Old Post Relevant Again.

[urbpan]

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**

Comments

[by-steph.livejournal.com]

Your dogs would be safe in Texas. Your white tiger would be fine too.

[http://users.livejournal.com/purplebunnie_/]

So, I can't say much about pit bulls. I don't see them as any better or worse than any other dog breed when considering responsible pet owners. I just don't like chihuahuas personally, but I don't want to ban them. I kinda want to kick them, but not ban them.

I can, however, spout the second amendment from memory. "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."

There are a few ways this is commonly interpreted. One is that our framers intended that we would have both a military (Militia) to keep our country safe from other countries (i.e. the Brits) and that individuals would be able to own and maintain firearms to protect life, liberty, and property. This means against criminals, cowboys and Indians (then), AND against the government itself.

Another common interpretation is that we need a military and police force to keep citizens safe.

Anywho, I just wrote a speech on RTC for my community college speech class. It's not amazing, and leaves a lot to be desired, but I think I'm going to post it anyway.

[somniferum.livejournal.com]

I've been reading your journal for a little while, but only now do I comment, heh. I live in Colorado, which obviously has different ideas about both pit bulls and guns (for example, the "Make My Day" law). I also used to work in a humane society for one of the few towns that still allows pit bulls.
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.

[roaming.livejournal.com]

Well, on the plus side (maybe?), one of the things I read in the paper about the proposed legislation is that pit bull OWNERS would have to meet more strigent criteria for owning them. Which might be a good thing if it weeds out the bad owners. That is, IF it can weed out the bad owners who give the breed not only a bad name but much suffering.

For some reason, this issue makes me think about the "food aggression" tests I see them doing on Animal Planet SPCA programs. You take a dog who's been mistreated/abandoned/whathaveyou, you put food in front of him, and then you HARRASS the BEEJESUSU out of him over and over with that hand taking his food away, getting in the way of his mouth, until he bites the hand. *I'd* bite a hand pulling my food away/smacking me in the mouth while I'm eating. WHO in their right mind gives an animal food and then just doesn't let it eat in peace? But no, these dogs are now branded as not adoptable and are put down. I can think of a few people I'd like to put down. (rant over)

[guaharibo.livejournal.com]

They're talking about a breed ban here in Baltimore too. I believe it has most recently stemmed from two little boys being attacked by a dog off the leash, out of the yard, etc. I will admit to being slightly afraid of Pit Bulls, but I certainly don't blame them for the actions of dogs who are not taken care of properly. I mean if you get rid of Pit Bulls, next will be Pinchers, Mastiffs, Shephards, etc. and eventually you'll only be able to have a yippy hand held version only those would be banned too because of all of the ankle injuries.


I feel like a better course of action would be to have a mandatory training certificate required to keep breeds typically found to be aggressive. Then the owners would be educated about proper diet, etc. and people who are trying to buy dogs would be required to go through the process with the dog they plan to buy before the sale goes through.

[fledchen.livejournal.com]

There have been a couple of highly publicized dog attacks (both incidents attributed to "pit bulls") here in the Twin Cities recently. There's been talk of trying to repeal the Minnesota state law prohibiting BSL.

The problem is with bad owners and bad breeding, not specific "bad breeds."

[squid-ink.livejournal.com]

Bah.

We had a dog maul a kid and get a reprieve... then he mauled another kid. who needed extensive sugery.

The dog? A lab.

http://www.nbc30.com/news/4274785/detail.html

Someone should outlaw stupid owners. I like that idea better.

[signsoflife.livejournal.com]

I have scars on my leg from being attacked by a German Shepherd when I was ten -- I was selling Girl Scout cookies door to door, and the animal zoomed out of the house when the door was opened and latched onto my thigh.

I'm not sure I have much of a point, except that *any* breed of dog can be dangerous, and if you actually look at breed attack statistics, you start seeing cocker spaniels and chow chows. But there's a class divide in the popularities of those animals, and I think more than anything its class consciousness that drives pit bull bans.

Laws against puppy-milling would go much farther towards protecting children from maulings than trying to select out "dangerous" breeds.

This crap gets to me because, despite the fact that I recognize that breed predicts some aspects of temperment and intelligence in dogs, the whole thing smells of eugenics; and, as a former victim of a dog attack, it makes me feel like people would rather take easy shots than go after the industries that depend on and promote animal and human suffering. None of these dangerous breed laws would have protected *me*.

(Yes, I take the position that a well-bred German Shepherd, with, allegedly, no history of any behavior problems, would not have attacked a child unprovoked.)

[wandererrob.livejournal.com]

Sadly, there has yet to be a piece of legislation introduced proposing a ban on bad dog owners.

I love pits myself and feel they're reputation is undeserved. A bad enough owner can make a chihuahua vicious. It's not the breed of dog, just the breed of human raising them.

[squire-jons.livejournal.com]

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.

source?

[(Anonymous)]

If a chihuahua attacks me, I could kill/subdue it with a squeeze of its neck by my hand. If a pit attacks you it's either curtains or surgery. If you want to use a gun analogy, then think semi-auto and auto weapons. Certainly all breeds bite. But here in Cook county Pits are responsible for the majority of bites and they often cause massive damage.

As for eugenics, these are animals, not humans.