Posted on 08/04/2018 10:29:02 PM PDT by Norski
First time for a proposed pit bull ban to go before voters prior to taking effect
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri––Opens Question 1 on the August 7, 2018 primary election ballot for the City of Springfield, Missouri:
“Shall the City of Springfield establish a future ban upon the possession of new pit bull dogs within the City limits by prohibiting acceptance of any new pit bull registrations and only allowing renewals of existing current pit bull dog registrations?”
The language of the proposed Springfield pit bull ban was approved by the city council, voting 5-4, in November 2017. Backlash
“The backlash was immediate,” recalls Springfield News-Leader reporter Alissa Zhu. “Residents threatened to boycott businesses associated with the five council members who voted for the ordinance. Within a month, more than 7,800 people signed a petition, circulated by a local group called Citizens Against BSL, in an effort to stop the ban.”
Enough petition signatures were certified to put the proposed ordinance before the Springfield voters. The outcome appears likely to be decided by how effectively pit bull ban opponents and proponents mobilize during the next few days to get out the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at animals24-7.org ...
I wondered this myself. However, being required to purchase insurance by the government is the same as a tax, and is the basis of Obamacare, a nightmare only now beginning to be reduced in its overwhelming force. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are a set of articles regarding insurance and dogs.
Allstate “celebrates” Dog Bite Prevention Week with $362,599 payout https://www.animals24-7.org/2018/04/10/allstate-celebrates-dog-bite-prevention-week-with-362599-payout/
Norski wrote: “Ah. Here is what I wanted for your request. The photos of the dogs and the other information is at the link. Q: What is a pit bull? [American staffordshire terrier] Staffordshire bull terrier American bulldog pit bull American staffordshire terrier Staffordshire bull terrier American bulldog American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog.”
So, you want to ban certain dogs because of how they look, not how they act?
Thanks!
Q1)
So, you want to ban certain dogs because of how they look, not how they act?
No. They look the way they do because when you breed for a dog that makes a killing bite, the easily-identifiable physical form accompanies the “killing bite” type.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Q2) “No, the real problem is ‘what is a pit bull’?”
+++++++++++++++++++++
An identifiable breed, as per my replies post #24 and #25.
So what if you lift the leg and hold onto it and then start swinging?
Your info may come in handy someday when I am confronted by a pit bull chomping down on somebody.
Norski wrote: “No. They look the way they do because when you breed for a dog that makes a killing bite, the easily-identifiable physical form accompanies the “killing bite” type.”
You’re still insisting on banning because of how a dog looks.
A vet I know says Pit Bulls are far less likely to bite than many other types of dogs.
“Local ordinances cannot trample constitutional rights!”
There is there a constitutional right to keep and bear pitbulls? Must be hidden in there with the right to an abortion.
Pouring liquid down it’s ear works. The dog instinctively works it’s jaws and shakes it’s head to get it out. I saw someone do it once on a pitbull that was locked onto another dog’s leg.
I have no issue with a ban for pits for the same reason I have no issue with bans on owning lions, tigers, bears, venomous snakes, and other potentially dangerous animals that are difficult, if not impossible, to domesticate. Sometimes, the welfare of the community has to be considered.
With advances in DNA testing the concern about identifying pit bulls is becoming moot.
I think that laws should be enacted to make the risk of owning a pit bull (or any dog prone to attack) VERY high. If your pit bull attacks someone, its $100,000 and 10 years in jail. You can then decide if the dog you have is likely to get you into that kind of trouble.
Not necessarily mutually exclusive with a ban. A ban could easily (and I don't know about the provisions of the Springfield ban) allow for ownership of pit bulls by those who prove competence in handling potentially dangerous dogs. Once someone proves responsible, competent, and maintaining proper facilities, a license to own a pit bull could be issued with the provision that such insurance must be maintained and that any failure to properly handle the dog could result in criminal prosecution. Why should a potentially-dangerous dog breed be handled any differently than any other potentially-dangerous exotic pet?
