Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[Harambe]

dont need to
Its obvious.

Like i cant prove lebron can jump higher than stockton but its obvious

But we're not comparing pitbull and chihuahua. We're comparing pitbull and doberman. Pitbull and chow chow.

 

[fishonjazz]

Ok, lets go back to the gun thing. Certain types of guns are illegal because they're more dangerous. I get that.

But those guns still exist. They're still being made, and you can get a lot of them if you get special licensing. Why not the same here?

I dont disagree.

I know nothing about whay should be done as far as the law is concerned.

Im only saying that pitbulls are more dangerous which you and dutch seem to disagree with.

 

[fishonjazz]

But we're not comparing pitbull and chihuahua. We're comparing pitbull and doberman. Pitbull and chow chow.

Good point.

Statistics still show pits to be more dangerous though no matter how you cut it

 

[Harambe]

I dont disagree.

I know nothing about whay should be done as far as the law is concerned.

Im only saying that pitbulls are more dangerous which you and dutch seem to disagree with.

I do. I'm not convinced pitbulls are genetically more dangerous than any of the top 9 on this list:

https://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/

 

[Harambe]

Good point.

Statistics still show pits to be more dangerous though no matter how you cut it

Statistics are skewed by social norms. It doesn't mean we can't use them, it just means there's a margin that you have to deal with if you're going to use them.

 

[fishonjazz]

You win.

Everyone should own a lots of pitbulls and im sure there would be less attacks

 

[Harambe]

You win.

Everyone should own a lots of pitbulls and im sure there would be less attacks

You're not seeing gray, you're seeing black and white. You're not seeing how on the fence I actually am.

All that actually exists is a guy that doesn't want to pigeon hole a specific breed without proof positive evidence. Dead babies make terrible laws.

Now, there is a problem with big, dangerous dogs. In this country, and in the world.

My vote? Cars are dangerous, and we require insurance on said cars. Why not require on dogs in sufficient "danger zone" insurance? If you fail to keep your dog licensed and insured, you lose that license and the dog can be put down(that's entirely upon the owner). Depending on the "danger scale"(which would include those statistics we talked about), you pay more or less insurance.

If the dog does bite someone terribly, the dog is euthanized(which I thought was kind of standard anyway) and the insurance company pays for damages.

 

[fishonjazz]

You're not seeing gray, you're seeing black and white. You're not seeing how on the fence I actually am.

All that actually exists is a guy that doesn't want to pigeon hole a specific breed without proof positive evidence. Dead babies make terrible laws.

Now, there is a problem with big, dangerous dogs. In this country, and in the world.

My vote? Cars are dangerous, and we require insurance on said cars. Why not require on dogs in sufficient "danger zone" insurance? If you fail to keep your dog licensed and insured, you lose that license and the dog can be put down(that's entirely upon the owner). Depending on the "danger scale"(which would include those statistics we talked about), you pay more or less insurance.

If the dog does bite someone terribly, the dog is euthanized(which I thought was kind of standard anyway) and the insurance company pays for damages.

Im down with your plan.

Probably if something like this was enforced then more people would by labs, golden retrievers, boxers, border collies, spaniels, etc etc and it would be a positive thing.

I think less "attack dogs" (german shepherd, doberman, pits, etc) would be good and making people pay insurance for those breeds is a good idea

 

[Stoked]

Im down with your plan.

Probably if something like this was enforced then more people would by labs, golden retrievers, boxers, border collies, spaniels, etc etc and it would be a positive thing.

I think less "attack dogs" (german shepherd, doberman, pits, etc) would be good and making people pay insurance for those breeds is a good idea

That actually sounds like a fair idea. There would have to be panalties for not having that insurance of course. What would the paramaters for that punishment and its scale be? # of pets that do not have the proper insurance? Location (such as near a school or daycare)? Type of breed?

 

[fishonjazz]

That actually sounds like a fair idea. There would have to be panalties for not having that insurance of course. What would the paramaters for that punishment and its scale be? # of pets that do not have the proper insurance? Location (such as near a school or daycare)? Type of breed?

