Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
no, you'd be wrong there too.
If people came into contact with pit bulls as often as they did with doctors, pit bulls would already be outlawed.
We get it, you lead the pitbull life. You want to defend it. However, facts and stats don't lie.
They're statistically the most dangerous dog in America by far.
|
Wait, let's do a little math here, I come into contact with pit bulls every day, if I came in contact with a doctor everyday, I would be pretty fucked up and if he's diagnosing me everyday, I'm not going to live very long
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
Ok.. "Mom".. really? What are you? 12 years old?
|
No, just figuring out your name and why you squeal, does this have anything to do with the movie deliverance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHungLo
You're a fucking tool.
|
And it seems you not only have a limited point of view, you have a limited vocabulary, go fuck your self shit for brains and get a book on phonics and not try to defend a point with a point of view that's equal to a teenager that's not had his balls drop!
Fucking listen to you retards, sounds like a bunch of angry villagers, lets get out the pitch forks and kill all the Pit Bulls, because they can be trained to protect. Same kind of mental inadequacy that drives things like, My son Johny saw an email for hairy lesbians, we need to take porn off the Internet to protect him?
Simply put, the best argument against breed bans is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are "doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise.
Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to them and might make them want to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they really don't care. They will just get another one because breed bans punish the dog, not the owner.
On the other hand, law abiding responsible owners, whose dogs love people and have never done anything wrong, can see their homes invaded, often without a search warrant, and their beloved family members dragged away (in front of their children) to be killed. Not because the dogs are unstable or mean, but simply because of their breed. Meanwhile, the owners of truly dangerous dogs (of any breed) escape punishment because their breed is not targeted by legislation and therefor is believed "safe".
A 10 Lbs Pomeranian killed a baby a few years ago... Obviously a problem with that particular dog, not the breed. "The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards.
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/anim...s_angeles.html
Because of a serious lack of regulation in dog breeding, too many dogs inherit defective genes and are sold to irresponsible owners. A breed ban will not resolve the problem. This nonsense will continue with the next macho breed and will become an endless race between breed specific legislators and unscrupulous breeders.
A Pit Bull breeder was shut down last year because Pit Bulls were banned in Topeka, Kansas. All his dogs were seized and destroyed, just for being the wrong breed at the wrong place. The man now breeds and sells African Boerboels, a rare breed from the Mastiff family, completely unknown to legislators. Unlike American Pit Bull Terriers, however, who are known for their love of people, Boerboels are serious guard dogs bred specifically as protectors. An irresponsibly bred and owned Boerboel might actually be more dangerous than an irresponsibly bred and owned Pit Bull. This is what a breed ban has accomplished in Topeka...
So in light of this, what kind of message are we telling abusive and irresponsible individuals when we make the dogs pay the price for their actions?
You guys would think that you would be more open minded given what you do for a living