Replies

> Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely playing devils advocate against both sides in this debate and am actually quite neutral on the question of “right to have” a “killer dog” - other than my already defined stipulations. <

Most localities prohibit owning “killer” dogs. However, the dog must, in the majority of cases, be proven to individually be a danger to society.

You cannot prove that an entire breed (which the pit bull is not, by definition) or especially an entire type (which defines the term, “pit bull”, but also defines the term, “terrier”) of dog poses a definite threat to the citizens in the area.

Most localities prohibit owning “killer” dogs. However, the dog must, in the majority of cases, be proven to individually be a danger to society.

You cannot prove that an entire breed (which the pit bull is not, by definition) or especially an entire type (which defines the term, “pit bull”, but also defines the term, “terrier”) of dog poses a definite threat to the citizens in the area

Yep, I agree. I covered that in post #112 above.

I'm in the middle playing against both sides of the debate because I think its an interesting one. I have owned PBT's Rotts and all the "killer dog" breed and am a great admirer of them but I make no bones about it knowing what a PBT can do and that they have an extra special "switch" somewhere in their brain that ones its tripped, can be a frigging nightmare.

Years ago I spent 30 minutes helping a friend try to get two Pits separated one dark stormy night when a tree branch fell and knocked the cable run off and two pits were able to get to each other. He couldn't do it by himself and had to call for help and I lived about 5 minutes away. The sound of grinding bones and tearing flesh and sinew is something you don't forget. Even with a pry stick it wasn't easy to separate the jaws that truly seem to lock.

Still, I think the whole thing is a metaphor for a society of total personal responsibility that I would like to see, backed up by true "Eye for an Eye" laws that put teeth and reality into the concept of "Total Personal Responsibility".

As an example: Want to do all the drugs you want? Go ahead, but no taxpayer money for you, welfare, or taxpayer funded "rehab" or anything else. And if you hurt someone while under the influence then what ever you did to them either maiming or killing shall be done to you. Pretty simple really. Not much different than Frontier justice which actually had its good points.

As I previously stated, I understand that few people actually want or can handle real personal responsibility when it comes right down to it. Most people want a good lawyer and some wiggle room or an "out" if they screw up. And therefore we have laws and rules to try to fill in the gaps and bring some semblance of justice and order. But often there is no real justice in a Liberal society. Just ask the surviving family members of those OJ killed.