DIYbanter - View Single Post

krw

In article ,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
...
Have you ever heard of training a pet? I guess not, your momma
failed.

Ah, the professional dog owner argument.

Nope, not me. Don't even own a dog currently. I've met quite a
few very friendly Pit Bulls, and particularly Rotties. It *can* be
done. Just don't torture the thing and you're a long way down the
right road.

People that believe certain breeds are overtly dangerous do NOT take the
position that these breeds walk around 100% of the time snarling and snapping at
things (that would actually make them easier to outlaw).

Good thing, I say.

What IS true is that these breeds can be sweet, obedient pets for years and then
without obvious provocation attack a person or other animal. Compounding that
is the fact that they are not easily subdued.

Neither is rabid St. Benard. So? If they're out of control, shoot
them, then charge the owners with criminal mischief, or some such.

There are many attack stories
where neighbors with baseball bats or similar were not able to get these dogs to
release their hold. Policemen have often had to put multiple rounds into these
dogs before they go down. The canine jaw is one of the most powerful in nature
and these dogs have much more powerful jaws than your average lab or shepard.

There were *no* warnings? The dogs had never bitten nor snapped
before? I'm sure you can find one example.

I'm against any legislation that singles out a particular breed.
It won't work for the same reason that laws against "designer
drugs" don't.

Non-sequitor. Laws concerning drugs have nothing to do with the issue.

You really should try it again with an open mind. Let me go a
little slower and see if that helps. You ban one breed and it
morfs into another or you get mixes. Any such laws have more holes
in them than a screen door.

I'd have no problem with that for any dog that seriously injures
someone.

And when certain breeds are known time and again to be involved in these cases
the legislators are just supposed to sit back and act AFTER every incident?

Perhaps because they get attention of the press? Perhaps because
they're the dog of choice of miscreants and beat to ****, either on
purpose or because that's the only thing they understand? Perhaps
because the moon _is_ made of green cheese. Your (lack of) stats
is meaningless.

Assholes can drive cars too.

And driving cars is heavily regulated. Thanks for making my point.

"Heavily regulated", my ass. Any 86 year-old can get a license and
run down a dozen people. Assholes can still turn and kill on a
moment's notice.

No, it's my position that if the dog (any breed) is dangerous, the
owner be held responsible.

But only and always after the fact, right?

That breed doesn't enter into the equation at all?

Correct. The dog cannot be responsible, rather the owner/ If
insurance companies want to limit breeds they'll insure, I really
don't have much to say though. Contract, and all...

This isn't about holding the dog responsible.

There is a difference between a private contract and a law. I can
choose to go without insurance or find another company. I can't
disobey the force of law.

Municipalities restrict the
ownership of more types of animals than those that are allowed, usually for far
less serious reasons than safety.

All dogs are the same species. That species is also used for
companionship and work. It's easy to write regulations banning
horses or donkeys, not so with a subset of dogs that you think is
inherently more dangerous than another.

If one can be prevented from having a cow in
their back yard just because of the smell then I see no reason not to disallow a
dangerous breed of dog.

Until the dog infringes on my rights it can stay. The cow has
merely by existing. I bet you want to banish all blacks because
statistically they cause more crime than non-blacks too.

--
Keith