Replies

Aside from the fact that there's no such breed recognized by either the American or Canadian Kennel Clubs as a "pit bull" (& by all means go to their sites to see for yourself if you don't believe me), there are numerous legitimate breeds of dogs with - not only similar or worse records of attacks but & more importantly - a awful lot more overall size & weight to back-up their attacks.

So-called "breed specific legislation" is typical of liberals' approach to most things:
it's opportunistic & hysterical, knee-jerk by definition, plays to ignorance while simultaneously spreading misinformation and, most tellingly, turns a blind eye to the real problem.

So, let's try to buy votes by heartlessly killing as many otherwise innocent dogs* as we can simply because it's easier to do so than vigorously prosecuting a small group of totally irresponsible dog-owners to the fullest extent of the law.

Besides, engaging in such prosecutions would smack of upholding law & order ... and that's something no liberal wants any part of!

BTW, I'm a cat-owner who hates to see us doing the liberals' work for them & merely attempting to promote logic & sound conservative principals on this issue.
Every braindead, totalitarian 'ban' we agree to go along with just makes the next one they want easier for them to impose - sheeesh !!!

* plus, let's do so merely because we subjectively don't like the mere appearance of these dogs - what with them not actually being a real breed & all.

"Aside from the fact that there's no such breed recognized by either the American or Canadian Kennel Clubs as a 'pit bull' (& by all means go to their sites to see for yourself if you don't believe me)"

Yes, it is good that we put this fact aside, because it is quite irrelevant. The American and Canadian Kennel Clubs have precisely as much authority as the Knights of Columbia, the Loyal Order of Moose and I do: which is precisely none. They have an opinion. I have an opinion.

"there are numerous legitimate breeds of dogs with - not only similar or worse records of attacks but & more importantly - a awful lot more overall size & weight to back-up their attacks."

Sure: Rottweilers and Dobermans (Dobermen?) come to mind. So do Chows. I reject the notion of a "legitimate" breed of dog, however, because it accords to the AKC, the CKC and the KC authority that they do not have. Speaking in terms of genus-species-subspecies, a dog is a dog. What makes a dog a Doberman, a German Shepherd, a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull is what it looks like, not what the KC, the AKC or the CKC defines as a "breed" using their pedigree charts. They assert that a breed is what they say it is.
I assert they are wrong, and that a breed is what it looks like. And they and I have PRECISELY the same degree of authority to bind others to our these things, which is: precisely none whatsoever. The KC, AKC and CKC's opinion matters for people who want to do something sponsored by them. Want to play in their park? You have to play by their rules. Outside of their little park, though, they have no general authority to define anything.

And they are quite wrong. It is not a pedigree chart that makes a dog a rottweiler. It is what the dog LOOKS LIKE that is solely determinative of that. A dog that looks like a Rottweiler IS a Rottweiler. A dog that doesn't, isn't. A dog that LOOKS LIKE a pit bull, IS a pit bull by definition.

Because that's what "pit bull" means. It means: a squat, muscular dog that looks like that. That's a pit bull. They're all canis familiaris. The difference after that is opinion.

The AKC, KC and CKC don't have a category of "pit bull". So they're wrong about this. Clearly there is such a thing as a pit bull: it's a dog that looks like a pit bull.

And dogs that look like put bulls, rottweilers, chows and dobermans are involved in a lot more attacks than dogs that look like other things.

Should, therefore, we legislate against those breeds?

I wouldn't, if I were in charge.
If I were King, and somebody had a mean pit bull and it mauled a child, I would order the owner to be mauled by dogs. I have very little patience or sympathy for people who are responsible for the harm done to children, and I would hold people responsible for the actions of their pets.

I would NOT put down the vicious dog, however. I would take that vicious dog into the Royal forces and train it up to guard and maul people. A dog that has mauled somebody once has the disposition, and using powerful, trainable, vicious animals to do dangerous work is preferable to sending people in to do it. Besides, I need a trained cadre of vicious dogs to set on those convicted of having had their dog maul a child. The pit bulls in the Royal Mauling Pit would be already proven maulers, self-selected for their viciousness by the fact they'd already mauled somebody else.

I'd likely use the Mauling Pit for executions of particularly heinous criminals too. If you liked law and order and green things and animals, you'd like me as your King. Otherwise, you might have a different view.

Sadly, I am not King, so my view of these things passes for nothing. We live in a democracy, so what most people want gets to be the law of the land (well, unless it's stopping illegal immigration...). If I were to choose, I wouldn't outlaw pit bulls, but I don't get to choose. The masses of people do. And they are not as laissez-faire as I am about them, I'm afraid.