Barbara Kay: What pit bull activism says about our culture

National Post ^ | Jan 2, 2015 | Barbara Kay

[RBStealth]

Last weekend in Saanich, B.C., a 16-day old baby was mauled by her family’s pit bull-Rottweiler mix on the same day as an elderly man was attacked by two pit bull dogs outside a Langley, B.C. dollar store. News like this is reported, but commentary-wise, dog-related public safety is virtually an orphan topic. Which is why I adopted it.

Public-safety regulation is usually linked to what is deemed a critical number of injuries or deaths. Between 1971 and 1980, for example, Ford produced three million Pintos. Due to a peculiarity in the Pinto’s structural design, its fuel tank was prone to puncture in rear-end collisions. Consequently, over Pinto’s 10 years in operation, 26 people died in fires that a better design could have prevented. Ford was forced to retire the model in the interest of public safety.

By coincidence, there are about three million pit bull type dogs in North America today, representing 6% of all breeds. But about 26 people die from pit bull type dogs in the U.S. every year (out of about 40 from all 400 breeds combined). Pit bull type dogs maul, maim, disfigure or dismember hundreds more. By no coincidence, when pit bulls were few in number — 200,00 before 1970, most clustered in marginal districts — dogbite-related fatalities in the general population were freakishly rare. In my youth, when middle-class neighbourhood dogs ran loose, and average families didn’t own fighting dogs, years went by without a single fatality. If pit bull type dogs were cars, they’d be long gone. But unlike car victims, pit bull tragedies don’t arouse public outrage.

[zipper]

We could apply that "logic" to the anti-gun debate and it remains equally as [sic] senseless.

Which part of the social contract would you do away with?

[South40]

Which part of the social contract would you do away with?

I don't accept your premise that I am responsible for your safety. If my dog is no threat to you or your family, leave me and my dog out of the equation. That is similar to the gun argument. If I or my guns are of no threat to you or your family, leave me out of the equation. It's a simple concept, really. But one that the left fails to fully understand.

[zipper]

We could apply that "logic" to the anti-gun debate and it remains equally as senseless.

Refresh my memory.

Which constitutional amendment protects the 'right to bear vicious animals'?

[South40]

Which constitutional amendment protects the 'right to bear vicious animals'?

I don't agree with your false premise that all pit bulls are vicious. Many are kid-friendly family pets. That you would think otherwise is extraordinarily similar to the way liberals believe all guns are a threat. Most dogs and most guns are of no threat to your or anyone. Unless , of course, you create a threat to their owner(s).

[zipper]

I don't agree with your false premise that all pit bulls are vicious. Many are kid-friendly family pets

I see your argument is shifting. You are losing.

Scratch that. You lost.

[zipper]

I don't accept your premise that I am responsible for your safety.

Actually, you won't accept responsibility for anyone's reasonable assurance of non-aggression from you. You think you can opt out of the social contract to which every societal member belongs.

If my dog is no threat to you or your family, leave me and my dog out of the equation.

Happily! Feel free to move to an island with nobody but you and your vicious urban thug accessory animal.

If I or my guns are of no threat to you or your family, leave me out of the equation.

Which one of your guns runs out the door when you open it? Which one do you have penned up in your back yard? Which one has free will?

It's a simple concept, really. But one that the left fails to fully understand.

"Equation" implies balance. There appears to be an 'imbalance' between vicious chihuahua maulings and pit bull maulings. The courts and local law enforcement are empowered by the citizenry to address rogue animal ownership and custodianship, even if it means legal sanction, within the boundaries of local and state law (it's not a Constitutional issue, as with gun ownership -- not that the analogy has specific validity anyway, as I keep having to point out).

[zipper]

I don't accept your premise that I am responsible for your safety.

Do you have a driver's license? Do you realize that is a manifestation of a greater Social Contract? Driving is a privilege, granted by the state, under rules agreed to by greater society.

Additionally, you are not "responsible for my safety" -- that's hyperbole. But you are responsible for your own behavior (and that of your animal, which has free will) in the sense you are not allowed to recklessly endanger the safety of me, or others.

By the way your car doesn't have free will either, so go ahead and own as many as you like. But if you drive one, and you're drunk (or your cherished pit bull is driving?) you will likely lose your privilege to drive, and justifiably so, under the social contract you agreed to honor.

No apologies for 'beating the dead horse' and humiliating your specious arguments.

[South40]

Which constitutional amendment protects the 'right to bear vicious animals'?

