sushiK sushiK

Pitbulls must be banned

▼

Pitbulls must be banned

from JoeUser Forums

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.
38,188 views 178 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!!!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
"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.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


Sorry, I thought you had the ability of abstract thought. Let me spell it out a little more clear. It has nothing to do with comparing animals to humans, it has everything to do with whining away our freedoms. If you whine enough, sure, your neighbors will be threatened by laws to comply with your wishes. However, since your neighbor also has the ability to whine away YOUR freedoms, don't be surprised when you find the law breathing down your neck too.

Here's a great idea that would require no changes in the laws, and would free you of your pesky neighbors overbearing effect on your life.

If your neighbors' dogs are so often invading your yard, put out live traps. When you catch these trespassers, call the pound to come pick them up. Then, depending on how far you want to push it, decide whether or not you want to inform your neighbor of the whereabouts of their viscious pet.

That way, the owners of the animals on your block that are not a problem in your life, will not have to be bothered by you, and the owners of the animals that are a problem, can be made to pay.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
"However, since your neighbor also has the ability to whine away YOUR freedoms, don't be surprised when you find the law breathing down your neck too."


You insist on ignoring the fact that my right to protect myself has already been eroded if not completely denied, without anything being made to replace that ability. Stop acting like this is an unprovoked attack on poor animal lovers. This is a reaction TO AN ATTACK on my own freedoms BY animal lovers.

Keep on with your knee-jerk "freedom at all costs" crap. It's transparently unrealistic, given that you DON'T have the right to own anything you like, and that there are already breeds of dogs and other animals that are restricted. God help us if we are guarenteed every right that any kook can invent.

If people are worried about the horrific loss of freedom when they lose the right to own a pit bull, they should have given a damn about my right to shoot their stupid dog when it behaves threateningly.

Democracy is a balance. When you screw me over and tell me that I have to rely on the government's judgment on when I can protect myself, expect that excess to be matched when the government decides to protect me.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
You insist on ignoring the fact that my right to protect myself has already been eroded if not completely denied, without anything being made to replace that ability. Stop acting like this is an unprovoked attack on poor animal lovers. This is a reaction TO AN ATTACK on my own freedoms BY animal lovers.


Ok, so since we have already whined away many of our freedoms, then we might as well just throw the rest away too??

Democracy is a balance. When you screw me over and tell me that I have to rely on the government's judgment on when I can protect myself, expect that excess to be matched when the government decides to protect me.


So quit relying on the government's judgement!

GOVERNMENT, TAKE CARE OF ME, MY DIAPER IS FULL AND I'M JUST TO STUPID TO THINK FOR MYSELF!! wAH WAHH WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I already recommended a course of action, but that would require you getting off your butt and actually doing something.

-----------------------------------------------

If the solution to your problem requires more of everyone else than yourself, it is just an excuse
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top

You, sir (or ma'am) are just as stupid as the rest of the people in this nation that want to ban the breed. Do you not realize that "any" dog in the wrong hands can be just as dangerous as a pit bull? Too many people have stigmitized this breed due to the fact that some people decide to raise their dogs to be mean.

First, Pit Bull is not a breed.

Second, you are right.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW: 1. Can't you move? 2. In the city here (but not in the county) there is a law against dogs that bark excessively. You can call animal control and they will come out and make the dog's owner do something about the barking. I am not suggesting you move here.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
I notice that this conversation has conveniently ignored most of little_whip's well thought out advice for dealing with the problem proactively while still allowing ownership of these dogs. Rather than being a book-burning Nazi and screaming "Ban them! There EEEEVVAAAALLLLL!!!!!!11!!!1111ONEONE" (Even with her current and well deserved fear of her neighbor hood dog denizens) She has come up with quite a few suggestions that could be applied singly or in tandem with each other to come up with a solution that would benefit BOTH parties. Bakerstreet, I know that you're smarter than what you're letting on to be, and I'm truly suprised that in the interest of comprimise, you couldn't come up with any other ideas than just getting rid of the dogs.

So what next? When the pit bulls are gone, are you going to go after Weimeriners? German Shephards? When the MSM can't villify Pit Bulls anymore, which will be the next breed that the banners will target?

