1 4 5 6  8 9 » 27
()

100 years from now it'll be poodles and pomeranians and not much else, is that your fear?

*My* fear is that it would be yet another relinquishment of our freedoms, LM.

Which is another aspect to it that flitted across my mind but I didn't really explore.
IMO, BSL is very similar to GCL (gun control legislation). It's a typically emotion-driven and knee-jerk reaction to a very ... altogether because of the IGNORANCE and HASTE of our lawmakers and general public to "do something." It's: Fire! Aim! Ready!

I agree with you - that's why I feel sort of confused about it. I need to put all this information into a great big pot and let it simmer for awhile before I can arrive at a logical, comfortable opinion about it. Right now I feel inundated with new stuff and a little shaken up, frankly. I was (I guess I still am) happy about the pit bull ban in Ontario, while at the same time nodding in agreement with many of the very sensible arguments presented here.
It also punishes the vast majority of pitbulls (the ones with absolutely wonderful* temperaments) and their *responsible owners, the ones ... percent of all gun owners, because of the irresponsible actions of a few. With ownership should come RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.

True but when that doesn't happen, and there are inevitably instances when it doesn't happen - people get maimed. That's the sticking point for me - would less people be maimed if the problem was addressed from the breed end as opposed to the owner end? If the answer is yes then that's a pretty compelling argument pro, imo.
I would indeed support legislation to dramatically* increase the penalties that lawfully could be assessed to any dog owner whose DOG bites and *seriously injures a human being, no matter the breed, including time in the slammer.

It amazes me that this hasn't happened - the other side of that coin is to drastically increase penalties for abusing animals.
That would put the responsibility where it belongs: On dog* owners. Period. So to ever get *my* vote in support of *any kind of BSL, you'd have to "pry it from my cold dead fingers," too.

heh. You haven't been accused of wishy washy-ness much, I'm sure.

LF
That's my perception. I can't get past the image I have of those powerful jaws locking

that's only a problem if you misplace the key.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
in thread shelly (Email Removed) whittled the following words:

i find it monstrous.
What DON'T you find monstrous?
Really.
The pit bull earned it's reputation. It's done the deed. It's earned it's way to the top of people's lists because of thew savagery that it's capable and the frequency with which it's done it. There had NEVER been any BSL until Pit Bulls became popular. People were aware that popularity resulted in higher incidences, and certain people were attracted to the breed du jour resulting in ever higher statistics.
But BSL did NOT happen until the Pit Bull started increasing in popularity and the public decided something MUST be done.
At first it was pit bulls, and then when everyone started pointing out that it was unfairly picked on, that other breeds had been there, and they weren't BSL'd, then in a knee jerk reaction, other breeds began to appear on the BSL lists also.
This is a case of self fulfilling prophesy, because of the arguments Pit Bull people offered. If the pit bull people said that if they drop from the top, another breed will rise to the top. Which is true. It's like saying if one breed no longer exists that is the hairiest, then another will then BE the hairiest. Eventually the hairiest breed WILL be the mexican hairless. But it's MAGNITUDE that's the issue. It's MAGNITUDE of the savagery of the pit bull that's brought about the reactions in favor of BSL.
It's the ANTI-BSL that has cast aspersions on other breeds in their arguments that has resulted in their inclusion of BSL legislation.

So they are self fullfing their prophesy and arguments by MAKING this happen. THEY are causing it, and it's a matter of the tail wagging the dog, instead of the other way around. And like sheep, ye shall also be lead.

They are willing to sacrifice all other breeds in order to save their own. Now WHO is monstrous?
in thread Handsome Jack Morrison (Email Removed) whittled the following words:
you've hit a new low Diddy. Just lovely.

And it's pretty hard to hit a new low when you're already at rock bottom. But she did it, nonetheless!

Is this the only rebuttal to a perfectly logical argument? That means I win.
I didn't call themn a liar. I simply put a realistic perspective on things based on the way it happened.

claiming that someone is making an unfactual statement (most people would consider that lying) without offering up any sort of disputation is an ineffectual method of debate. but you're welcome to carry on in that manner if it entertains you.
Janet says because she couldn't argue, that I hit a new low. Thats not an argument.

of course it's not an argument. Janet's statement that you've hit a new low was in response to something unrelated. her statement was an expression of, i believe, revulsion (or at least something very much akin to that).

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
Is this the only rebuttal to a perfectly logical argument? That means I win.

only you would want to win that particular competition.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
of course it's not an argument. Janet's statement that you've hit a new low was in response to something unrelated. her statement was an expression of, i believe, revulsion (or at least something very much akin to that).

wow Shelly - you have reading comprehension! Revulsion is a pretty good word.

Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
photos
Are you telling me that the media reported this killer Pom?

sort of. the story turned up on a lot of "believe it or not" type jokey news sources. i don't recall where it happened, so there may have been serious local coverage of it.

This was the only online reference that I could find to it.

"The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"
The Pom in the story weighed 4 or 5 pounds, IIRC.
Here is some information on a similar incident involving a Dachshund. I remember this one because it is local to me.
http://www.westwinddogtraining.com/Articles Etc/Washington Post/washington post.html

Suja
What DON'T you find monstrous? Really.

fluffy kitties, sunrises, cold frosty sunshiny days, green beans, pepsisodapopcoke, painting, lazy fat bumblebees, solitude, trees, people who don't suck... oh, and Pit Bulls. HTH!
savagery

please. less emoting and more rational expression, if you don't mind. animals are not capable of savagery. that's a peculiarly human trait.
They are willing to sacrifice all other breeds in order to save their own. Now WHO is monstrous?

i have no idea what your point is. BSL opponents aren't sacrificing any much less all breeds for the sake of their own. and, since you apparently misunderstood my point, i'll repeat: i'm not willing to make a sacrificial lamb of any breed.

shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com / (updated dailyish, apparently)
Show more