witness program (funded through taxpayer dollars) which provides medical treatment, counseling services, and other services to the victims of crime or other violent incidents, are you? Yes, people who are attacked by a vicious dog can utilize this program.
I’m sorry I can’t agree with you. Your argument overlooks the unique physical and behavior combination that pitbulls have. For example, you say that banning pitbulls would allow another breed to take its place - no other breed has the combination of traits that make the relatively small pitbull outkill rotties and other guard dog species and the pitbull’s attack style is unlike that of other breeds. Also, ‘responsible ownership’ is not working in this country. By your own argument, the owners are the problems and yet we’re going to ‘encourage them’ to be more responsible? If reading in the paper or watching news reports of pitbulls killing children does not ‘encourage’ responsible ownership - I’d like to see what does. I think exotic license next and if that fails - banning.
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.