Replies

Re your post #363:

Your point #1:
'Pit bull' type dogs are a very small part of the overall canine population so, those which attack are a minuscule portion. Yet, your shotgun 'solution' penalizes the 99+% of dog owners who aren't part of the problem. Concentrating control efforts on the relatively tiny, by comparison, number of specific irresponsible / negligent dog owners is prima facie common sense. Further, the arbitrary & subjective nature of so-called 'breed ban" laws make them both unworkable & grossly unfair to far more owners / dogs than there is any logical basis to target.
As far as genetic predisposition is concerned, forget DNA, your 'solution' harasses even benign owners / dogs where there's at best & merely in someone's opinion a vague 'pit bull look' present - see my still unanswered post # 338.

Your point #2:
Even if there were an agreed definition as to what constitutes a 'pit bull' - which there plainly isn't - by definition any law which punishes the vast majority for the sins of a tiny few is unfair & arbitrary (ergo, unconstitutional where applicable)
BTW, although very obviously the vast, vast majority of owners / dogs aren't part of the problem, all statistics are fatally flawed by their lack of any agreed 'pit bull' definition while public perception of it is manipulated by sensationalized & agenda-driven biased msm coverage (e.g. msn on SUV's - sheesh!)

Your point #3:
What sort of 'conservative' puts his trust solely in the arbitrary & subjective perceptions governmental authorities ???
Plus, owners / dogs are 'guilty until proven innocent' under your 'solution' - and with no meaningful or cost-effective means of appeal (again, see my still unanswered post # 338)
Forget any body's DNA experts as well as the perceptions (AKA 'feelings') of civil servants and take the far simpler route of going directly after irresponsible / negligent dog owners !!!

Your point #4:
No one has said dog attacks (even by 'pit bull' type dogs) don't occur.
However, all who disagree with you firmly believe that the msm sensationalizes & over 'reports' them just as it does with SUV's & virtually in every other area where it has an open agenda.
"I think most people know that the "Pit Bull" is the commonly accepted term for APBTs and AST."
Couldn't disagree more! Most people (and reporters!) have some vague notion of the host of crossbred dogs, which often look only remotely similar, responsible for most 'pit bull' related dog attacks.
As example, news footage of the supposed 'pit bull' involved in the Ontario, Canada attack this week portrays an animal perhaps half German Shepard (?) but certainly with lots of something other than any sort of terrier in its genetic make-up.

Your concluding statements:
Arguing that my post #314 (as but one example) which documented the opposition of responsible animal welfare bodies to the 'breed ban' approach somehow didn't more than counter - by any criteria! - the host of msm "news" stories you & others have posted, quite plainly speaks volumes as to your complete lack of any objectivity.

As to me not mentioning human or animal victims, nowhere have I denigrated their - to me plainly self-evident - misfortune.
I've merely concentrated - as one does in debate - on the far greater, in terms of obvious overall numbers - problems your statist approach inflicts upon otherwise good citizens & their pets.
If we're pointing the finger of denial, aside from your cavalier rejection of the host of expert bodies which completely disagree with you, there's still been no real response to the issue of the likely tens of times more dog owners & their pets whom your approach harms by comparison to the tiny number it may police. (once again, see my post #338)

"Constructive solutions" ?
I posted (my #314) a full page of them, authored by legitimate experts & likely endorsed by every single FReeper on this thread who disagrees with you.

If I'm to receive an "F minus", how far off the scale are those who've advanced PETA's position and smugly 'feel' they've backed it up with cheap emotionalism, blatant denial, and selective liberal media "news" clippings ???

Dang... you blather on like a silly girl!

Your whole notion about responsible owners is a laugher. Is there such a thing as "responsible Blood Sport" dog ownership? Maybe if one was to keep it locked up and treated it like a loaded gun....but that goes against the sweet, loving and non human aggressive talking points.

I had an aquaintance who was a functioning alcoholic. He would show up to work each day on time and function perfectly. After work he would head straight for the bar, then eventually drive home drunk. He probably amassed 30,000 drunken driving miles before getting help. He never had a single fender bender, accident, nor DUI.

Why did he have to carry the burden and fear of driving of being a criminal when driving home each night? He was a good drunk driver apparently. Just because drunk drivers are 16 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident, the so called "statist" made his behavior illegal.

It's the same damn reason the Pit Bullers have trouble with the insurance companies...ACTURIAL RISK. Yes many dogs bite, but the fighting breeds FINISH. It called Gameness. Look up the definition some time.

I think that Ontario dog was a Lab/Pit mix...According to the wife. Those genes are the gift that keeps on giving.