-- B
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
historical note: the english pit bull terrier was a product of the original english bull dog and the white staffordshire terrier, the reason for the breed was that the original english bulldog was condemned to extinction for biting a house royal prince, king george {yes the king we threw outta america} ordered the destruction of all english bulldogs, {not the slack jawed droolers of today} but a straight legged deep chested powerhouse of a dog.

breeders of the day not wanting to lose the breed entirely started a breeding program to keep some of the traits of the original english bulldog intact.

What makes the american pitbull terriers of todaY SO NASTY IS THE HUMANS NOTthe dogs, As a former member of the american pit bull terrier assoc. based out of saltlake city, I can say this the very first credo of real dogmen follows : a people mean pitbull is NOT to be bred, it is to be destroyed immediatly, american pitbull terriers are fine animals, smart, loving and fiercely protective of their humans and in general love ALL HUMANS, it is the shithead backyard breeders that cause these peoplemean animals, bad breeding, cross breeding with other animals bring out the worse in pits.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

L_w and others,

You have made some valid compromises on what could be done.
Restrictions like the ones you mentioned would definately help curb the problem with Pits and Neighborhoods.

I do feel however, as a parent, that even this solution would fail to prevent attacks in areas that there just weren't enough control officers to go around, or budget cuts ran too deep.

Someone yesterday made a great point that all dogs could be put in this dangerous category if owned by a malicious owner.
The difference is an attack by a Pitbull is more likely to be devastating due to their locking jaw and physical power.

Pits should be reclassified and taken out of reach for the normal citizen to own, even as someone mentioned if this is
LIKELY to cost Billions
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
This just in...


2 Dogs That Mauled Man Owned By Former Browns Player
Man Recovering In Hospital After Attack Outside Home

UPDATED: 12:31 pm EDT April 20, 2005

PARMA, Ohio -- An 82-year-old Parma man was hospitalized after being attacked by three dogs outside his home, and the animals' owner could face charges.



NewsChannel5's Joe Pagonakis reported that the man was watering the flowers near his house Tuesday when he was suddenly knocked over and mauled.

Animal Control Officer Julie Kocik said the man was attacked by a Cane Corso, an American bulldog and a pit bull. Combined, the three dogs weighed nearly 300 pounds.

Somehow, all three dogs were able to get through a gated fence before the attack.

SLIDESHOW: Parma Dog Attack

Kocik was called to the scene after the attack.

"I have seen everything, but I have never seen something like this," said Kocik.

Tabatha Kennedy, who lives next door and whose 16-year-old daughter witnessed the attack, believes that the dogs should not be returned to their owners.

However, the Cane Corso is already back with its owner. The American bulldog and a pit bull are owned by former Browns player and current Bears player Darnell Sanders.

He had taken to the dogs to his friend's house in Parma. That's where they got loose.

Kocik said dogs on the loose are a growing problem. She said that 31 dogs have been rounded up already this month.

Violators could be given fines totaling more than $100.

The victim may have to stay at the Cleveland Clinic for another week.

"I did see the victim in the hospital and hopefully I'll never see that again," Kocik said.

The owner of the dogs could face criminal charges. Animal Control is deciding whether the dogs should be permanently taken away from their owner.

Copyright 2005 by NewsNet5. All rights reserved. This material
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about a few FACTS about pitbulls, rather than hysteria?

Link
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about a few FACTS about pitbulls, rather than hysteria?


Always the drama Queen Gideon.

Please forgive me for the name calling, lets get back on track
No hysteria here just two posted News Stories from comfirmed news sources.
And people talking their opinions.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, PLENTY of hysteria here, sushi, as your OPINION is that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and you should make them for them.

As for my being a queen, that's just wishful thinking on your part, sushi?

Or is it? Have too many episodes of Will & Grace warped my brain? You decide (but maybe your hot pants weren't such a good idea).
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
#74 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, April 20, 2005


How about a few FACTS about pitbulls, rather than hysteria?


nice work gid and totally ignored I see, how come whenever someone posts something that shows the original post to be wrong it's totally ignored?
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
how come whenever someone posts something that shows the original post to be wrong it's totally ignored?


Because people hate to admit they're wrong...hence "The customer is always right."

:/

-- B
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
ugh. I yeild the field. There seems to be two groups opposing here, the "Isn't my puppy's sweater precious" group, and the "It's the damn government and their black UN helicopters!" militia. I see little hope of understanding from either.