Sorry, that is not the case.
I would be happy to go over the discussion points with you. Would you please first read the whole thread, including the other one I posted today on the 57 YO woman mauled to death by a pit bull in Chicago yesterday, and the links I included, and then come back to discuss the issue.
It is apparent that you have come into the discussion without the background information I have supplied in not only both of these threads today, but the ones over the last few months. If you wish to play “catch-up”, you may input “pit bull” in the FR searchline and immerse yourself in the information provided, educating yourself on the subject as I did, and then I would be happy to go further with you. Unfortunately, I must leave now for the morning. Thank you, Norski
And, for the record, I don’t like the pit bull class/family of dogs and am very much in favor of their either being banned or outlawed outright or the cost of ownership and insurance being made correspondingly as high as their actuarial data justifies.
I’ve personally known only friendly pits, but I don’t trust any of them past 6 months old.
In fact, the only things I “fear” when walking my dogs are copperheads and pit bull type dogs that are loose or have broken free, and both for the same reason.
Though I don’t hunt, I have springer spaniels, dogs genetically programmed to hunt upland game birds. It is a joy to me to watch them “switch on” and go to work hunting the birds and whateverelse they smell in the backyard and on our walks.
With education and that experience of watching decades of human programmed canine genetics at work, I see no point in having something that can suddenly switch on genetically and then effienctly main or kill because it’s in their DNA.
The actuarial data supports this opinion and I support being free of such things being in the hands of people who cannot afford the damage they can do and/or are unwilling or unable to train and control them even if they can afford the insurance or whatever else is required.
Just in case I come across some jaws opening in my direction.
I’ve read a hundred of these threads in the past and find no reason to read another. It all comes down to someones belief that something should be banned because they don’t like it’s looks and because they want to prevent harm to another.
I find little to differentiate these arguments about banning ‘scary looking dogs’ and banning ‘scary looking rifles’.
In both cases, we are being asked to allow the government to define what we should be allowed to own based upon nothing more than the fact that someone finds them ‘scary looking’. You say you only want to save women and children. Well, isn’t that the same argument offered by “Handgun Control, Inc.”?
A bit confused by your anecdote.
They did not lie.
A Staffordshire Bull Terrier IS a pit-bull Terrier, full and clear.
A PBT is a TYPE, not a breed only. It covers several breeds including some very large ones. The deception is those who KNOW damn well PBT covers a whole range, but try to tell you only those with the “pit-bull Terrier” words in the name are that. Trust me, an “American bulldog” is fully bully/PBT. The Operative is they were bred using bulldogs and PBTs of some fighting type.
In fact, some dogs fall under the fighting type category, but the fight has been bred out of them. Thus, I generally trust Bull Terriers, Bulldogs and Boston Terriers.
Anyway, just have to go over that. Your people were not lying. You just need to know a Staff is a PBT.
So, are you saying people can be banned from begging?
Yet, they may not be banned from having a type of dog which might be aggressive. Isn’t that interesting.
Here is the difference.
ANIMALS ARE AUTONOMOUS.
GUNS ARE INANIMATE OBJECTS.
Thus why I also hesitate to severely punish owners...they only have so much control. The dog can still do things on its own.
the OlLine Rebel wrote: “Here is the difference.”
Here is the similarity, both arguments rely upon the all knowing government to define what is in our best interest and protect us from danger.
Still couldn’t answer the post about why local government restricts animal ownership in general?
Let me try to be a peacemaker in this. Yes, MM's bark is not a futile one, because in the spirit I love her as much as I do love my own sister, who is also intelligent, funny, and under the right circumstances, very dangerous.
I believe MM is in fact on the same side as you and I. And that's why I appealed to you to calm down.
With respect . . .
I trust in God for what He says.
Anyone else had better bring believable data if he/she wants to me to take them seriously.
Here, you haven't. A lot of no data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.