Replies

“Liberals use your specific argument about guns; “No one needs a gun! That’s what police and the military are for!””

They do indeed - but they use it incorrectly.

“It is never the object - it is always the person using or owning the object. Lets keep the focus on personal responsibility. If someone can demonstrate they are able to contain a dangerous animal - why shouldn’t they be able to own it as long as they sign a document that says if the animal gets loose and kills or maims someone then the owner agrees that he, or she, shall be equally killed or maimed by the same method?”

I would agree with you except for one MAJOR flaw in your argument: dogs, in this case, Pit Bulls, are NOT objects. They are living, breathing animals with instincts. Guns (and other inanimate objects) cannot act on their own; as you stated, dogs are modified wolves and they hunt. That is an active thing. As for signing some sort of agreement, that’s silly.

“Bottom line - poor people should not own large breeds that are known for attacks if they do not have the insurance money to back it up and also expensive fencing. “

What? Sounds like you just stepped all in your whole appeal to true freedom and true justice... it’s for ALL — kinda like the Pledge. ;)

Again, your argument is specious. I’m sorry, but it is. There is no logic; you appeal to emotion — and understandably so as you are emotionally invested in your “war dogs.” However, that does not negate the fact that Pit Bulls, and some other breeds possibly, are nuisance animals. They serve no purpose but to boost egos as you mentioned, or to hunt/attack other dogs or humans. If you’re in the business of war, or hunting humans, then, there might be some sort of odd argument there.

But, it doesn’t change the fact that Pit Bulls have no purpose in homes. If they’re baiting or attacking bulls in your back yard bull ring, then that might be different. ;D

Flame on.

Hoss

Meh, I don’t see how you can possibly disagree with my awesome logic, but hey whatever! :D

Besides, I can just pull the “please define the precise EXACT legal definition of a Pit Bull Terrier” card on you.

Then, when you are finally able to recite the letter of the law and code that will stand up to legal challenges as to what precisely that is (and it would take decades to even get such a law on the books), then I simply change one minor thing in the breed (you can do that with dogs, that’s how you start with a large wild wolf-like canine and years later end up with a Toy Poodle lap dog) and presto - I have legally outmaneuvered you and still have my dangerous killer dog leaving you with only a bag full of frustration.

If people want to breed dogs over time for killer aggression you are going to have a hard time keeping the laws constantly changed and updated. They will just breed circles around the law. Have you ever seen how long it takes to pass a law or even make a change?

Besides we both know that nobody is ever going to do anything about this issue or enforce it. People will still own these and still pose a potential serious threat to you and yours, even if just by negligence, carelessness and accident.

So...the best bet, unfortunately in this type of scenario where you might have scumbag careless neighbors;

.....if you have kids or vulnerable pets or people around you....

....and you are worried about a obviously vicious psycho dog that presents a potential threat.....

....and the subject dog is barely contained behind a low fence with a hole getting larger every day....

welp, hate to say it but there are certainly ways to deal with it and eliminate the threat and no one will ever be able to prove a thing... Hopefully you would be kind and make it as painless as possible.

You can also take the option of attempting to talk to the neighbor, but then they now know you have a problem with it. And if they do nothing or tell you to get the hell off their property, you are back to square one with few options.

Of course if the dog gets out and comes on your property then its game on and you can pretty much blow it away in my book. Laws may vary depending on locality.

Now of course if the dog was well secured and the owner appears concerned and responsible - then the outcome might be different and there might be no need for any unpleasantness.

As for my “dog in this fight” or emotional investment. That is incorrect. I am neutral and my main focus is freedom allows ownership but at the same time it should allow extremely harsh punishment of those who can’t handle the responsibility that comes with it.

Do I feel sorry for the dog, the PBT in these scenarios? Of course, its a shame. They really don’t understand a lot of complicated issues. They have fairly simple minds of course. In a sense, they are “innocent”. But they should be killed regardless and as humanely as possible - if safety is in doubt.