Licenses requirements to own a Pit Bull Terrier

[mr-pirk]

Aught Six on the other thread you mentioned that folks that wanted to effect your ownership of a Pit Bull Terrier reminded you of the gun grabbers.
I have been pondering that comparison.

We license people who want to own fully automatic weapons. We do that because that type of weapon has the potential for miss-use, and being more dangerous than a single fire weapon, represents a danger the public isn"™t willing to accept from just any one.

I will put forth that Pit Bulls are even more dangerous because of their ability to operate independent of a person"™s inter-action. No simple firearm can shoot anyone with out some sort of human action. A Pit Bull can kill of its own free will.

VC1111 made a statement on a thread of recent history stating more or less that the ownership of a Pit Bull should require greater responsibility than owning TNT. I know I have butchered his post and probably miss-understood exactly what he meant (Sorry about that VC.) but that was the gist of the meaning I got from his post.
I didn"™t understand his point very well until I considered the fact that TNT never makes it self in a bomb/killer, a Pit Bull does.

Aught Six the only argument I can think of that could be offered against licensing Pit Bull owners would be one of rarity of attacks. However you posted stats showing that almost ½ of all the dog attacks over the last 25 years have been by Pit Bull Terriers. (If it could be shown that almost 50% of the gun attacks over the last 25 yearhad been caused by 12 gauge shotguns, would they still be legal to own without special licenses?) (If it could be shown that most of those attacks were committed independent of any human actions, would all of the 12 gauge shotguns not already been destroyed?)

I can see where the argument could be offered that your right to the pursuit of happiness or your right to privacy would be infringed on if the state denied your ownership of your dog of choice.

I would suggest that the precedent set by restrictions and licensing requirements and increased liabilities for owning dangerous exotics such as lions and tigers would negate any civil rights arguments.

I would think that such licensing requirements and possible insurance requirements would be easy to defend in our court system. The only obstacle I see would be the lobbying power from Kennel Clubs and dog owners and breeders.

Aught Six, I am not trying to pick an argument with you. It is just that for all the years I have been on this site, I have never seen you use some of the illogical arguments that I have seen you use on the Pit Bull thread.

I am wondering what is wrong with my thought process that I can"™t see you point, or what is wrong with yours that you need to twist logic to make your argument fit.

If the problem is with my logic, then tear this post to shreds. If you can"™t do that out-right, then I suggest it is a reflection of the deficiencies of your argument.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

The main problem is a "pit bull" really isn't a breed. If one goes that far, then you have to add American bull dogs. Many terrier types. And of course that will lead to Fila Braseros, and many other types.

I am familuar with pit bull fighting unfortately comeing from Eastern Ky. I hate dog fighting. Game breeders take the most courageous aggressive dominant dogs and keep breeding them, if one ever runs in a pit, it gets shot, if it shows any fear in a pit, it gets shot. Take it out of the blood line. I raise dobermans, and have one that is violent and one that is not. The one that is little tempermental and protective comes from an old line that the breeder decided to end because of it. If you take any breed and pick out the most violent agressive ones and keep breeding it over and over, and perpetuate that trait, your going to get a mean unpredictable dog.

I travel to Europe quite a bit, and with your reasoning, it will lead to thier over protected, crazy laws. I don't want that menality here.

Yep, here in the states, people get bit, even killed, we get shot, and held up with guns. Price of freedom.

[frontier gander]

50% dog bites/attacks are from pitbulls? LMAO! thats the biggest bunch of BS ive ever heard. The news makes it out to seem like that. Remember all the reports on rots and dobermans? Hell german sheppards are now canadas most dangerous dog yet they have not banned them.

[Alpha1]

However you posted stats

Was that from the CDC report? The CDC is against breed specific legislation.

However you posted stats showing that almost ½ of all the dog attacks over the last 25 years have been by Pit Bull Terriers.

Didn't they use the term "pit bull-type"? That would include many breeds.

I will put forth that Pit Bulls are even more dangerous because of their ability to operate independent of a person"™s inter-action.

Every year there's about a dozen deaths from all dog attacks nationwide.

Aught Six, I am not trying to pick an argument with you. It is just that for all the years I have been on this site, I have never seen you use some of the illogical arguments that I have seen you use on the Pit Bull thread.

Why not ban all dogs, so no one gets killed or injured? For the children?

[frontier gander]

i had a "pitbull" type dog some years back. it was part sharpai and blue heeler. Often mistaken for a pitbull.

[Aught Six]

I'll take TNT over a pit bull any day. And I already have to get a license for dogs down at the city hall. That's enough bureaucracy as it is.

