So would banning guns and mama's boyfriend, but I guess you would be against banning those.
I?d hate to think that you are a pit bull owner, because in a thread where the anti-pit-bull crowd is arguing that pit bull owners are people who threaten their neighbors
I am a very proud "pit bull" owner and again,I find individuals who want to behave as dictators and take away my freedoms to be the threat. So again, your problem would be with me not the dog.
Is it a good thing we are not neighbors? Well, the last time I had a neighbor with dogs they could not control
I don't have a dog that I can't control. You wouldn't have a problem with my dog, the problem would be with me. I don't allow neighbors to tell me how to live. I still believe in freedom. What little we have left from folks like you determined to turn us into a nanny state.
It is clear
The only thing clear is that you don't have a clue, so why don't you go get one.
By your logic it would be tyrannical to ban the ownership of a full grown lion.
As I said, It is clear there is a substantive difference in certain breeds of dogs. You can deny this all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.
And as I said, your response supported the argument made by some (not me) that pit bull owners are themselves the type of people to make threats. Your insistance that “your problem would be with me not the dog” merely illustrates the point I was making.
As for banning things, laws are mostly the restriction of some rights to protect other rights. As such, each law must be weighed for risks and rewards, and in some cases for constitutional muster.
So for your two examples, “banning guns” is unconstitutional, so we don’t even have to address whether the risk of guns is greater than the reward of ownership. Which of course, it isn’t — guns save lives.
“mamma’s boyfriend” is likely also a constitutional issue to some degree, but there ARE laws that allow the state to restrict some people from associations, if they are known to be dangerous. The state could well step in and prevent a known sexual predator from showing up at the house of a woman with a child, even on a date.
I don’t know whether you agree with laws that would restrict the rights of convicted sex offenders from getting access to children — it is clearly a restriction on someone’s rights, but is done to protect other rights. In each case, we have to decide which right is more important, the right of a sex offender to date a woman and go to her house, against the rights of the child in the house to not be confronted by a sexual predator.
As I said, in the case of a law about pit bulls, we would need to weigh the known risk of pit bulls living in a neighborhood, with whatever benefits there are to having pit bulls. And it could be that the correct solution would be to not allow pit bulls in neighborhoods with children, like we do with sex offenders. Or maybe requiring fences, or requiring that pit bulls never be allowed outside without human supervision. Or maybe no child’s life is worth any restrictions.
It wasn’t my argument. My argument, then and now, is that the original assertion of this thread, that coconuts were a bigger risk than pit bulls, was a stupid, fallacious argument — because I can guarantee I won’t get killed by a coconut, but the only way I can guarantee I won’t get killed by a pit bull is to ban pit bulls from where i live.
I'm guessing that you do. Now, it is possible you live far out in some rural location where there is no law, but my guess is you do live under the authority of local and state government. Those governments, acting on behalf of your neighbors, tell you how you can live in your house, imposing things like setbacks, maybe the height of your grass, probably the types of things you can do on your property like turning it into a waste dump or running certain types of business. Further, I'm betting that in real life you are actually a human being with some notion of civility that seems somewhat lacking in your internet persona; and that if you were doing something on your property that upset your neighbors, and they came and asked nicely, you would take their opinion into account. That's what being neighbors is about. But if you truly believe that you have the absolute right to do whatever you want on your property without regard to how if impacts other property owners, then I apologize for suggesting you would be neighborly.