It's right next to the one that states you can take someone's family pet because you have an irrational and unwarranted fear of it.

The courts and local law enforcement are empowered by the citizenry to address rogue animal ownership and custodianship,

Interesting that you should bring up "the courts"...

Clay's vicious dog ordinance is unconstitutional, judge rules

Happily! Feel free to move to an island with nobody but you and your vicious urban thug accessory animal.

I am happy where I am, thank you. You should feel free to move to the island of your choosing where you will be free of your irrational and unwarranted fear of family pets.

Which one of your guns runs out the door when you open it? Which one do you have penned up in your back yard? Which one has free will?

Have you seen my dog do that? No you haven't. Nor do you have any real experience with the dogs of millions of Americans. You are basing your failed argument on hysteria. That is eerily similar to what liberals do when they oppose gun ownership. And while I do find that mildly amusing, it hardly warrants my Sunday afternoon. You will never convince me to join your hysterical opposition to family pets and I can see I will never convince you that your hysteria is unwarranted. So be it. Bye.

[zipper]

The court's findings do not prevent city officials from writing an ordinance that passes constitutional muster and furthers the health and safety of residents, he [the judge] wrote.

For example, unincorporated Madison County regulates ownership of vicious and dangerous dogs with an ordinance that fulfills constitutional requirements and is not breed specific, [Judge] Boohaker noted.

Although a county judge is not the final arbiter of constitutional matters (as I will show), I would say I might be fine with that, as long as the ordinance is not too "vague, ambiguous and subject to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" (Judge Boohaker's words).

As the story mentions, another nearby county passed a similar ordinance that complies with the judge's interpretation of constitutional muster:

For example, unincorporated Madison County regulates ownership of vicious and dangerous dogs with an ordinance that fulfills constitutional requirements and is not breed specific, [Judge] Boohaker noted.

----

Obviously, you are not aware that the Supreme Court of Ohio has joined courts in Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Kentucky in ruling that breed specific legislation is, indeed, constitutional when properly written.

And yes, the US Supreme Court did weigh in on this issue, when on February 19, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal from the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, August 1, 2007).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

[zipper]

That is eerily similar to what liberals do when they oppose gun ownership.

You abandoned the direct comparison of vicious dog ownership with gun ownership, and now your associations have gone from direct comparisons to "eerily similar".

More evidence you lost the argument.

[Rockingham]

That was quite a dog, protective but polite, like a country club bouncer. Thank you for the anecdote.

[Axenolith]

It is not statistically insignificant to those that were killed.

So what? That's the attitude that myriads of politicians utilize to scare people into mountains of worthless law. It may be significant to an individual, but I, or we, are not responsible for spending our lives policing the stupidity of others at the expense of our and our fellow citizens freedom and wealth. I'm not even going to address the ridiculous comparison to Ebola you flopped out there, you'll need to conduct a review of logic and rhetoric for that. It amazes me that we have a conservative site here with all of us strict constructionist "freedom lovers" and when something comes along that kills or wounds a few dozen people from INDIVIDUAL IRRESPONSIBILITY AND STUPIDITY on behalf of those involved, there's a crew willing to jump right onto handing it off to the consistently reelected pile of dung we call a political class here.

[sagar]

Genetically rabid dogs that have killer instinct bred into their genes should be allowed to be treated as menace by RESPONSIBLE individuals and put down when necessary. For example, when you see a pitbull without a leash and roaming the streets, you should be able to put it down. I personally do not care if the pitbulls maul their owners or the owners’ families. Fine. But I am against them mauling in the public.

Your right ends where mine begins. I have the right to defend myself against those that threaten my and my family’s safety. That includes your genetically rabid dogs.

[Frapster]

Except that a dog, for reasons innate, can and do take action that a gun cannot... ever.

[Frapster]

Exactly. And we elected Obama twice... well... people did. Not me.

[wardaddy]

My white cat Lucky...sadly killed and eaten by a large Bobcat or Bobcat Caracol hybrid at aged 15

Only cat I ever really liked

Slept in crib with all our infants over the years

And they slept face up in SIDS pillow bracket

Never a problem...