[North Texan]

Ban one breed of aggressive dog, and someone will create another one. Unless you ban/regulate the ownership of all dogs, it won't do any good. Regulating the specifics doesn't work. People find the loopholes, more regulations are passed to address those loopholes, and you get an endless cycle of loopholes and legislation until eventually all dog ownership is prohibited either outright by law or the amount of red tape that must be processed effectively prohibits dog ownership for most potential owners.

We license people who want to own fully automatic weapons. We do that because that type of weapon has the potential for miss-use, and being more dangerous than a single fire weapon, represents a danger the public isn"™t willing to accept from just any one.

I will put forth that Pit Bulls are even more dangerous because of their ability to operate independent of a person"™s inter-action. No simple firearm can shoot anyone with out some sort of human action. A Pit Bull can kill of its own free will.

The only thing that makes a fully automatic weapon "more dangerous" than a single fire weapon is perception. If someone wishes to do you harm, a single fire weapon, a knife, a rope, or countless other objects can be used to kill you just as dead.

The difference is the government presumes you have criminal intent with the fully automatic weapons, and you have to prove up yourself touse one. Not only that, butit has madeClass III weapons basically unavaible tomost middle and lower classes. However, the criminals haven't been deterred. Illegalfirearms are cheaper than legal ones if they can find them, and many legal single fire weapons can easily be converted to fully automatic fire.

Same thing will happen here. Some people will still own pit bulls, and if banned, a black market will be created. Others will modify other breeds to replace the traits currently under fire in pit bulls. Just like a gun, the problem isn't the breed, it is irresponsible owners. Make the idiot owners responsible for their dogs misbehavior, just like you do someone who misuses their gun, knife, etc.

[Buster T]

Yep, here in the states, people get bit, even killed, we get shot, and held up with guns. Price of freedom.

My little girl getting her face chewed off because a neighbor thought his pet poochy wooch pit bull wouldn't harm anyone is a Price Of Fredom ? BULL****

Ban one breed of aggressive dog, and someone will create another one.

No, you cannot "create" an instinct in a few years - it takes decades and centuries to do it. Thats why beagles run rabbits, labs go into water, pointers point, Aussie's run cattle ........... and its why pit bulls are agressive and mean.

The difference is the government presumes you have criminal intent with the fully automatic weapons, and you have to prove up yourself touse one.

I don't believe that is true. If you had criminal intent they'd arrest you.





Bottom line, pit bull type dogs attack more often than any other dog and do more damage when they do - and the reason is that they're bred that way, from centuries ago. You can't take the breed out of the dog, ever.


Mr. Pirk - the best comparion I can make is ownership of tigers, leopards, mtn lions, jaguars etc. You cannot own them without having licenses and permits, and prove that your encolsures will contain them. Why? They're wild animals, even if they're bred in captivity, they have a wildness in them that makes them unable to "tame"

[Charlie P]

No, you cannot "create" an instinct in a few years

You sure can make a dog mean in a few monthes. You don't have to create an instinct you just have to train a dog to be mean and when it gets off it chain it will attack.

I've seen what a German Shepard can do if I could find the pictures of my son I'd post them,think the wife burned them.

Never tried to make this dog mean made him part of the family and he almost tore my kids face off. 60 stiches in the face and six hours of plastic surgery.

Vet told me he was simply trying to dominate my son like he would a puppy,that was the last mistake he every made.

ORIGINAL: Buster T

My little girl getting her face chewed off because a neighbor thought his pet poochy wooch pit bull wouldn't harm anyone is a Price Of Fredom ? BULL****

No, you cannot "create" an instinct in a few years - it takes decades and centuries to do it. Thats why beagles run rabbits, labs go into water, pointers point, Aussie's run cattle ........... and its why pit bulls are agressive and mean.

I don't believe that is true. If you had criminal intent they'd arrest you.





Bottom line, pit bull type dogs attack more often than any other dog and do more damage when they do - and the reason is that they're bred that way, from centuries ago. You can't take the breed out of the dog, ever.


Mr. Pirk - the best comparion I can make is ownership of tigers, leopards, mtn lions, jaguars etc. You cannot own them without having licenses and permits, and prove that your encolsures will contain them. Why? They're wild animals, even if they're bred in captivity, they have a wildness in them that makes them unable to "tame"

Well, your always welcome to renounce your citizenship and go join the super safe folks of Europe. Where they can legistlate your safety to the point of a camera being on you and your family 24/7. Listen life is dangerous, your not going to get out of it alive. Your daughter might get hit by a car, or car jacked, or fall down the stairs. Its just life, you got to deal with it.

Any game breeder can tell you they can assemble a aggressive, fighting dog in only 5 lines or less. Selective breeding is key. I take it you never been around dog and cock fighting buster. Germans wanted to keep the doberman with its sharp temperment, and Schutzhund training. Americans were able to almost totally take out all sharpness in little over 3 decades by selective breeding. Dobes up until the 1960's most likely could only be touched by thier owners.