Fred Casely commented on Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 25:44-45.
Re @29: anyone else here getting creeped out by the increasingly frequent gratuitous references to Dan's family? Please let's all stop.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
i mean really...
bassplayerguy have another Tallboy and chime in after you actually know what is going on and not just because The Stranger says so.
You call that racist (a word you clearly don't know the meaning of and use in a way that is incredibly insulting to those who experience racism).
I call it being a rational human. I suspect the vast majority of grown-ups understand my position. I suspect you are not in the grown-up category yet. Or you a troll. Also quite possible.
You are judging, specifically judging on breed so yeah I am sure I am using the term correctly.
I call it being uneducated, judgemental and racist, YES you are RACIST toward PIT BULLS,
So answer me this. I wake up every day to a mixed breed dog pissing on my front door every day. I have a pit bull and he barks Protecting me, I have called every other day for almost a year about this dog and nothing has happened. I called again tonight after this conversation saying there was a pit bull and two cops and animal control showed up.
you are literally beyond parody
and @Seattlebound you are racist and until you educate yourself and neighbors and any dogs you have never encountered are not the same and the basis for your argument fails considering your only experience with Pit Bulls is running into a closet and hiding your anal beeds.
A perfectly reasonable response. I'd approach a tabby and a cougar differently too
Im sorry he is a Cocker Spaniel he will not hurt my children on my deck because he is not a pit bull,
Ive said it before - People own pit bulls for one reason, and one reason only. To intimidate. Just admit it, pit owners. Just admit it.
Sorry for nitpicking, @26, but this is wrong. A similarity level of 99.9% means only .1% of the genes are different, which for a genome of 15,000 genes would mean only 15 differing genes (1500 would be a 10% difference, not a .1% one). I don't think this invalidates your point, though.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. By the logic you're proposing here, nobody should ever be punished for anything, since punishment doesn't really deter crime -- right? So, should we drop not only the death penalty, but in fact any legal penalty, on murder? And what would the consequence be -- an increase, or a decrease, in the number of murders?
Punishment does work. It doesn't prevent/solve every single case, of course, but until we have a good, reliable, predictable science of social engineering that tells us what exactly to do to prevent social problems, we have to use the means that have worked thus far. The law works. Till we have something better I say let's use it.
So I have to agree with Dingo: if bad dog owners were held criminally responsible for the damage caused by their dogs, it would be less likely that you'd have had a pitbull roaming all over your backyard. The other reasonable solutions proposed on this comment thread would have had less effect, if at all, on this possibility.
It's great that pit bull maulings are rare, but I doubt that comforts the parents of children who are killed by pit bulls. Your desire to own an aggressive breed of dog is not more important than another person's safety.
I've met some wonderful pit bulls in my day. Really, sweet, friendly dogs, but so the fuck what? Pit bulls kill people. They can be aggressive and unpredictable. They should be banned.
Saying that a ban might be ineffective at getting rid of all pit bulls is not an argument against a ban, just an argument for better enforcement of the ban. Clearly, no ban will be completely effective. I spent 10 years in a city with a pit bull ban (Mesa, AZ), and I can tell you that the pit bull owners I knew were certainly much more careful about securing their dogs, because if a pit bull got out and was caught by Animal Control it would be killed.
I really do love animals. But I've never understood why so many people seem far more emotionally involved in the lives of animals than they are in the lives of members of their own species, even the innocent, vulnerable juveniles of their own species.
Because that would be racist.
Seriously, does anyone have actual data about this? There are cities that have banned pit bulls. Have their mauling rates changed?
That's all dogs, yo.
I think the problem is: what defines a breed?
This was interesting:
"A trend that began in California now has communities across the country considering a similar option: mandatory pit bull sterilization. Cities troubled with high pit bull bite counts and shelter occupancy rates are hoping to combat both problems at once with spay/neuter laws targeted at pit bulls. In January 2006, San Francisco enacted such a measure. After 18 months of passing: pit bull impoundments declined by 21%; shelter occupancy rates fell from three-quarters to one-quarter and pit bull euthanizations dropped 24%.
"By 2010, biting incidents had significantly decreased as well. Sgt. Bill Herndon, of the San Francisco Police Department's vicious dog unit, said the numbers and severity of pit bull attacks are down since the ordinance was enacted."
Heroin owners rarely walk their heroin outside to take a shit.
I'm not saying banning is the answer to this problem, but prohibiting certain behaviors and items IS the right thing to do in certain circumstances. For instance, I'm quite happy that dog fights and bear baiting are illegal, and that not just anyone can get their hands on surface to air missiles.
Additionally, according to a study done by the Children's Hospital here in Colorado, more dog attacks occur on children by Labs and Golden Retrievers than any other type of dog in the state. This is because people WRONGLY assume that the family dogs are not, in fact, dogs, and will never bite or attack.
