Replies

I support the ban. Too many pit bulls have attacked too many people and pets. They're just doing what comes naturally, but that doesn't mean they're not a menace. Even the most conscientious owner can make a mistake--dogs get out, or the owner is too sure HIS dog would never attack another animal or person, or a kid gets into the dog's yard.

I sympathize with pit bull owners who are conscientious and do everything possible to keep their dogs under control, but the dogs are just too dangerous.

I support the ban. Too many pit bulls have attacked too many people and pets. They're just doing what comes naturally, but that doesn't mean they're not a menace. Even the most conscientious owner can make a mistake--dogs get out, or the owner is too sure HIS dog would never attack another animal or person, or a kid gets into the dog's yard.

Would you also support bans on hazardous jobs such as police work or firefighting...how about being a Marine or Soldier in Iraq? I disagree that conscientious owners can make mistakes Just as responsible gun owners should keep firearms out the hands of children, "conscientious" so-called pitbull owners should keep their pets isolated from the public if they cannot control them. (Responsible owners, however, would ensure their dogs are under voice control at all times and places).

There's a problem with your reasoning, AQ.

First of all, the media are beating this drum, and as you know they are not above twisting the facts or outright lying to support their agenda. There are plenty of cases where the media reported a dog attack as a "pit bull attack" - and it later turned out the dog was not a PB at all - in one case around here, it was a Lab mix. There's a case winding its way through the courts here where a Golden Retriever took off a child's face. It was first broadcast on the TV as a "pit bull attack" because the EMTs and police just assumed it "had" to be a pit bull from the damage.

Second, "pit bull" is not a breed but a type. There are a couple of registered breeds that are considered true to the "type" -- but I think you'll find that the registered dogs are not the problem. Which leads us to:

Third, the Denver law allows the confiscation of any dog that "looks like" a pit bull. Taken in conjunction with (2), that means that some yahoo (maybe an incompetent government employee, maybe a neighbor with a grudge against you) can just SAY that your dog "looks like a pit bull", take it away without compensation, and gas it.

Finally, the problem is not the dogs but the owners. The gangsta types that want a "mean dog" had German Shepherds a long time ago (of course then they were just mean country boys). Then it was Dobermanns, then Rottweilers. Now it's "pit bulls". If PBs are banned, the gangstas will simply breed another type of dog for meanness and mistreat them until they attack.

I'm sure you're well intentioned, but you're falling for the media line and you haven't thought the problems through. It's actually the same sort of thinking that brought us gun control -- distract from the real problem (bad people) by whipping up hysteria about property used by the bad people, because it's so much easier to take property away from the law abiding people than it is to prosecute the criminals (who shoot back). (They never get around to taking the property in question away from the bad people though -- just the law-abiding.)