Posted on 09/23/2007 9:32:55 AM PDT by skyman
Aw...thanks for the lovely sentiment. It adds a whole lot of weight to your arguments.
Erin Dickinson, 7, was mauled by a pit bull May 24 near her south Reading home.
How sure are you that it was a pit? Attacking dogs are often misidentified as pits. For example, virtually every witness to a recent attack at WTMJ in Milwaukee reported that four pit bulls were running loose after a driver stopped and dumped them out. Guess what? One may have been a pit, but IIRC not even that was certain because it was a mixed breed. The woman who runs a pit rescue shelter in Chicago recently told a story on NPR about how a dangerous pit involved in a mauling (and boy were those witnesses sure they'd seen a pit!) turned out to be...drum roll please...a black lab.
What do we know about the circumstances of what happened to Erin? Was the dog provoked? If not, was the dog abused by his owner? Properly fenced? Is it "disgusting" that I want some FACTS? Is it "disgusting" that I want to guide our laws by real data and real personal responsibility? And who owned these dogs, who is the person whose rights you are defending to own such a "weapon" as a pitbull?
So...what are you saying here? It appears you want us to look at this dog owner and decide she doesn't have rights for some visual reason, such as the T-shirt, the tattoos or the weight. Unless you're making a point about her that went over my head, your approach seems quite bigoted, as if I'm only supposed to care aboput someone's rights if they're pretty and wear certain clothes.
Dang...I guess the days when conservatives believed in personal responsibility and enforcing the laws on the books just might be gone.
On the flip-side, pits in recycle shelters are often identified as Boxers or Bulldogs to get them homes.
Yep, there's a radical concept! Personal responsibility and law enforcement.
Take a look at Bjungnan's post 138...Now take a look at the pertinent paragraph from the news story about the mauled little girl:
Officials said it was the second time the dogs had attacked someone in two days. The dog's owner was charged and the animals were euthanized.
Source.
So, because somebody acts like an irresponsible scumbag and makes their dogs so aggressive they have to be put down, I'm supposed to give up some of my rights? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Is it just me, or is BJungNan saying that we’re supposed to support statist dog bans because the woman in the bottom photo looks a bit trashy?
No. The standard is the law should be based on fact, not speculation or hysteria. To say "A guy doesn't need an anti-tank rocket to protect his home" is to deal in fact, whereas saying "A guy doesn't need a pistol to defend his home because our neighborhoods will become the OK Corral" is dealing in hysteria. It's the same with the dogs. I keep asking people to show me the science that shows that pit bulls are some special, inherently dangerous breed, but no one can seem to find any facts that show they're the anti-tank rockets of the dog world.
Besides, gun laws are based on empirical data all the time. State after state has adopted shall-issue concealed carry after it was proven with empirical data that such laws reduce crime and that concealed carry holders virtually never use their guns in an illegal fashion.
So...show me data that proves that pit bull attacks are a result of the dog being a pit bull rather than the owners being irresponsible and I can be won over...but you'd be the first to provide that data.
Nope, you just supposed to recognize that they dogs had no place in the neighborhood, that girl should never have been scared like that. Can you not see?
As I said, that is the result of the owner's behavior. You have not provided any facts that show that pits are any more dangerous than other breeds.
BTW, did you mean scared or scarred?
Scared? A few days ago my kids were scared when a large dog (a rottweiler or rottweiler mix) charged its fence as we were walking nearby, barking up a storm. But the owner is a responsible person, and the dog was properly fenced and no more aggressive than the Jack Russell at the other end of the block that charges his fence in the same way. Should we ban Rotts and Jack Russells?
Scarred? As I've pointed out, if the owner had acted responsibly, this attack would never have occurred. If she had even just had the dogs locked up after the first attack it would never have occurred. Why do you think you can make bigoted comments about her culpability and let her off the hook at the same time?
Can you not see?
Can you not cite evidence? Where are your facts? Show me the facts that mean this breed is especially dangerous. I've already caught you fudging the truth once by leaving out the role the owner had in the Dickinson attack, so start backing it up.
