![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Old Post Relevant Again.
As the Massachusetts Legislature is pondering the "dangerous dog problem," the specter of specific dog breed bans raises its quasi-genocidal head again. I have much to say on this issue, not surprisingly, and I've said a bit about it before. In case you missed it, here's a re-run of You'll get my Pit Bull when you Pry the Leash out of my Cold, Dead Hands
Originally logged 10/24/04
After looking at pictures from the protest against a proposed pit bull ban, I realized there was a parallel between gun bans and dog breed bans. Gun rights activists used to say (maybe they still do; I live in Massachusetts where gun rights activists are as common as blue lobsters), "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Meaning, when law-abiding gun owners are not allowed to own guns, the criminals who own guns will keep theirs, being criminals and all.
Likewise, if they ban pit bulls, responsible owners will have to give them up (or become criminals), while irresponsible owners (who are already criminals: most pit bull attacks involve dogs that are some combination of unleashed, unlicensed, un-vaccinated and/or kept in inhumane conditions) will continue their criminal ways.
The difference in the comparison, is that law-abiding gun owners would have you believe that they are somehow preventing crime and gun violence. Of course, the reality of it is that law-abiding gun owners (and their children) end up using their guns to kill one another much more often than to defend their homes. (And if they live in Massachusetts, they will get arrested if they shoot a trespasser, even one caught in the act of burglary.)
(I love parentheses so much, I thought I should do an entire paragraph in them. There is some controversy about what the US constitution says about guns--or rather what it means. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What that really means, is up for discussion. We don't have any "well regulated Militias." The only thing of note any militia has done in recent memory was kill 168 tax accountants and their children in Oklahoma City. So much for the security of a free State. If we are planning on amending the constitution, perhaps amending the Second Amendment, so that fewer than 30,000 people per year are killed by guns in this country, rather than restricting the right of some people to get married, would be a good idea.)
Law-abiding pit bull owners, on the other hand, can actually be said to be doing some good. We are rescuing, socializing and providing meaningful, loving lives for animals that would otherwise be abused, neglected or used as weapons. We are compassionately rescuing dogs from misery, and death. We helping to preserve a breed type that was, less than a century ago, a symbol of the nation, revered as a war hero and as the best family dog one could have.
Further reading:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/breed.cfm
Nice propaganda video, with some disturbing images: http://gprime.net/flash.php/thepitbullproblem**
Originally logged 10/24/04
After looking at pictures from the protest against a proposed pit bull ban, I realized there was a parallel between gun bans and dog breed bans. Gun rights activists used to say (maybe they still do; I live in Massachusetts where gun rights activists are as common as blue lobsters), "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Meaning, when law-abiding gun owners are not allowed to own guns, the criminals who own guns will keep theirs, being criminals and all.
Likewise, if they ban pit bulls, responsible owners will have to give them up (or become criminals), while irresponsible owners (who are already criminals: most pit bull attacks involve dogs that are some combination of unleashed, unlicensed, un-vaccinated and/or kept in inhumane conditions) will continue their criminal ways.
The difference in the comparison, is that law-abiding gun owners would have you believe that they are somehow preventing crime and gun violence. Of course, the reality of it is that law-abiding gun owners (and their children) end up using their guns to kill one another much more often than to defend their homes. (And if they live in Massachusetts, they will get arrested if they shoot a trespasser, even one caught in the act of burglary.)
(I love parentheses so much, I thought I should do an entire paragraph in them. There is some controversy about what the US constitution says about guns--or rather what it means. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What that really means, is up for discussion. We don't have any "well regulated Militias." The only thing of note any militia has done in recent memory was kill 168 tax accountants and their children in Oklahoma City. So much for the security of a free State. If we are planning on amending the constitution, perhaps amending the Second Amendment, so that fewer than 30,000 people per year are killed by guns in this country, rather than restricting the right of some people to get married, would be a good idea.)
Law-abiding pit bull owners, on the other hand, can actually be said to be doing some good. We are rescuing, socializing and providing meaningful, loving lives for animals that would otherwise be abused, neglected or used as weapons. We are compassionately rescuing dogs from misery, and death. We helping to preserve a breed type that was, less than a century ago, a symbol of the nation, revered as a war hero and as the best family dog one could have.
Further reading:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/breed.cfm
Nice propaganda video, with some disturbing images: http://gprime.net/flash.php/thepitbullproblem**
no subject
I always felt horrible for the dogs we would get from Denver, which were more often than not unneutered, unregistered, and unsocialized. A lot of them had to be put down as unadoptable. To make matters worse, the standards for "adoptable" pit bulls were much higher than for other dog breeds, simply because of the public's perception of them. The pit bulls put up for adoption had to be exceptional.
I love the breed, I think they're among the best friends a person can have, although I don't have any dogs myself. Breed bans make me furious, and I'm glad I can live in a county where the majority of people fight to keep out that kind of legislation.
no subject
I only hope that the majority of Massachusetts voters feel that way.