Gopher1231

Commenting (5)

Mon, May 14 2012 at 3:59 PM

The point is no dog should bite; and when a dog bite occurs its not the fault of the dog but the fault of the irresponsible owner. Should we ban everything irresponsible people use to injury people with? The fact remains the vast majority of pitbulls will never harm a person in their lives. Do you punish the responsible owners for the sins of the irrresponsible?

Pit bulls as wild animals?

Mon, May 14 2012 at 3:52 PM

Pit bulls as wild animals? For more than a century pit bulls have been known as nanny dogs for their tolerence of children. This historical precedent refutes your statement.

Why are you so insistent on punishing people who breed and own pitbulls responsibly with the people who abuse these animals. Do you really think that banning these dogs will stop them from being used inappropriatly? Even if you erraticated every pitbull on earth do you really think these people will stop taking dogs and making them mean?

A breed ban is an easy feel good attempt to try and fix a problem that has nothing to do with the dogs themselves. It has everything to do with bad owners. It accomplishes nothing but killing dogs that have and will never do anything wrong.

I philosophically have a

Sun, May 13 2012 at 12:36 AM

I philosophically have a problem with having my right to own property infringed due to other people negligence, incompetence or outright criminal intent. If the anti-pit-bull argument is all pit bulls are murder death machines they are clearly ignoring the vast majority of pit bulls that have and will never do anything wrong because they are in the hands of responsible owners. Are pit bulls a powerful breed? Yes. Is powerful necessarily dangerous? No. Should we ban guns because only a very small minority of guns are used by irresponsible people to injury others? The reason pit bull attacks happen, and really we should be talking about dog attacks in general, is because of the owners. Let me repeat that one more time, THE OWNERS CREATE DOGS PRONE TO ATTACKS. I cannot tell you the number of people who have a story about how their dog unprovoked attacks someone and when you follow up on the story learn they never exercise it, left a small child unattended with a dog (and let me tell you a dog has a lot to fear from a small child), they do not understand how to socialize a dog or just do plain do not understand how to handle dogs Yes it is true that if you own a lab it is less likely to be an issue when you fail to socialize or exercise it but there are plenty of lab attacks that happen in the US. How many lab dog attacks will it take to make the argument we should ban labs? Should we punish responsible owners of dogs for their incompetence? This does not even begin to address criminals using dogs for nefarious ends but the point still stands. Do we punish law abiding citizens for the misuse of criminals? The problem with these blanket breed bans is they don’t work. The people who should not have these dogs or wish to own them for illegal purposes get them anyway, it just means law abiding citizens are hurt. Or worse people look for even bigger or more powerful dogs to meet their needs, or will just corrupt other breeds to their own ends. If we keep banning dogs that are “dangerous” at some point any dog over 40 pounds will have to go. Any dog ban does not address the real problem, PEOPLE. We need laws that target irresponsible owners. I want the right to own a pitbull because they can and in the majority of cases make great dogs. They are considerably more sensitive to the needs of their owners than many other dogs. But that affection is less one of devotion you may find in a lab and golden and more one of equals (this is not to say labs and goldens are not great dogs they are just different). For someone to argue I do not have the right to this affection because a small number of people are irresponsible is infuriating.

MNN - Mother Nature Network

gopher1231

FEATURED CAUSE

gopher1231'S PLEDGES