What's new
By:

Another victim of no bad breeds mentality

franklin said:
Stoked, it's not my fault you're too thick-skulled to understand what anyone writes, or to convey your ideas in an understandable way. You'll notice I don't have an issue discussing ideas with the smarter posters on board (I'm not one of them), but apparently what I write is over your head so far that your envy has you on my balls over and over and over again.

You're an idiot & that's life. Deal with it, bitch.
Click to expand...

AHHHH snap!
 
Stoked said:
To me what is more interesting is at what point/level does the wishes of a society trump the wishes of an individual person.

Let's say that banning pitbulls is a good idea. Should it be done nationally? state by state? COunty by county or at the individual city and town levels?

Why should people in MA ot TX decide what kind of dog a person in FL or AZ can have? Or people in LA decide what kind of dog a person in Fresno can have?
Click to expand...

I would agree with some kind of legislation limiting the breed and like breeds, but really I think we need to get tougher on the owners. If a pitbull (or rott, or whatever) kills someone then the owner should go on trial for manslaughter at least. If there were more convictions like that then most people would think twice about the breed they choose to own and would be far more likely to take precautions to control the animal, rather than the standard bs of "he has been such a nice quiet family dog for 10 years, I have no idea why he tried to eat that child". That seems to be part of these cases far too much. To franklin's point earlier in the thread, we argue too much about the rights of the owners, and don't give enough attention to justice for the victims.
 
green said:
How is all of this punished? Is the dog put down and that's all? Or is the owner of the dog charged with assault, etc, as if the owner had done the attacking?
Click to expand...

All too often it is a slap on the wrist. Most often they get a citation. The laws about this are fuzzy at best. I would be in favor of the crime of the dog being prosecuted against the owner. Let those of the "no bad breeds" mentality put their money where their mouth is. If you choose a dog of a breed with a known bad temperament or tendency or history to harm, and it does so, then you should be subject to the consequences exactly as if you perpetrated the act yourself. This would certainly drive a higher responsibility among dog owners, and maybe cause more than a few to think twice about the breed they choose.

But the other side to this is how many innocent people are going to need to pay the price in their life or health due to something that is far from a necessity in life?

It starts to sound like a gun control argument, doesn't it?
 
LogGrad98 said:
All too often it is a slap on the wrist. Most often they get a citation. The laws about this are fuzzy at best. I would be in favor of the crime of the dog being prosecuted against the owner. Let those of the "no bad breeds" mentality put their money where their mouth is. If you choose a dog of a breed with a known bad temperament or tendency or history to harm, and it does so, then you should be subject to the consequences exactly as if you perpetrated the act yourself. This would certainly drive a higher responsibility among dog owners, and maybe cause more than a few to think twice about the breed they choose.

But the other side to this is how many innocent people are going to need to pay the price in their life or health due to something that is far from a necessity in life?

It starts to sound like a gun control argument, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It is. I agree about the punishing the owner thing. If your dog assaults someone, you should be charged with assault. Because without your dog, the assault wouldn't have occurred. Pretty simple if you ask me. I'm okay with doing that with gun owners, and I'm a HUGE pro-gun guy. If I am not responsible with my gun, and it is used to hurt someone, then I should be charged, because if I had been more responsible, the assault might not have happened.
 
franklin said:
Wut?
Click to expand...

I would argue that each level of government is distinguished by scale, scope, and responsibilities. Your argument could be applied to states rights as much as it could be applied to the rights of municipalities. I was only giving you the opportunity to clarify.
 
franklin said:
Stoked, it's not my fault you're too thick-skulled to understand what anyone writes, or to convey your ideas in an understandable way. You'll notice I don't have an issue discussing ideas with the smarter posters on board (I'm not one of them), but apparently what I write is over your head so far that your envy has you on my balls over and over and over again.

You're an idiot & that's life. Deal with it, bitch.
Click to expand...

ok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top