Orem man shoots attacking pit bull

The Daily Herald ^ | 9/18/09 | JEREMY DUDA

[Mr. Silverback]

A gun is not a dog. Stick to the issue. Diverting attention from the question at hand does not help your case.

The principle is the same. You advocate taking away someone's property rights--and arguably their self-defense right since I wouldn't tangle with a guy who has a pit bull standing next to him--in the name of neighborhood safety. And why? Because policing the behavior of the bad actors is too difficult for us to have freedom.

It's not Syncro's fault that the anti-pit crowd sounds just like the Brady Bunch.

[Finny]

No, the principle is NOT the same. You want it to be, but it ain't. A gun won't arbitrarily decide to hop a short fence and kill the old lady next door who's trimming her roses, and there is nothing in the constitution that says we have a right to keep and bear such a creature; indeed, the constitution might very well prohibit such a thing on the grounds that it interferes with another's right to the pursuit of happiness on her own private property.

What the constitution says is that we DO have a right to keep and bear firearms. Firearms are NOT dogs. You are pigheaded in your refusal to accept the truth.

[Syncro]

I have no case.

I was just pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

Your “only solution” is from the liberal playbook.

[Syncro]

Sorry if these words are too harsh but you really need to wake up.

Your words may seem harsh to you, but they are foolishness to me.

Your reading comprehension is so poor; you have attributed things to me that are incorrect assumptions.

If you read the post again you will see that I have no pitbulls.

Like I said, the pitbull protects the kids. If you come around to steal the kids, the pitbull will stop you from doing that.

It looks like the danger to the kids is from you, not their dog.

Oh and I have done my research and have been on many pitbull threads with knee-jerk reactions such as yours.

Pitbulls should be banned if not shot on sight.

And btw, it is quite illegal for you to shoot pitbulls on sight. I suggest you be careful as you go around attempting to do this.

[Syncro]

You make no sense, what have I done to you? Is it only a personal attack or are you a racist as well?

Pitbull owners are fools too? By your attitude at least you are.

It was your post that was a personal attack. You made it clear that a dog that protects children should be shot on site just because of your prejudices.

What have you done to me? Nothing. But you would kill the protector of my Grandchildren.

What's with the race card? How would I know your race anyway? Are you Jesse Jackson???

And you call me a fool because you assume I am a pitbull owner?

Do you have any idea what a powerful personal attack calling someone a fool is?

I can handle your mischaracterization though, I won't report you.

[Syncro]

Good try, but they won’t get it.

They want to take away anything they think is dangerous.

Just like liberals.

And then the personal attacks...And I am called a racist because I don’t want them to kill a kid’s pet.

They need to stay away from all dogs, because all dogs came originally from one breed. Therefore all dogs are pitbulls. (trying their twisted logic...lol)

*sigh*

[Mr. Silverback]

A gun won't arbitrarily decide to hop a short fence and kill the old lady next door who's trimming her roses,

When someone improperly uses a gun, do we prosecute him for that crime, or do we seize all the guns in the neighborhood regardless of how the gun owners have used their guns? Do we treat the parent with a gun safe the same as the guy who leaves his gun loaded, lying on the coffee table with the safety off in a room full of toddlers?

You are pigheaded in your refusal to accept the truth.

Thanks for the insult. It really adds weight to your argument.

And boy, does that argument need some weight:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."--John Adams, 1787 - A Defense of the American Constitutions
Reference: The Works of John Adams, C.F. Adams, ed., vol. 6 (8-9); The Founders Constitution

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."--James Madison, 1792 - Essay on Property. Reference: Madison: Writings, Rakove, ed., Library of America (515)

"One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle."--James Otis, 1761 - On the Writs of Assistance. Reference: Privacy in Colonial New England, Flaherty (85-88)

So, let's review: Like the gungrabbers, the pitgrabbers don't have any science to back up their assertions (only hysteria), they don't have the Founders on their side and they reject personal responsibility and inalienable personal rights in order to embrace state control. Hmmm...sounds like the Brady Bunch to me!

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

So, let's review: Like the gungrabbers, the pitgrabbers don't have any science to back up their assertions (only hysteria), they don't have the Founders on their side and they reject personal responsibility and inalienable personal rights in order to embrace state control. Hmmm...sounds like the Brady Bunch to me!

There are reasonable limits to the 2nd amendment. For example, the 2nd amendment doesn't authorize anyone and everyone to own nuclear weapons. Before you go off on the 'bear'-able weapons, how about flame-throwers? Anti-tank rockets? These are 'bear'-able weapons, yet we're still generally forbidden to own.

If there are reasonable limits to what weapons may be owned, then why shouldn't there be reasonable limits to what breeds of dogs may be owned?

[tupac]

I apologize! I apologize! Don’t report me!

Please I beg you, I’ll do anything! Anything! Aaaaaarrrgghhhh!!!!!! For the love of God, Don’t Report Me!!

