|
Title: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: dead0man on March 24, 2012, 03:28:04 AM link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation)
Quote Breed-specific legislation is a law or ordinance passed by a legislative body pertaining to a specific breed or breeds of domesticated animals. In practice, it generally refers to laws or ordinances pertaining to a specific dog breed or breeds. Seems unfair and racist (in a dog way) to me. I've known good pit bulls (most of 'em) and scary pit bulls (one of 'em) just like I've known good...say, white people (most of 'em) and scary white people (more than one of 'em).{...}This legislation ranges from outright bans on the possession of these dogs to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that these dogs are prima facie legally "dangerous" or "vicious." In response, some state-level governments in the United States have prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation. It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed. Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: minionofmidas on March 24, 2012, 05:15:08 AM They have some issues.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 24, 2012, 05:29:38 AM It is racist, but it's not a problem since dog races do exist, while human races don't.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: dead0man on March 24, 2012, 05:36:05 AM Would "breedist" be better?
(or are you making a subtle comment about it being racist because such laws tend to affect hispanics and blacks more than crackers?) Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Grumpier Than Thou on March 24, 2012, 10:19:01 AM Yeah, it's basically "racist" if that's the term we're using.
We don't have laws that label particular human races as dangerous, because that would cause mass public hysteria, so why have laws that label certain dogs as dangerous? Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 24, 2012, 11:52:37 AM Yeah, it's basically "racist" if that's the term we're using. We don't have laws that label particular human races as dangerous, because that would cause mass public hysteria, so why have laws that label certain dogs as dangerous? Sigh... Because there's not such a thing as "human races". That's why. Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Redalgo on March 24, 2012, 01:48:44 PM I know little about the subject but my initial impression is dog breeds tend to differ to some extent in temperament and behavior. I reckon the fashion in which a dog is raised and the environment in which it is placed have considerable influence on how each individual tends to interact with human beings but, whereas human "races" are superficial and socially-constructed despite a lack of substantive genetic variation to justify doing so, a lot of dogs have been carefully bred to promote and/or discourage certain, specific physical characteristics and behavioral tendencies that probably warrant at least a wee bit of consideration.
Nonetheless, unless someone here exposes me to compelling arguments for why there should be breed-specific laws, I would much prefer that pertinent regulations be carefully designed to apply universally to all dogs rather than overly-stereotyping or even placing a stigma on certain breeds. Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Grumpier Than Thou on March 24, 2012, 02:44:47 PM Yeah, it's basically "racist" if that's the term we're using. We don't have laws that label particular human races as dangerous, because that would cause mass public hysteria, so why have laws that label certain dogs as dangerous? Sigh... Because there's not such a thing as "human races". That's why. Shhhh I meant skin colours :P I didn't specify :P Sorry xP Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: The Mikado on March 25, 2012, 12:11:13 AM It's incredibly idiotic. Pit bulls are sweet animals.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on March 25, 2012, 12:15:54 AM I can't speak for rottweilers as a whole, but I grew up with a rottweiler who was the sweetest, most loving, most joyful dog you could ever hope to meet.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Oakvale on March 25, 2012, 12:24:42 AM I don't understand why anyone would want to own a pit bull.
"Woah, look at the jaws on that thing! I bet it could tear the wheels off a car! Oh, it bit a kid, what a surprise!" Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Redalgo on March 25, 2012, 01:34:55 AM I can't speak for rottweilers as a whole, but I grew up with a rottweiler who was the sweetest, most loving, most joyful dog you could ever hope to meet. Aye, I recall a neighbor having a rottweiler before one my moves and she pretty much matched that description! Incidentally, the most aggressive dog I've met happened to be a chihuahua. xD Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Beet on March 25, 2012, 01:42:35 AM Regardless, even if it is technically more accurate, the term "racist" should never be applied to animals, because it denigrates the term by the implication that any treatment of animals can be equated to the mistreatment of humans through that ideology known as racism. In other words, if you lynch a black guy for being black, it's "racism", no worse than if you shot a black dog for being black. Which is ironic because the consideration of black guys as no better than dogs is a hallmark of racism. The very use of the term in this way, is, ironically, in itself racist.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Cory on March 25, 2012, 02:14:41 AM Where I come from I think it's a good idea. We have too much black people and rednecks with really aggressive pitbulls that will attack anything they can.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 25, 2012, 03:03:43 AM Regardless, even if it is technically more accurate, the term "racist" should never be applied to animals, because it denigrates the term by the implication that any treatment of animals can be equated to the mistreatment of humans through that ideology known as racism. In other words, if you lynch a black guy for being black, it's "racism", no worse than if you shot a black dog for being black. Which is ironic because the consideration of black guys as no better than dogs is a hallmark of racism. The very use of the term in this way, is, ironically, in itself racist. But any person can be a victim of racist crimes, so really it would have to imply that all people are no better than dogs. While a disturbing implication, it is hardly a racist one. ;) Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on March 25, 2012, 03:05:39 AM I can't speak for rottweilers as a whole, but I grew up with a rottweiler who was the sweetest, most loving, most joyful dog you could ever hope to meet. Aye, I recall a neighbor having a rottweiler before one my moves and she pretty much matched that description! Incidentally, the most aggressive dog I've met happened to be a chihuahua. xD See, that's the other thing: My uncle has a chihuahua who does not yap very much. NATURALLY. Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Hatman 🍁 on March 26, 2012, 11:43:17 PM Doggy genocide.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 28, 2012, 06:11:18 PM There are some breeds of dogs that are tamer than others, but as a general rule the various breeds of Canis familiaris are sufficiently similar that laws differentiating between them are generally more trouble than they are worth. However, laws restricting ownership of wild canine species or hybrids between domesticated dogs and and coyotes, dingos, jackals, and/or wolves definitely are a good idea.
Title: Re: Are breed based "dangerous dog laws" EVER a good idea? Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on March 28, 2012, 06:30:55 PM No they're never a good idea, it's not the breed that is the problem, it's dog-owners who lack the experience and time tp properly train their dogs. A much better idea would be Dangerous Dog-Owner Laws. (If we can't put them down at least keep them from owning dogs)
|