Dogs will bite and attack. It doesn't matter. Any dog can be inherently unpredictable. That is a fact. Some people are better equipped to own some dogs than others. Just like some people are better equipped to do certain jobs than others.
It really does ultimately come down to owner responsibility -- understanding of the breed, understanding of your dog, training, and responsibility.
If you're going to ban pitbulls, ya may as well ban all these breeds no?
And seattlebound, I would hope you would be leary to approach any of the dogs listed above should they wander into your backyard. A German sherpard could kill you - probably why they are so popular with police /military organisations.
also learn how to use apostrophes
Don't let facts get in the way of your truthiness there.
This is exactly the point the so called pit apologists are trying to make: you're not scared of a Standard poodle because it's a poodle and everyone knows THAT breed is all sweet and cuddle and would never hurt a fly.
And I'm (is that correct?) sorry about the apostrophes - no doubt you're (is that correct?) my intellectual superior - even if you can't (is that correct?) form entire sentences with periods and everything.
Don't let the facts get in the way of truthiness indeed.
Also "One might hope that educating the public against the acquisition of dangerous dogs would help; but the very traits that make certain breeds dangerous also appeal to a certain class of dog owner."
AKA pieces of shit. For my own (immaterial) part I have yet to meet a pit owner that wasn't a giant bag of shit.
For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.
Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
First, I don't own a gun. Second, I wouldn't shoot an animal who isn't mauling someone even if I did.
Here's the deal. My family chooses not to have potentially deadly items--like guns or pit bulls--in our household. I don't think it's so much to ask that strangers keep their deadly items--like guns and pit bulls--off my property. I also expect gun owners and dog owners to follow the law.
Call me crrraaazzzy.
I was merely pointing out what has happened in an area where a pit bull breed ban HAS gone into effect, and been in effect for a number of years. As one would expect, bites from that breed have gone down, but bites from other breeds have gone up, actually surpassing the total number of bites that occured the year before pit bulls were banned.
Furthermore, as you point out, the victims are the children and the elderly. Again, in an area where pit bulls are banned, more Labs and Golden Retrievers bite children under the age of 5 WHO ARE UNSUPERVISED with the family dogs, leading to serious and sometimes fatal injuries. I think we can all agree that kids under the age of 5 shouldn't be left alone with ANY dog, but then again, that would require the owners and parents to accept responsibility for all the living things in their charge.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen, now would we.
Finally, my aunt-in-law has bred pits on the East Coast for over 10 years. Not one of her dogs has ever had a behavioral issue. So, in over 100 dogs from a known bloodline and responsible breeder, who sent her dogs to vetted homes, not one of those dogs has had an issue -- yes, there is corrolation to breeding, socialization early on, training, and family life.
Again, no one cares. Their bites don't often mean permanent damage up to and including death.
"more Labs and Golden Retrievers bite children under the age of 5 WHO ARE UNSUPERVISED with the family dogs, leading to serious and sometimes fatal injuries."
Really? How many Golden Retrievers and Labs have maimed or killed children? As it so happens, from 1982-2010, here's how the breeds stack up. First figure is bodily harm, second is maimings, third is deaths. Tell me which one stands out
Golden 9, 6, 2
Labrador 36, 28, 3 (approximately 92x as many Labs as Goldens)
Pit bull 1552, 859, 166 (approximately 1/3 as many Pits as Labs)
Yup, clearly I am deluded!
No one cares about your aunt. Read the above again. "In more than two-thirds of the cases, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question... Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant."
You are wrong, full stop.
The problem with that, of course, is that it's after-the-fact. Holding a pit bull owner liable if their beast mauls and kills someone is of small comfort to the person who has been mauled and killed.
Still, it's a good idea and certainly better than not holding owners responsible.
I think its her poodle side, honestly. Poodles are evil. But who knows?
In general I'm against breed bans because its just feeding into paranoia instead of controlling the breeding of animals (and breeding for traits so cunty bitches like Precious don't exist.) For the record, I kinda like the stupid dog (affection whore) but I cant have any friends over and shes extremely difficult to walk and never stops barking so I kinda hate it. Had a doberman-german shepard mix as a kid and he was the best dog ever...and my sister used to have a beautiful sweetheart of a pitbull.
@50 -- That dog's owner is a bad owner whether that was a pit bull or a chihuahua. And while they're not as threatening to a full-grown adult human, I've personally encountered chihuahuas easily as unbalanced (and just as dangerous to small children) as the worst pit-bulls.
But which are most likely to KILL (dogbitelaw site)? 65% of dog bite deaths in the US over 24 years were caused by Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, or Presa Canarios or their mixes. I have no idea of what proportion of the national spectrum of dogs they represent, but where I live there are very few on the street. Nowadays we DON'T need any breeds that kill, we just need guard dogs, hunting dogs, and family pooches (and working dogs, blah, blah, blah).