Pitbulls must be banned

Published on April 18, 2005 By sushiK In Current Events

Enough is enough

What does it take to institute a National Ban on Pitbulls within the US?
Pitbulls are just too dangerous in the wrong hands.

Seems like every month I hear of a new mauling where a kid has been torn apart because of some careless owner.
Owners in these cases should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

I am using this forum to post each and every Mauling case that takes place.

Comments (Page 3)

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2005

Once they are euthanized, they will need to be properly disposed of. All of this comes at a cost that will likely run into billions.

Can you tell us how you came to "One Billion Dollars!..." (Dr Evil) for this again?

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

I saw a kid get attacked by a pit bull in the street in front of my house about two years ago. I went screaming at it and scared it off and, luckily, a cop was nearby and heard the commotion. The dog ran into my back yard and I told the cop SHOOT IT!! which he reluctantly did. Didn't bother me a bit, I had a .38 special in the house but didn't have enough time to get to it. The kid was taken by ambulance to the hospital and got over twentysomething stitches. His parents were glad I was there. So was I!

Just my two cents...

Two Cents worth spending!!!

Shovelheat

on Apr 19, 2005

And I have absolutely ZERO problem with your response. The author of this thread,however, is proposing a FAR MORE EXTREME solution.

I have to admit, I'm not that crazy about banning anything, but I do think that the people who own them should be held 100% responsible and liable both civilly and criminally. Just like me with my potentialy very lethal .38 special.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2005

Can you tell us how you came to "One Billion Dollars!..." (Dr Evil) for this again?

do you fail to understand the word "likely" as in,"will LIKELY" run into the billions? Have you researched court costs for the thousands of court cases that will almost certainly arise? Anyway, I wasn't presenting a precise figure, which SHOULD have been clear for anyone capable of reading English in context, but, (shrug), I guess I can't take that capacity for grantednow, can I?

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2005

I do think that the people who own them should be held 100% responsible and liable both civilly and criminally.

OK, and legislation to that effect I would support.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

"A pit bull is not a dog that can survive in the wild."

Depends on what you call the wild. In the attack I witnessed the dogs in question were "wild", i.e. they had been "set out", scavenged, thrived and multiplied. The community had no animal control, and it was "animal cruelty" (i.e. illegal), in the state to kill them.

"That's the point, we don't hold the owners any more responsible than we hold people who cause fatal car accidents. "

In the case I witnessed, there was no "owner", so no PERSON was to blame. Sadly, it wasn't satisfying taking the dog apart, either, given the situation. Most cases the whole thing gets tied up with the lawyer for the owner saying the dog felt threatened or something insipid like that. Who gives a damn what the dog "feels"?

Why should we all get fined or face jail time for killing threatening dogs when everyone knows they are threatening? If I shoot a dog in my yard in most states, I go to jail. I don't have a problem with the law giving PEOPLE the benefit of the doubt, but like I said a dog is only slightly higher on the food chain than the roast I am making for supper.

Why the hell should a dog be granted "rights" that threaten our kids? Banning guns wouldn't stop murder, because people would just use another tool. No pit bulls, no pit bull attacks.

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2005

Wow calm down

Just because you Black listed me from your site doesn't mean you have to get your panties in a bunch here. You said in the Billions I said back it up, which you can't do.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

It wouldn't cost billions, unless we listen to people who keep acting like these are people. If we have to have little funerals or something maybe. Maybe it makes me a "nazi", but I could come up with a few "final solutions" for pit bulls that wouldn't cost much at all.

People ruin the rights of others.

For instance, I'm not picky about what kind of barnyard animals my neighbors want to own. There will always be that guy, though, that doesn't care for them, lets them roam the neighborhood, lets them destroy other people's property, etc.

So, no one can own livestock in most suburban areas. Does that mean that to protect our right to own barnyard animals we have to let that idiot ruin our grass? Evidently, because even if he has to clean up his mess, the time and effort and trouble is still imposed on us. Sadly, it is easier just not to allow it at all.

People who own dangerous dogs screw things up for people who want to own reasonable animals. Is it testosterone or some kind of hippie "animal spirit" thing that makes people so die-hard about owning a particular breed of canine?

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2005

Just because you Black listed me from your site doesn't mean you have to get your panties in a bunch here. You said in the Billions I said back it up, which you can't do.

enough of the martyr complex,sushi. I blacklisted you because you REQUESTED IT. It's on record.

I said "LIKELY" run into the billions. Do I really need to drag out the definition of the word "likely", or can you do it yourself?

I am basing my GUESS that it will likely run into the billions on the fact that most pit bull owners will not surrender their dogs to be euthanized readily. They will file lawsuits, as will PETA and animal rights groups if the government begins euthanizing them.

I don't believe in the inherent "right" to own a vicious animal personally; that is why I don't own one. But I also don't believe in trying to legislate ourselves into a utopia, and that is the basis of my argument.

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2005

Dear Mrs Jones,

We are very sorry about your little boy getting torn apart by that Pitbull.
We were close to doing something to stop these kind of attacks but we were told that it would LIKELY cost in the billions, so we gave up.

In the future we think it would be best if you just kept you children in at all times in stead of outside since we can only respond after the fact to these problems.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

To me the misconception is that in this case a law is somehow undermining personal responsibility. On the contrary, it is putting the responsibility where it belongs. Me, I blame the dogs.

Question: If a pit bull someone has happily and peacefully owned for 5 years wigs out and attacks a child, should the owner go to jail?

If you say yes, then you must think the owner should have known the breed is unpredictable and dangerous. If it is such, why have them at all?

If you say no, then how then do you define responsibility? A cash settlement? That makes me a tad nauseous...

Shovelheat

on Apr 19, 2005

Question: If a pit bull someone has happily and peacefully owned for 5 years wigs out and attacks a child, should the owner go to jail?

Yes, he should. Like I said, guns can be "loopy" too. If you got one, be prepared to take the responsibility for it. If you don't want that responsibility, then it's real simple. Don't have one!

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

You would think by the way some people talk here that being killed by a dog is on par with an accident. We undertake to limit our danger as much as possible.

If your neighbor's huge, dead tree hangs dangerously over your child's bedroom, you wouldn't be satisfied with the "Oh, well, things happen, any tree could kill people" response when it fell.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

"Like I said, guns can be "loopy" too."

Products that don't operate properly are recalled, and if the company refuses the government demands it. The problem is people are seeing dogs as some sort of spiritual being with rights to exist, instead of a flawed breed that has no natural right to exist.

To follow your analogy, if S&W made a revolver whose cylinder tended to be misaligned, they'd either recall it or be forced to eventually.

If a gun company made a flawed gun that tended to break its leash, wander into the neighbor's yard and kill their kids, I don't think many people would mind that gun being banned.

Shovelheat

on Apr 19, 2005

Never mind. If I see a pit bull approaching and acting aggressive and not on a leash with it's owner, I'm gonna shoot the damn thing. Plain and simple. I've seen what they can do...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!