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 4)

bakerstreet

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..."

A friend of my father shot his own dog shortly after it had attacked some people going door to door from a local church. One person's pants were torn, no one was hurt, but the dog was trying its best to bite them.

The result? One of the members of the church group called the police and my Dad's friend was fined and issued a warning for animal cruelty. The judge had the power to do more than that. It's sad.

A defective breed of dog isn't any more confusing than a defective product. Take them off the shelves.

Zoologist03

on Apr 19, 2005

Hmm...let's see, pitbulls aren't normally that aggressive...it's all about training. Everyone thinks they're so bad, any dog can be trained to be vicious. You might as well rid the entire world of any big and/or carnivorous animal if you want to ban dogs. Animals can attack, hurt, and kill people...but it's usually not their fault. Wild animals get pissed at people in their territory...dogs and other game animals attack because they're trained to. Stop the problem at it's source, people, don't blame the animal. Even if pitbulls could be successfully banned then dog fighters will choose a new breed to corrupt...

~Zoo

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

The average pit bull that attacks people isn't trained by dog fighters. Why do you wackos try and shift the blame away from the dog? This is not an inanimate object, it is not a robot you program.

Here's a solution for Gid's money problem. Make every donation to the effort come with an order of Mu Shu Pitbull... with a side of rice. feel the poor, get rid of defective animals.

Myrrander

on Apr 19, 2005

Its a dog, one step up from the meat we eat at dinner. Does it really matter what sub-category you own?

People kill more people than pit bulls. Can we ban humans?

There are plenty of "defective brand" humans, Baker. Can we take them off the shelf permanently? Kill 'em?

In short ... you've got a few anecdotes and want to ban a whole class of animal. Like saying that if a few blacks kill other blacks, it must be an overwhelming trait of the species.

I wish somebody would ban you from whatever it is the next time you fuck up.

Jesus I'm so sick of the cut and dried, black and white, fer us or agin us way this site has to divide.

You all make me fucking sick.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

"There are plenty of "defective brand" humans, Baker. Can we take them off the shelf permanently? Kill 'em? "

I guess if you equate humans and dogs, sure, that would make sense. I support capital punishment for murderers. Given your Terri Sciavo judgements, I'd assume you'd have no problem wasting a dog, though it wouldn't be as easy as pulling out a tube, I suppose. Didn't you call her a "bitch"? Maybe you DO have dog issues...

Dogs aren't people, and we restrict the ownership of lots of animals. Breeds of dogs with high percentage of wolf are illegal to own without a permit and oversight. Myrrander and others want to make it all have some deep meaning, when society makes decisions like this all the time.

And yeah, they are just one step up from what we eat for dinner, and in some nations, they ARE dinner. To me, anyone that equates animals and people is already a little skewed. If you want to live stuck in some Disney film, fine, but the rest of us don't dress them up and pretend that they talk to us...

And if you bothered to look there are a lot of people who oppose me on this discussion that usually agree with me on other issues. It isn't "fer us or agin us way this site has to divide". You just feel more comfortable thinking that way. I guess you feel less of a kook.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 20, 2005

Bakerstreet

Banning guns wouldn't stop murder, because people would just use another tool. No pit bulls, no pit bull attacks.

You contradict yourself here. Of course banning guns won't stop murder, people capable of murder are not likely to be stopped by the threat of a lesser charge.

Pit Bulls will still be owned, even if they are illegal, just as laws against Lions, Tigers, Skunks and Ferrets don't stop people from owning them.

I am pretty much against laws which do little more than give the government the authority to protect us from ourselves.

It is not the government's role to "let" us have freedoms, it is our responsibility to "let" the government (at whatever level) have only the responsibilities it needs to do its job. I'm not willing to give any level of government enough authority to take on that much responsibility.

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2005

LOL, again, that ignores the fact that we already have massive numbers of regulations on animals we can and can't own.

I hate laws that "protect us from ourselves". In this case it isn't protecting me from me, it is protecting me from some idiot's dog that the law prevents me from protecting myself from. "Protecting us from ourselves" entails I have some choice in the matter. I can't keep a dog off my property, and I'm not allowed to kill it unless damage is already done.

Listen, if I am denied a right to protect myself, then the government has to step in and do it for me. I face steep fines jail time for killing a dog unless it already caused damage.

So, if I am not allowed to prevent dangerous dogs from wandering my property, then I would hope the government would do my job for me and prevent the dangerous dogs from being able to. I'm more than happy to take care of the situation myself, but I am prevented by law.

If I can't, and the government doesn't, then these dogs are some sort of messed up "protected species" that can come and go and attack as they please. Screw that, they are no different the mosquitos I swat or the mice we set traps for.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 20, 2005

Bakerstreet, it's a matter of intelligence, blanket bans lack it, but good laws require it.

It's like the stupid local ordinances which ban all dogs from city parks. If my dog is well behaved, bothers no one, and I clean up after it, why shouldn't I be able to take it to a park?

Nope, just because some dogs annoy others, and some dog owners don't clean up after them, lazy and mindless lawmakers find it easier to just ban dogs in parks altogether.

