What did this man need that he didn't have?

[Cormac]

I have to agree, and I see nothing wrong with species specific dog laws.
Pit bulls especially, as they have been bred for fighting instincts. That doesn't mean that all pit bulls will be dangerous, just that they will be, on average.
It's not just the instinct to attack. It's the consequences when they DO attack. Pit bulls are bred to do far more damage than the average dog, when things go wrong.
Saying that all breeds are equally dangerous is just not true. So banning specific breeds on CAREFUL consideration of their record is perfectly fair.
Owning any breed of dog that you like isn't an inaliable individual right, nor is it an essential freedom. It's something that affects other people, so they have a right to regulate it, if they want.

I would personally go a lot farther, and regulate big dogs far more than at present. Try to weed out the dogs owned by morons.
These dogs get passed around like second-hand cars. One person keeps it for a while, can't handle it, then passes it on, and eventually they get dumped. I know one girl who has nothing, has had two kids taken off her for lack of care, has another baby currently, who lives on benefits, and is always broke.
Last thing I heard, she had a year-old alsatian in the tiny flat, because it's owner was in prison. The dog was wrecking the place, last think I heard, it had moved on. She's lucky it didn't kill her baby.
But, she's too dim to know any better.
Stiffer licensing laws would restrict this kind of stuff.
A few years ago, that Alsatian would probably have been a pit bull.
It has made a difference.

Breed specific legislation is not based on reality though. It is based on Daily Mailesque public hysteria whipped up.

And, as a matter of fact, you're more likely to die of an attack by a labrador than you are an attack by a pit-bull. This is due the fact that labradors are more commonly owned, and therefore, more commonly in contact with a larger number of humans, and there'll be a number that belong to asshole humans, whose behaviour towards the dog will predispose the dog to attacks.

Instinctive tendencies in dogs are a significantly smaller influence on dog attacks than the behaviour of their human owners.

AND - fashions for breeds amongst those assholes change.

[Cormac]

Ah the wonders of Northern Ireland where hand guns can be legal for home defence and the police walk around with rifles which proves the point

As it happens, the police haven't patrolled the streets armed with pistols or rifles in Northern Ireland for quite a while now.

[Cormac]

But I specifically said the UK. Northern Ireland is not part of the UK, (it is part of GB).

Check.
I think you mean that the other way around. It's the UK that consists of GB and Northern Ireland.

Dammit.

That is what I get for posting after several beers!



I think the technical term is - Doh!

Thanks for being gracious.

[Bella Fortuna]

Collector, this is a warning for this post, which contains a personal attack on another member.

You will be suspended if you do not refrain from personal attacks. Please follow our rules.

[mistermack]

Breed specific legislation is not based on reality though. It is based on Daily Mailesque public hysteria whipped up.

But that flies in the face of logic. Are you arguing that the breeders failed when they selectively bred to produce a superior fighting dog in the pit-bull?
It's not borne out by other examples. People have bred faster racehorses, faster hounds, better bloodhounds, bigger pigs, faster pigeons, as well as every shape and colour imaginable of aquarium fish
Selective breeding works.

The best fighting dogs changed hands for a lot of money, to be mated with other top fighters.
The result is a dog that is very different to the original dogs. All the best fighting characteristics have been concentrated in that breed. It ignores pain, has a very powerful bite, and enormous neck and shoulders, and will often keep fighting till it's killed what it's fighting.
Your argument about the frequency of being bitten by pit-bulls being less than labradors doesn't work.
You could say the same about leopards, but we all know how dangerous they are.

The average pit-bull is far more dangerous than the average labrador. Both CAN be safe, but that's not how the real world works. In the real world, banning pit-bulls does have a good effect. In an ideal world, there would be no need.

[Clinton Huxley]

I would be tough on pit-bulls and tough on the causes of pit-bulls.

[Audley Strange]

I would be tough on pit-bulls and tough on the causes of pit-bulls.

Which is of course, pit bulls.

[Clinton Huxley]

I would be tough on pit-bulls and tough on the causes of pit-bulls.

Which is of course, pit bulls.

I'd be rigorously harsh on the shambling, tattoed,shaven-headed meat-diseases that like to own them as well.