Its tough to do which is why nothing will get done and people and dogs will continue to be mauled.

Sometimes i guess nothing can really be done and you just have to accept that someones attack dog might kill one of your kids or pet someday.

Oh well..... we tried

 

[Stoked]

Its tough to do which is why nothing will get done and people and dogs will continue to be mauled.

Sometimes i guess nothing can really be done and you just have to accept that someones attack dog might kill one of your kids or pet someday.

Oh well..... we tried

Bans have been put into place before. So why not other laws regarding more aggressive breeds? With some of the laws that are passed I see these laws as having a reasonable chance.

 

[Harambe]

Im down with your plan.

Probably if something like this was enforced then more people would by labs, golden retrievers, boxers, border collies, spaniels, etc etc and it would be a positive thing.

I think less "attack dogs" (german shepherd, doberman, pits, etc) would be good and making people pay insurance for those breeds is a good idea

I think they'd buy less attack dogs in general. But when they did, they would fully understand the responsibility of keeping one.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think they'd buy less attack dogs in general. But when they did, they would fully understand the responsibility of keeping one.

Word
And who knows..... if it is in fact the owners that are the problem then maybe we would see a surge in gruesome attacks by labs and golden retrievers

 

[Stoked]

Word
And who knows..... if it is in fact the owners that are the problem then maybe we would see a surge in gruesome attacks by labs and golden retrievers

This made me laugh, Well done.

Before pittbulls it was Rots (80s) that were the "problem breed" Before Rots it was German Sheppards. To an extent it is the breed itself. It was breed for a purpose after all. But owners do play a part in that.

 

[Harambe]

Word
And who knows..... if it is in fact the owners that are the problem then maybe we would see a surge in gruesome attacks by labs and golden retrievers

Dollars to *****'s there would be an increase. Not a great increase, as many would just stop owning/licensing a dog, but the numbers would slant.

 

[Stoked]

Fiend of mine pointed something out to me.

If a ban on any specific breed that was in demand was put into place it would result in a black market for that animal.

So if a ban on pittbulls was passed then people would simply buy them under the table. Like those barred from owning guns buying them illegally. Thoughts?

 

[fishonjazz]

friend of mine pointed soemthing out to me.

If a ban on any specific breed that was in demand was put into place it would result in a black market for that animal.

So if a ban on pittbulls was passed then people would simply buy them under the table. Like those barred from owning guns buying them illegally. Thoughts?

Easier to hide a gun than a dog doe imo.

 

[One Brow]

You win.

Everyone should own a lots of pitbulls and im sure there would be less attacks

The only way to stop a bad owner of a pit bull is a good owner of a pit bull.

 

[One Brow]

Fiend of mine pointed something out to me.

If a ban on any specific breed that was in demand was put into place it would result in a black market for that animal.

So if a ban on pittbulls was passed then people would simply buy them under the table. Like those barred from owning guns buying them illegally. Thoughts?

If you ban (excuse my ignorance of ammunition sizes if this does not make sense) .45-caliber bullets and the guns that can shoot them, but allow .30-caliber bullets and the guns that can shoot, I would suspect very few gun owner would choose the illegal .45 over the legal .30. If you ban pit bulls (and possibly a few other breeds), but keep other types of legal (including Great Danes, greyhounds, and other large sizes), I think that leaves a limited market for illegal dogs.

 

[Stoked]

If you ban (excuse my ignorance of ammunition sizes if this does not make sense) .45-caliber bullets and the guns that can shoot them, but allow .30-caliber bullets and the guns that can shoot, I would suspect very few gun owner would choose the illegal .45 over the legal .30. If you ban pit bulls (and possibly a few other breeds), but keep other types of legal (including Great Danes, greyhounds, and other large sizes), I think that leaves a limited market for illegal dogs.

Perhaps only a black market would appear for these animals, or dogs in general, if specific people were banned from owning animals. Such as felons and firearms.

As for your scenario I think it would certainly lessen the demand for .45 ammo but I think the deamnd would still exist.