Once again, leadership through ingnorance.

"There outta be a law!" Has become the war cry for anyone who thinks that they shouldn't have to be annoyed by the fact that other people have rights too.

Freedom works both ways!!!

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2005

To me, it is result-based laws. You admit that people aren't going to clean up after their dogs, and lazy owner are going to allow their dogs to annoy people. So, to get the park the way you want it, you have to force people to leave their dogs at home.

Don't get me wrong, I think laws like the one you describe are silly. There's a big difference, though, between stepping in a pile and having two rots rip up your kid for the heinous crime of walking home from school. Passing a law to prevent the former is more trouble than it is worth. Passing a law to prevent kids from being killed, on the other hand, seems very valid to me.

We either need the right to destroy antagonistic animals ourselves, BEFORE we are bitten, or we need animals that show themselves to be consistant problems to be dealt with by the government. The hippie bullshit limbo we live in now basically make these animals like bald eagles or something, with more rights than I have until they actually harm me.

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2005

I guess I don't see how someone's right to insist on owning a particular breed of dog trumps my right to protect my family.

As it stands now, my neighbors could allow a half dozen pit bulls to wander my property, and my only recourse is to ask the government to protect me from them by rounding them up. I personally perfer not to be pinned in my house for a half hour while I wait for the dog catcher.

I have been robbed of my right to protect myself from these idiotic toys that people don't control. For that reason, the government has to go to extremes to protect me. I think it is a shame, personally. I'd prefer to protect myself.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 20, 2005

LOL, again, that ignores the fact that we already have massive numbers of regulations on animals we can and can't own.

No, I don't forget that, in fact I covered how silly those laws can get. Why are skunks, ferrets, snakes and lizards on the "banned" list in many states and cities? Ignorance!

To me, it is result-based laws.

If we are to guage the value of laws based on "results" then we can justify everything from curfews to not allowing women to be in public alone. Both would reduce crime, but are they Constitutional, or even logical?

We either need the right to destroy antagonistic animals ourselves, BEFORE we are bitten, or we need animals that show themselves to be consistant problems to be dealt with by the government.

I agree, we should have the right to destroy antagonistic animals BEFORE we are bitten. Increasing our freedoms should be what laws are all about, not decreasing them, just to appease a few people, and make life easier for lazy politicians.

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2005

"I agree, we should have the right to destroy antagonistic animals BEFORE we are bitten. "

But just as you assume people are going to own these animals regardless of the law, I stick a damp finger up into the air and realize the hippie bullshit is NEVER going to let me decide which strays I can and can't plug.

Damn shame, granted, but if people are going to beat me over the head with the government, it should be a compromise. If people can force their doggy-lover values on me, mine should be heard too. If I am forced to tolerate the dogs that wander in, I wanna say what breeds are available.

At least if there is a restriction on pit bulls they will only wander in once. As of now, my neighbor down the street just pays $50 and her dog is back in my yard the next week.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 20, 2005

Damn shame, granted, but if people are going to beat me over the head with the government, it should be a compromise. If people can force their doggy-lover values on me, mine should be heard too. If I am forced to tolerate the dogs that wander in, I wanna say what breeds are available.

You disappoint, I thought that you were going to make a point here. Instead you show your hand, by admitting that it is nothing more than your frustration with the realization that others' actions have an effect on your life.

As long as We, The People continue to insist the government reduce the effect others' have on our lives, we will continue to lose freedom.

Sure, ban your neighbor's pit bull, do it "for the kids". Just don't be surprised when your neighbor pushes for laws keeping your annoying kids on a leash and out of their lives.

Freedom works both ways! And so does removing it.

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2005

I did make a point. When the government prevents you from protecting yourself, they take the responsibility for doing it for you. It is frustrating, but if you come to me from a position of authority and say "Woah, there, you can't shoot dogs", then you damn well better have an equivalent alternative.

You don't have one? Then I get to help make one.

"Sure, ban your neighbor's pit bull, do it "for the kids". Just don't be surprised when your neighbor pushes for laws keeping your annoying kids on a leash and out of their lives."

You disappoint, like Myrrander, you too can't seem to see the difference in value between people and animals. Pissy way to make an arguement.

I'd like to think you are all about freedom, but frankly the freedom is already gone. What I want is balance. If we can't protect ourselves from dogs, we should at least be able to say what kind of strays we will forced by the government to tolerate.

bakerstreet

on Apr 20, 2005

L_W: The problem is we are prevented from protecting ourselves BEFORE we are harmed. I respect your idea, but it still relies on the dog to get loose and go after someone. It's already too late then.

We need to have the right to deal with animals on the spot, or the government needs to pre-emptively protect us. I hate the idea, but I hate being lorded over by people who on a whim feel they have to own a dangerous dog, whether they have the ability to control it or not.

My right to safety trumps their right to a specific breed, just like my right to safety trumps your right to drive 120mph or lease your yard as a toxic waste dump.

It seems all noble when people like Para scream "freedom", but most of the time they are just protecting the freedom for one person to lord over people whose freedoms have already been abused.

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!