IIRC I am a supporter of dog regulations, concerning larger agressive breeds and I mean by way of mandatory fence requirements, leash laws, insurance etc. Its a fact we cannot trust dog owners to have enough sense with their animals, and thus the needs for strict regulations.
IIRC LBR doesn't think any of the above should be applicable.
Dog Ban's I have never supported ... I see no reason to own a pit bull type dog but if someone wants to? OK fine by me, not unlike owning a Tiger or venomous snake .... but too many stupid people exist to not have regulations that protect everyone else.
IIRC LBR doesn't think any of the above should be applicable.
First, you don't recall correctly. It's not nearly that simple, not nearly so cut-and-dried.
Now, IIRC I showed statistics where many things that are unregulated are much more deadly than "pit bull types", yet you weren't calling for their regulation. I even showed that vending machines are almost as deadly as "pit bull types", statistically speaking. I pointed out your hypocricy in waiting until your dog actually bit a child and only then did you decide to build a fence to restrain it, but you called for the immediate killing of any "pit bull type" that was a proven biter--no second chances.
I brought up articles that showed maulings from practically every other breed of dog there is--but instead of calling for them to be regulated also, they were defended and I was railed on. My personal experience with pit bulls and "pit bull types", that covers years and years and many different dogs, was ridiculed in favor of news reports and heresay.
I think I brought up the fact that other animals, that are not regulated, are much more deadly. If I didn't, I can--just look at equines and bovines. I don't have to build a child-proof fence for my horse and mule to stay in, but they could be just as deadly to a stranger (including a child) who invades their territory. Mules and donkeys can be VERY territorial--that's why ranchers put them in with cattle and such, to keep other animals and rustlers at bay.
Just like on the "why I don't post much anymore" thread, I can easily hold my own. If I'm shown I'm wrong (based on fact), I'll simply conceed and change my mind...but it will take more than a strong opinion to convince me.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
Now, IIRC I showed statistics where many things that are unregulated are much more deadly than "pit bull types", yet you weren't calling for their regulation. I even showed that vending machines are almost as deadly as "pit bull types", statistically speaking.
fact #1
vending machines are highly regulated ... didn't you research that before you posted it? do you think you can place a 10' tall coke machine at the entrance of a Wal-Mart with it top heavy, two missing legs and such? LOL
Quote:
I pointed out your hypocricy in waiting until your dog actually bit a child and only then did you decide to build a fence to restrain it, but you called for the immediate killing of any "pit bull type" that was a proven biter--no second chances.
did I say that? I mean if I'm in support of dog regulations, I can't also be in support of doing nothing until they bite can I?
a dog I had 1 1/2 years ago bit .... I didn't kill her. would you like to know more?
Quote:
I brought up articles that showed maulings from practically every other breed of dog there is--but instead of calling for them to be regulated also, they were defended and I was railed on. My personal experience with pit bulls and "pit bull types", that covers years and years and many different dogs, was ridiculed in favor of news reports and heresay.
I counter that with (A) a little lap dog cannot rip your face off (B) doesn't pack together to kill someone and (C) doesn't have the bred instincts that some breeds do
You of course know all of this already.
Quote:
I think I brought up the fact that other animals, that are not regulated, are much more deadly. If I didn't, I can--just look at equines and bovines. I don't have to build a child-proof fence for my horse and mule to stay in, but they could be just as deadly to a stranger (including a child) who invades their territory. Mules and donkeys can be VERY territorial--that's why ranchers put them in with cattle and such, to keep other animals and rustlers at bay.
you can let your donkeys and horses roam all over eveyone elses property where you live? there are no regulations on that?
really?
Quote:
Just like on the "why I don't post much anymore" thread, I can easily hold my own. If I'm shown I'm wrong (based on fact), I'll simply conceed and change my mind...but it will take more than a strong opinion to convince me.
I'm curious to how you're going to respond to the above ... conceed now or continiue?
Pit bull is not a breed. How would you enforce it?
did I say they were a breed? I don't think I did ..... pit bull is a sterotype for large dogs, big jaws & heads etc ...... they are not a lap dog, they're not hearding dogs, they're not retrievers .... they're pit bull's
American Pit Bull Terrier is what many look like, thus the association
did I say they were a breed? I don't think I did ..... pit bull is a sterotype for large dogs, big jaws & heads etc ...... they are not a lap dog, they're not hearding dogs, they're not retrievers .... they're pit bull's
American Pit Bull Terrier is what many look like, thus the association
awkward post now isn't it BCRules?
Not at all. Per usual, your post is rather ignorant. I know you didn't realize it wasn't a breed, hense, you would have a hard time making a law against them.
So, if you was drafting laws, you would actually identify a pit bull as "banning dogs with big jaws and large head". What would be the measurements on the head? Or jaws? Wow, you would really do that too.
78% of the fatal maulings in the country are carried out by pitt bull terriors and rottweillers, but they only make up 2% of the dog population, read that somewhere.
I do think they should be banned, in over half the households that own these type of dogs, there is drug usage and trafficking occuring, hate to stereotype but see to much of it.
RR
Of course not. Your title says "ban pit bulls". How will you ban them? You can't even describe them unless we assume your identification is the "big head and jaws". Not sure that would fly.
These ordiances are for control, not banning. Neither describes what pit bull is. Or calls for banning.
Pit bull really doesn't describe much. Let's face it, with the definition given here it covers almost all labrador retrievers.
I haven't looked up the numbers recently, but I believe golden retrievers are still the #1 breed for overall dog bites.
Let's face it, fatal dog bites vs overall dog bites doesn't mean much. How many people die from dog bites? It's always been such a small percentage of overall bites it's ludicrous to think of making bans based upon those numbers.
Ridge Runner sounds like an anti-gunner. He makes just as much sense as one calling for the same stupid bans on dogs with the same flawed logic. Stupid people do stupid things, and there are no reliable tests to prove who shouldn't own a dog. Unless we want to make it so that felons can't own them either. We all know how well banning them from having guns works...
LBR and Stealthycat team up to ban Pit Bulls