[AngryJawa]

Beautiful gun but too large to carry, concealed.

I wear a 5" 1911A1 in .45 cal all day every day. It's all about the rig and the cover.

For our dog walks, I also carry a homemade white oak cane. So far, just waving it and yelling at a threatening dog in an assertive manner has been enough, but it's good to have options.

[marshmallow]

Pitbulls; the Moslems of the canine world.

No they're not all killers but it's hard to tell the difference until it's too late.

[Syncro]

LOL thanks for having a sense of humor...

[Mr. Silverback]

If there are reasonable limits to what weapons may be owned, then why shouldn't there be reasonable limits to what breeds of dogs may be owned?

First, the pit-grabbers don't get to say "A pit is not a gun, so we can ban it" and then say "A pit is just like a gun, so we can ban it." I know you're not Finny, but still, the contrast in the arguments is striking.

Second, the resonable limits on weapon ownership are based on solid facts, facts which indisputably support the contention that no one needs a nuclear weapon, a flamethrower or an anti-tank missile to defend their home. Can you come up with scientific data that proves pit bulls are inherently dangerous? Where's the empirical data?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Second, the resonable limits on weapon ownership are based on solid facts, facts which indisputably support the contention that no one needs a nuclear weapon, a flamethrower or an anti-tank missile to defend their home. Can you come up with scientific data that proves pit bulls are inherently dangerous? Where's the empirical data?

Your arguments are non-sequitar.

In your support for reasonable limits on certain weapons, you say that these are based upon solid facts.

Yet, in your defense for certain breeds you demand scientific and/or empirical data.

So, you want two standards --one based merely upon facts i.e.; common sense and the other based solely upon scientific, empirical studies.

If we apply your standard for dog ownership to guns, then one would have to come up with scientific, empirical data in order to ban certain weapons. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a scientific study, nor has there been any empirical data gathered that certain weapons should not be owned. Instead, these limits were placed based merely upon simple facts. As you point out, reasonableness dictates that one does not need a flame-thrower to defend one's self.

Conversely, if we apply your standard for weapons ownership to dog breeds--simple facts, then these facts can show that certain breeds tend to be more dangerous for the average person to own than others.

While I have no doubts that all breeds can bite and be aggressive, there are certain breeds which can cause more damage when they do become aggressive. Similarly, certain breeds are favored expressly because of their aggressive personalities and physical strength, such as pit bulls.

So, just as we place reasonable limits on which types of weapons may be owned, we should be able to place reasonable limits on what breeds may be owned using the same standards employed for weapons ownership.

Note that that, with the exception of nuclear weapons, most weapons, such as full-auto weapons, flame-throwers, etc. can be owned by private individuals, as long as they've satisfactorily met whatever controls have been put into place, such as a Class III permit.

[Lions Gate]

Gun Control (definition) - Three rounds center mass.

Good for Mr. Erikson - just wish he had shot that dog multiple times.

[BJungNan]

On pittbulls we will disagree. We both have a reading comprehension problem. I thought you had said you had a pittbulls to guard your grandkids. Glad to here you are not that foolish.

As for you, I never suggested that I would “go around shooting pittbulls.” But now that you bring it up...

Onward to another subject. FReepRegards and glad you did not take offense at my remarks.

[BJungNan]

You advocate taking away someone's property rights--and arguably their self-defense right ...

No, I would take away your right to use a pittbull as a self-defense weapon since in far more instances than not, the only thing a pittbull attacks is an innocent child or other bystander.

I think I will work to bring about a ban on pittbulls in our community. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

[BJungNan]

Warning, the graphic at this link is very, very graphic. It shows the victim of a pitbull mauling. Do not look if you do not like such images.

http://www.bangedup.com/archives/pitbull.jpg

The other image I will post. It is for those of you that think a pitbull should be allowed in residential neighborhoods.

Erin Dickinson, 7, was mauled by a pit bull May 24 near her south Reading home.

And who owned these dogs, who is the person whose rights you are defending to own such a "weapon" as a pitbull?

If you can look at the little girl who got mauled and still say pitbulls should be allowed in neighborhood...your digusting is the only nice way to put it.

[geopyg]

“It’s part of owning big dogs, caution is never in excess.”

Our medium-sized mutt is unbelievably tolerable of our kid’s antics - even in old age. However, I did ask the new neighbor girl just today to not have her face so close to the dog’s face - you never know.

[Mr. Silverback]

No, I would take away your right to use a pittbull as a self-defense weapon since in far more instances than not, the only thing a pittbull attacks is an innocent child or other bystander.

Really? You have empirical data to support that statement? You see, when the Brady Bunch tells me I shouldn't be armed, they like to say stuff like the gun will kill one of my kids instead of a burglar, or that if my wife is armed a rapist will take the gun away from her and use it to make her totally compliant. Yet they never have any data that backs their contentions up, and the real data usually shows the opposite.

So...where's the data?