BTW, why haven't you answered my questions about your comment on the owner's picture? Why am I supposed to look at a picture of that woman and be convinced that I should take a property right away from people? What is it about her looks that make that argument?
Besides, if 4 rounds or so can't get the job done, there's always beating the crap out of your target with the heavy chromed frame.
:-)
Home protection is not the only legitimate reason to own a weapon any more than it is to own a dog. Or, are you saying that home defense is the only legitimate reason to own a dog?
Besides, gun laws are based on empirical data all the time. State after state has adopted shall-issue concealed carry after it was proven with empirical data that such laws reduce crime and that concealed carry holders virtually never use their guns in an illegal fashion.
What was studied, the weapon or the owner? Concealed carry laws restrict whom may carry concealed. CCW permit holders are required to show they're responsible enough, and have the training to carry responsibly before they're allowed to carry. This is no different from having pit bull ownership restricted except for those who can prove they're responsible and have the necessary training to control the animal.
So...show me data that proves that pit bull attacks are a result of the dog being a pit bull rather than the owners being irresponsible and I can be won over...but you'd be the first to provide that data.
Show me the data that guns can shoot a neighbor all by themselves. Yet, despite this fact, the laws restrict their ownership because they're inherently dangerous. Same for pit bulls. In irresponsible hands, they can and do maim and kill people.
I haven't read of a teacup poodle maiming or killing a neighbor. I can be won over... but you'd have to provide the data that shows that a teacup poodle, when owned by an irresponsible owner, is as dangerous as a pit bull would be when in the same hands.
No we don't. Only you do.
I thought you had said you had a pittbulls to guard your grandkids.
Yes I know. And I asked you to re-read my post and try to comprehend what I actually said.
As for you, I never suggested that I would “go around shooting pittbulls.” But now that you bring it up...
You most certainly did. Here's your statement:
Pitbulls should be banned if not shot on sight.Tupac is correct.
I think your agreement with that statement is proof enough that you are "suggesting" ou would go around shooting pitbulls. If you won't stand behind your statements, then don't make them. At least when addressing me. I take people at their word and expect them to stand behind their statements, not hide behind them.
And on your statement "But now that you bring it up..."
YOU brought it up, not me. But I get your inference. You project your statement onto me, and now will go around shooting Pitbulls.
You see, I did have you pegged correctly.
Onward to another subject. FReepRegards and glad you did not take offense at my remarks.
You are so disingenuous. To another subject and then a few minutes later you post your scare tactic pictures to me? I will answer your "digusting" post # 138 next.
Oh and ignorance doesn't offend me, it makes me pay closer attention.
You are right. I did agree with Tupac. But no, I would not go around just shooting pitbulls. If I was going to do anything it would be to work to ban them. But, if I was walking down the street and felt threathened by them and had a firearm I would use it.
On post 138 you are also correct. The use of the word disgusting was inappropriate and a bad choice of a word. Perhaps something on the order of, “it is hard to imagine how someone could not be moved to want to ban pitbulls in neighborhoods when they see a picture of that little girl.”
You have my apology on the use of the word disgusting.
Well good.
Then you recant your agreement with Tupac that pitbulls should be shot on site?
Thanks
If you were walking down the street and felt threatened by a Mastiff or a Rottweiler would you shoot it? Or would you say, “Oh, that’s not a pitbull, it won’t hurt me?”
If I was walking down a street and felt any dog was threatening my life or to do me serious injury, then of course you must make a decision to defend yourself.
Not sure was a mastiff is. A rotwellier is pretty scary. But a pitbull I consider particularly dangerous.
Apology accepted, thank you.
“it is hard to imagine how someone could not be moved to want to ban pitbulls in neighborhoods when they see a picture of that little girl.”
Still a knee jerk reaction. Ban pitbulls in all neighbor hoods because one owner did not control his/her dog?
Ban all Arab Muslims because 15 of the 19 Terrorists that flew into the Twin Towers were Arab Muslims?
well I might agree with that...
bump
A .22 caliber isn’t very reliable either
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=investigative&id=4248109
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.