What's new
By:

Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

Stoked said:
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?
Click to expand...

Easier to hide a gun than a dog doe imo.
 
Stoked said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
One Brow said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
ElRoach0 said:
I thought I made my point very well. They are dangerous. But so are dozens of other breeds. The most dangerous thing is a negative development, which falls upon the owner. Ban the owner, not the dog.

And I really hate to agree with dutchjazzer on anything, but I've got several friends that own pitbulls. The more "socially and economically mature" owners have had 0 problems. Those that are "socially and economically immature" is another story.
Click to expand...


even a broken clock is right twice a day :P.

but seirously dont hate the person. you can still hate me while agreeing with me on this subject
 
DutchJazzer said:
istil can be rpoven that bron jumps higher than stocj
Click to expand...

Not really.
Maybe stockton was holding back all that time and not jumping as high as he could ;-)
 
As an insurance guy I can tell you that that **** would never fly. There is not enough actuarial data available to even guess what rates would be like, not to mention the cost of actually underwriting something like that. There is already pet insurance as well as liability insurance; some of which covers dog bites, but to just insure a dog against the possibility of it attacking and/or killing someone or something? Never happen.
 
E.J. Wells said:
As an insurance guy I can tell you that that **** would never fly. There is not enough actuarial data available to even guess what rates would be like, not to mention the cost of actually underwriting something like that. There is already pet insurance as well as liability insurance; some of which covers dog bites, but to just insure a dog against the possibility of it attacking and/or killing someone or something? Never happen.
Click to expand...

Never is a long time. You can insure most anything in today's age so I don't see it as too much of a stretch.
 
VINYLONE said:
Never is a long time. You can insure most anything in today's age so I don't see it as too much of a stretch.
Click to expand...

You can insure anything, that is true, but that's the equivalent of telling your son (or in your case, Mr. Lonelyinmomsbasement, your right hand) that they can be WHATEVER they want to be when they grow up. Sure, it can happen, but it won't. No insurance company is going to put money on the line to insure something that has little-to-no empirical or actuarial data; as long as they want to be profitable, that is. There is a reason that no company out there is doing it.
 
E.J. Wells said:
As an insurance guy I can tell you that that **** would never fly. There is not enough actuarial data available to even guess what rates would be like, not to mention the cost of actually underwriting something like that. There is already pet insurance as well as liability insurance; some of which covers dog bites, but to just insure a dog against the possibility of it attacking and/or killing someone or something? Never happen.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input.

If there's not enough evidence to appropriately judge what rates would be like, how is there enough evidence to damn the breed as a whole?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top