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

[MrJonno]

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.

Never claimed every such person is a threat to the community but that is irrelevant, the fact that the chances are increased is all that is needed to restrict everyone.

Because someone may do something is sufficient justification to restrict their activities if the cost of them doing it is high enough to effect others seriously

[Cormac]

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.

On what basis do you claim that the average pit bull is more dangerous than a lab.

The labrador is a bigger dog - and is bred as a hunting dog. It has all those instincts and abilities still under the skin. It is responsible for more dog bit related fatalities than any other dog in North America, for example.

[JimC]

Perhaps a compromise solution is that pit bulls can be owned, but only with a very restrictive license, which mandates high fences, dogs have to have undergone obedience training, be neutered and locked up at night, compulsory 3rd party insurance or whatever other measures may be deemed necessary...

[Cormac]

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.

This is the more important bit.

[Cormac]

Perhaps a compromise solution is that pit bulls can be owned, but only with a very restrictive license, which mandates high fences, dogs have to have undergone obedience training, be neutered and locked up at night, compulsory 3rd party insurance or whatever other measures may be deemed necessary...

All dogs and dog owners should be subject to this regime, bar neutering.

[klr]

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.

On what basis do you claim that the average pit bull is more dangerous than a lab.

The labrador is a bigger dog - and is bred as a hunting dog. It has all those instincts and abilities still under the skin. It is responsible for more dog bit related fatalities than any other dog in North America, for example.

The Labrador is by far the most popular breed in the USA though. At any rate, the detailed lists of fatalities seems to point the finger clearly at the Pit Bull:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_ ... ted_States

[JimC]

Perhaps a compromise solution is that pit bulls can be owned, but only with a very restrictive license, which mandates high fences, dogs have to have undergone obedience training, be neutered and locked up at night, compulsory 3rd party insurance or whatever other measures may be deemed necessary...

All dogs and dog owners should be subject to this regime, bar neutering.

NEUTER ALL DOG OWNERS!

[piscator]

Ban English bulldogs. They were bred for bull baiting, and the odd chance they will is sufficient justification to restrict the activities of English bulldog owners. Whether they do or will bait bulls is irrelevant, the fact that the chances are increased is all that is needed to restrict everyone from owning an English bulldog.

[laklak]

Don't forget Chihuahuas. Fucking little ankle biters, the lot of them.

We have two pit bull mixes, they're great dogs. Very friendly, but protective in a pinch. They're well trained, kept in a securely fenced backyard, walked twice daily and are quite spoiled. The little brindle is sleeping on the couch next to me.

There have been a couple of cases recently where pit bull owners have been charged with manslaughter and in one case 2nd degree murder when their dogs killed someone. I fully support those charges. If you have a dog, any dog, you are responsible for it and for any damage it causes. If you can't keep your animals under control then don't have animals.

[Collector1337]

the fact that the chances are increased is all that is needed to restrict everyone.

Absolutely not. That is completely sickening.

[pErvinalia]

Don't take Jonno seriously. It will lead to head injuries from banging against the wall.

[laklak]

His head or mine?

[pErvinalia]

Ours. Jonno is like a shock-jock from the left. He just says outrageous things and largely ignores replies, in place of reasonable debate.

[JimC]

Ours. Jonno is like a shock-jock from the left. He just says outrageous things and largely ignores replies, in place of reasonable debate.

I want sandinista to come back - a cage match with Collector!

[Cormac]

Don't forget Chihuahuas. Fucking little ankle biters, the lot of them.

We have two pit bull mixes, they're great dogs. Very friendly, but protective in a pinch. They're well trained, kept in a securely fenced backyard, walked twice daily and are quite spoiled. The little brindle is sleeping on the couch next to me.

There have been a couple of cases recently where pit bull owners have been charged with manslaughter and in one case 2nd degree murder when their dogs killed someone. I fully support those charges. If you have a dog, any dog, you are responsible for it and for any damage it causes. If you can't keep your animals under control then don't have animals.