But....quite right...infant unsupervised around any dog is foolish

A lifetime of Alsatians...Rotts...Dobermans...Johnson Bulldogs...Giant Schnauzers....Old Southern Bullies

Currently on my third Rott...an uncut...of course... male 140 pound 23 month old Serbian genetics

I would push come to shove trust my Doberman or my Giant Schnauzer around wee ones....but I was still prudent

But any Bully breed....no way...there so myopic when their kill button comes in...too risky

My bitch Johnson killed every animal she could except sires...whom she of course was subservient in the extreme to

Alsatians....a hard call....very bright but got touchy buttons

Rotts...maybe my favorite breed...but they are basically athletic brown and black Mastiffs with a cut of Bernese...and a bigger brain....they are so badass...you have to take precautions

After a lifetime of this I'm a Dobe and Rott guy....Shepherd family just sheds too much....I keep my dogs in house as much as they want...my Rott is tuff temp wise

I trusted my Hoytt Doberman...a big boy with training because of it...he was without question...a killer if threatened...companion security...family only....Thanksgiving dinner.....he was in his cage.

Not molested.

But he'd let babies or toddlers lie all over him or play horsey and at most lick them but if someone he wasn't sure of approached.

Man he'd get real scary...a fearless dog...who never ever backed down

You have to use common sense

Next to Ribs....dogs rock...albeit a quite distant second...God knew what he was doing on this

And they come in handy..
I sleep better with boy downstairs or if I'm gone and family at home without me

Beckett has it covered

[kanawa]

Except that a dog, for reasons innate, can and do take action that a gun cannot... ever.

Well, duh.
Isn't that addressed in my post to which you've responded?
Your observation only echos part of my post and neither contradicts my statements,
nor the correlating principle involving responsible ownership that I've put forth.

[CatherineofAragon]

Shepherds, Rotties, and Dobermans...I love ‘em all. The women in my husband’s family go for Shih-Tzus and designer dogs (just the name “Labradoodle” sets my teeth on edge).

But there was the time sister-in-law and her husband got themselves a big German Shepherd for protection, and she found out how loveable big breeds can be. That dog was imposing.

When she got him, she brought him to the house to meet me...such a sweetheart. He adored women and was so protective of them. While we were getting acquainted, a car turned down the driveway, and in a flash he went from big puppy to killer wanting a piece of somebody.

Then there was the time I was at SIL’s house, and a repairman came by. The dog sat himself on top of my feet, facing outward, growling low in his throat.

But the fur literally flew through the air when he was around...the house had to be vacuumed daily.

I miss that dog.

[kanawa]

You don't get it.
|
In the first place he is not talking about ‘vicious” dog ownership.

There are two comparisons being made...

The first comparison involves the principle of personal responsibility
being applicable to owning either a dog or a gun.

The second comparison is between the irrational responses liberals have towards guns
and the irrational liberal-like responses some that like to think themselves ‘conservative’
have when it comes to dogs.

You are putting words in his mouth and based on your concoction concluding he has lost the argument. /smh

[zipper]

Now that’s funny. You presume to speak for another, but accuse me of “putting words in his mouth”.

Irony aside you haven’t helped his argument, or yours (in which you presume to speak for him). The topic is indeed about vicious dog ownership and what it says about our culture. The article is very specific. And once again, the left loves to compare gun ownership to vicious dog ownership (as an anti-gun argument) — but it isn’t valid since guns don’t have free will.

GUNS DON’T HAVE FREE WILL. That’s an important theme, because when someone tells you that laws pertaining to vicious animals (not just dogs) should also provide the basis for gun restrictions, you need to speak up with a concise, logical argument against such flawed thinking. Just making a vague argument for greater-personal-freedom-because-you think-you-think-you-are-entitled-to-unlimited-personal-freedom-to-own-this-or-that doesn’t work, because the courts (and societies, legislatures town councils) don’t recognize unlimited, unfettered, abusive “personal freedoms” if they go too far in trumping others’ rights. The civil society strikes a balance, and every member subscribes to the implicit social contract. Recognizing this, gun rights are so important we have a second amendment to protect them!

I notice you label as “irrational liberal-like responses....” (whatever that is, you borrowed the phrase) made by “...some that like to think themselves ‘conservative....’ (presumably aimed at anyone on FR that disagrees)
“....have when it comes to dogs” (noted, you want to broaden the target to include all dogs, a straw man attempt).

Oh yes, won’t you please send me a note the next time you see a .357 Magnum roaming your neighborhood without a leash, or pumping the neighbor’s kid full of lead after it escapes from the fenced yard, or runs in a pack with other .357 Magnums terrorizing the entire neighborhood, etc. etc.? You could validate the liberal arguments, and maybe yours at the same time.