Letters to the Editor
-
Pitbulls suck, but does the state need to get involved?
If a pitbull "breaks into your house" get better locks. I absolutely fail to see how anyone with one lick of common sense would be outsmarted by an idiotic pitbull. If you lack the common sense to prevent something like a pitbull from coming into your house and mauling you, then you are probably stupid enough to let ANYTHING come into your house and maul you. In fact, it probably would have been 100x easier for a human to do the same thing, the pitbull just happened to be the first thing (be it animal OR human) to take advantage of the situation and the person's obvious lack of common sense.
Or just exercise your second amendment right and blast it if it comes inside. Oh wait, we want the state to take our guns and our dogs to protect us from bad guys (and this works since the black market is obviously a myth). How does that make any sense? Oh that's right, ignore the existence of the black market (a favorite thing to do among the "we can do it all" Statist crowd). Well, I hope that nobody ever tries to break into my house since I don't have my dog to scare the intruder away or my gun to protect myself, while he is probably armed to the teeth using weapons he purchased outside of the system.
A hamster bit a kid on the finger in a classroom, should we ban hamsters now too?
I swear, all these people who look to the State for magic solutions while preserving and champion civil rights and liberties are really something else. The more power you give the state the more you take away from yourself. The more decisions you give to the State the less freedom you have to make your own decisions. The more liberty you give up to the state the more you lose. It isn't like State actors have a history of taking more power and giving it back later.
It seems like all of these people want the state to control everything in life except for vaginas. In one country the State forces women to get abortions, and yet here it is considered a right. It just amazes me that these people claim to champion civil rights and liberty but look for every opportunity they can to use the State to regulate behavior unless it regards irresponsibility, sex, and the empowerment and feeling of liberation and gender equality one gets after having an abortion.
Take my guns, take my dogs, take my violent video games, tell me what I can and can't eat/drink/smoke, tax me to death, regulate my behavior, Science of Man me into the perfect citizen of the state. According to our Ivory Tower Elites I cannot be trusted to act responsible. So control me, tell me what to do! Just keep your hands out of the snizz.
-
re "a leap of reason"
I no longer try to persuade people that my pit mix is a kind and gentle soul who has been put to the test in every sort of situation and still remains the lady that she is. However, the logic of banning things that could 'potentially' do harm boggles my mind.
Come on. Lots of "potentially" dangerous thing are banned. Heroin, for example. Felons owning guns. Drunk driving.
I'm sure your pit is quite the "lady." (Really, ARE we equating dogs to humans now?) That doesn't change the fact that her specific breed was bred to fight and has a history of "snapping" at even threatless infants, elderly, and disabled people. How many stories do we have to hear of "oh but she's never done anything like this before!" when the dog suddenly turns on the new baby. Not to mention the countless unreported incidents of snapping at other dogs, cats, etc.
It disgusts me that a dog that was taken to a shelter for mauling a baby has scores of interested adoptees who don't want that dog put to sleep. It disgusts me that as a society we tolerate this. Your "lady" is not more important than other people's children, no matter what you think.
-
Nature?
The meanness of pit bulls is nurture, not nature, but the reason these dogs are bred and used as fighters is their "nature" - their muscle mass (especially in the neck and jaw area), mouth size for maximum bite, and short snout for less injury when biting. They also have a high pain tolerance, stamina, and a strong will to not release something once it is in their mouth. Fight trainers bring out these characteristics through training and turn these characteristics to ill use, but they are naturally there to begin with.
-
@ Linear Chaos
hey asshole,
the woman was disabled.
-
@ wedeman who said:"are stubborn things...."
Indeed they are. Therefore, I am puzzled why you and some others posting here don't acquire more of them.
Read the LETTERS in this thread and you will see people posting plenty of facts. Don't just read the letters from pit bull owners who love their dogs. Some of them seem to understand the issues but many of them don't. I will try again:
1. What many people think is a "pit" has nothing to do with registered pit bulls, which are in fact two very similar breeds (for all practical purposes the same) here in the U.S.
2. These registered dogs are hardly responsible for most of the problems with "pits" that you read about.
3. Pits (of any kind) do not truly have "locking jaws." No dog does. Furthermore, they were never bred to be people aggressive (unlike many guarding breeds and some herding breeds).
4. Most problems with pits and other dogs arise from dogs running loose or escaping their enclosures. Many dogs who bite are unneutered males. (However, it would be a mistake to assume that neutered males and females are never a problem.)
5. The assumption that all dogs bite eventually is crap. I have had dogs that never bit anyone. What people should assume is that ANY breed can potentially bite (they have teeth) and stop approaching strange dogs or allowing their children to approach strange dogs. The fact is that most dogs of ALL breeds have an actual aversion to biting humans.
6. Most dogs do not bite because they are fearless, dangerous kill machines. The opposite is true. The less fearful the dog, they less likely they are to bite. A dog that respects humans but does not fear them is absolutely the safest dog to have of any breed. It is fear biters that are the worst.
7. Pit bull stories get hyped in the media. It is the current hysteria.
8. In the current news story -- being posted by people who want to add their 2 cents but who have not read the letters in this thread -- it is clear that the dogs were problems in the neighborhood before. So why didn't the authorities deal with them THEN? Enforce the laws that we have and toughen penalties for dogs that run loose and breed bans will be unnecessary. My suggestion is that anyone who keeps a backyard dog and whose dog is picked up for running lose, should have their fence and gate checked to make sure that their enclosure is adequate for the breed. Breeds with heavy shoulder strength can push through flimsy enclosures. Either people upgrade their enclosures or they lose their dogs.
9. Encourage cities to put pressure on landlords to allow tenants to have decently trained indoor dogs. Indoor dogs tend to get much more attention and have fewer behavior problems. It is much harder for a dog to escape a house than a fence.
10. Cities have free or inexpensive rabies vaccination clinics. They have programs to help poorer people spay and neuter their pets. Why not have cities arrange to offer low cost training clinics? I would bet that if you looked at most dogs that bite -- and especially those that run loose and attack (as in the recent news article) -- you will find those dogs have never been trained for ANYTHING.
There are solutions. Breed bans are certainly NOT a solution. Read through the letters and you will see why. BSL are only partially useful. The main reason not to have them is that they do not achieve their intended purpose. Encourage better and more responsible dog ownership and we will all be better off.
Also, I encourage all who walk their dogs to carry pepper spray. People walking their dogs lawfully on leash are more at risk from marauding strays than others. The vast majority of dogs are far more likely to be dog aggressive than people aggressive.
I don't own a pit. I don't even think that they are especially attractive or intelligent. However, I see no point in laws driven by hysteria rather than facts. Hard cases make bad law.