It’s amazing how stupid people who abuse animals and fail to supervise their children actually think denying you the right to own the dog of your choice (never mind that your dog hasn’t harmed anyone) is somehow a solution.
Observe how how similar dog prohibition and gun prohibition are; consider this another in a series of examinations of how remarkably ridiculous both positions are. No accident both camps use the same ludicrous arguments.
Dog control: millions of law abiding people whose pets never harm anything further up the food chain than a milkbone have to give up their pets because of a few sensationalized cases.
Gun control: millions of law abiding citizens have to surrender their personal freedom, the shooting hobby, and their right to self defense because of a small minority that can’t behave themselves.
When a golden retriever bites someone, it’s a bad dog. When a rottweiler bites someone, it’s a bad breed. Being a former rottweiler owner, I know this effect. Very similar to…when a wooden stock rifle shoots someone, bad person, when a black rifle shoots someone, they had no control over themselves due to the inherent evil involved in plastic stocks….
Comment by Matt — February 22, 2008 @ 7:59 am
Heh, exactly. The story I linked to did point out that the second most bite happy breed wasn’t Dobermans or Rotties or Poodles or Chows but…Labs? Wow.
Comment by Administrator — February 22, 2008 @ 8:31 am
[…] Dog control and gun control. Note, they’re going after assault dogs first! […]
Pingback by SayUncle » A parallel I’ve noted before — February 22, 2008 @ 9:06 am
When my neighbor’s idiot Shi Tzu attacks my 140# Shiloh Shepherd, and gets it’s head (almost literally) handed to it, then we’re @ fault because we have a GSD (type) dog, and their dog is ‘cute’.
Never mind that that little bastard has got the DNA of every adult and most children in our neighborhood in it’s system already.
That being said, that Pit Bull’s owner should have her tubes tied, and it should be legal to shoot her on sight if she comes within 10 meters of another canine.
There are dogs with bad temperments in every breed, but more often, we have idiot owners that shouldn’t be trusted with dinnerware, let alone other living beings.
Breed (and gun) bans are another feel good law that get politicians reelected by their idiot constituencies, and screw over animals and their owners.
And if you mean me harm, the dog is the least of your worries.
Comment by HoundOfDoom — February 22, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
It’s more than “a few sensationalized cases.” Domestic dogs attack about a million people a year with sufficient severity to require medical treatment in the US alone; 60-70% of those cases are children, and in 2006, 27 cases resulted in the victim’s death. Half of domestic dogs in the US are estimated to not be vaccinated against rabies, in violation of legal requirements.
That last figure, though, does indicate that the problem lies primarily with a number of irresponsible owners, and while I’ll admit that I’m not a big dog lover (though I don’t particularly mind them either), I can agree that responsible dog owners (and the animals they keep) don’t deserve to be penalized for the negligence of the irresponsible ones. I don’t see the point of restricting certain breeds either; that certain breeds are (perceived to be) associated with aggressive behavior is, to my mind, more likely a function of the fact that certain irresponsible dog owners are more likely to be attracted to that particular breed than that there is a problem inherent to that breed.
Comment by Jurjen S. — February 22, 2008 @ 2:52 pm