[PsychoSerenity]

Breed specific legislation is not based on reality though. It is based on Daily Mailesque public hysteria whipped up.

But that flies in the face of logic. Are you arguing that the breeders failed when they selectively bred to produce a superior fighting dog in the pit-bull?
It's not borne out by other examples. People have bred faster racehorses, faster hounds, better bloodhounds, bigger pigs, faster pigeons, as well as every shape and colour imaginable of aquarium fish
Selective breeding works.

The best fighting dogs changed hands for a lot of money, to be mated with other top fighters.
The result is a dog that is very different to the original dogs. All the best fighting characteristics have been concentrated in that breed. It ignores pain, has a very powerful bite, and enormous neck and shoulders, and will often keep fighting till it's killed what it's fighting.
Your argument about the frequency of being bitten by pit-bulls being less than labradors doesn't work.
You could say the same about leopards, but we all know how dangerous they are.

The average pit-bull is far more dangerous than the average labrador. Both CAN be safe, but that's not how the real world works. In the real world, banning pit-bulls does have a good effect. In an ideal world, there would be no need.

And let's face it, no matter how badly someone might treat them, or how much someone might train them be aggressive, vicious fighters, nobody is ever going to suffer a potentially fatal attack from a pug.

[Kristie]

Breed specific legislation is not based on reality though. It is based on Daily Mailesque public hysteria whipped up.

But that flies in the face of logic. Are you arguing that the breeders failed when they selectively bred to produce a superior fighting dog in the pit-bull?
It's not borne out by other examples. People have bred faster racehorses, faster hounds, better bloodhounds, bigger pigs, faster pigeons, as well as every shape and colour imaginable of aquarium fish
Selective breeding works.

The best fighting dogs changed hands for a lot of money, to be mated with other top fighters.
The result is a dog that is very different to the original dogs. All the best fighting characteristics have been concentrated in that breed. It ignores pain, has a very powerful bite, and enormous neck and shoulders, and will often keep fighting till it's killed what it's fighting.
Your argument about the frequency of being bitten by pit-bulls being less than labradors doesn't work.
You could say the same about leopards, but we all know how dangerous they are.

The average pit-bull is far more dangerous than the average labrador. Both CAN be safe, but that's not how the real world works. In the real world, banning pit-bulls does have a good effect. In an ideal world, there would be no need.

And let's face it, no matter how badly someone might treat them, or how much someone might train them be aggressive, vicious fighters, nobody is ever going to suffer a potentially fatal attack from a pug.

All of

[Clinton Huxley]

One hears relatively few stories of people being mauled to death by packs of cocker spaniels.

[klr]

... or Jack Russells, for that matter, although I for one have been bitten by at least one in my time.

Now, combine a JRT temperament with a large dog size, and then you really would have a dangerous dog.

[Audley Strange]

I would be tough on pit-bulls and tough on the causes of pit-bulls.

Which is of course, pit bulls.

I'd be rigorously harsh on the shambling, tattoed,shaven-headed meat-diseases that like to own them as well.

Well they do say dogs take after their pack leaders.

[MrJonno]

It's interesting this discussion its not really about dogs or guns , its about individual responsibility versus collective responsibility. In some cases the responsibility to protect society is more important than whether an individual is or not

[Seth]

It's interesting this discussion its not really about dogs or guns , its about individual responsibility versus collective responsibility. In some cases the responsibility to protect society is more important than whether an individual is or not

Yes, but it depends entirely on what the nature of the threat is, whether it is a real or merely a perceived threat, and whether the responsibility to overrule the individual's rights is valid because it is based on facts rather than supposition, bias, bigotry or bad data. In other words, you can't compare infringing on the right of an individual to own a vicious dog with infringing on someone else's right to be armed for self-defense. It's highly individualized. One person may keep a pit-bull and train it properly so that it's never a risk to anyone, as thousands do, while another may abuse the animal and train it to be aggressive to the point that it poses a threat to the community every bit as dangerous as sitting on one's front porch randomly firing a handgun into the air is.

But it is irrational to claim that EVERY pit-bull owner, or EVERY gun-owner poses such a threat to the community that it is appropriate to forbid ANYONE from owning either pit-bulls or firearms. That's just paranoid bigotry at work.