12-14-2009, 12:03 AM
I've read the arguments against Frank's wording, and I think it's kind of silly to get all riled up about semantics. It's obvious that he simply meant that, unlike guns, a dog is able to go about without a human handler, and due to whatever circumstance, could injure or kill a human.
I do not think that validates the idea that gun control laws do not need to be in place.
I have spent most of my life defending the position that banning certain breeds would be both unfair and useless, and I used the same arguments that Ant and others are using to defend the breeds, primarily that it's not the 'breed' so much as the owner which should be controlled. I consider myself to be a 'professional' in the dog world, since I spent at least 10-20 years supplementing my income through private dog training - primarily basic obedience and behavioral problem elimination. I know dogs as well as most 'professional' people in the field and I have held my own against other professionals both in competition and in practice.
I am now coming to the conclusion that the position I formerly held was incorrect.
The vast majority of serious and fatal maulings are the responsibility of certain breeds by a large margin.
The idea that breeds like 'Pit Bulls' (or whatever the AKC wants to call them) are no more dangerous than other breeds is simply incorrect. Despite the fact that many, many pit bulls are gentle, loving creatures, they still suffer from selective breeding which was specifically designed to enhance their ability and desire to be aggressive. Unfortunately, it is not only their aggression which comes into play, but their ability to more easily seriously maim or kill. Much in the same way that a Border Collie can be trained to ignore the urge to herd, Pit Bulls can be raised to control their aggression. Often, it never even surfaces, but far too many people own these dogs simply to take advantage of the aggressive nature.
Yes, it's true that all terriers have aggression issues (as a breed, not necessarily individually), but it certainly isn't true that all terriers have the ability to so easily kill or seriously injure people.
No one 'needs' a Pit Bull. No one 'needs' a machine gun. Creating laws which outlawed the breeding of certain dangerous breeds, and restricted ownership of others, would effectively dramatically reduce the number of those dangerous breeds without actually killing any of them. Of course there would always be people who owned them illegally, but that number would continue to decline.
I simply have a hard time seeing a valid argument against these ideas.
I do not think that validates the idea that gun control laws do not need to be in place.
I have spent most of my life defending the position that banning certain breeds would be both unfair and useless, and I used the same arguments that Ant and others are using to defend the breeds, primarily that it's not the 'breed' so much as the owner which should be controlled. I consider myself to be a 'professional' in the dog world, since I spent at least 10-20 years supplementing my income through private dog training - primarily basic obedience and behavioral problem elimination. I know dogs as well as most 'professional' people in the field and I have held my own against other professionals both in competition and in practice.
I am now coming to the conclusion that the position I formerly held was incorrect.
The vast majority of serious and fatal maulings are the responsibility of certain breeds by a large margin.
The idea that breeds like 'Pit Bulls' (or whatever the AKC wants to call them) are no more dangerous than other breeds is simply incorrect. Despite the fact that many, many pit bulls are gentle, loving creatures, they still suffer from selective breeding which was specifically designed to enhance their ability and desire to be aggressive. Unfortunately, it is not only their aggression which comes into play, but their ability to more easily seriously maim or kill. Much in the same way that a Border Collie can be trained to ignore the urge to herd, Pit Bulls can be raised to control their aggression. Often, it never even surfaces, but far too many people own these dogs simply to take advantage of the aggressive nature.
Yes, it's true that all terriers have aggression issues (as a breed, not necessarily individually), but it certainly isn't true that all terriers have the ability to so easily kill or seriously injure people.
No one 'needs' a Pit Bull. No one 'needs' a machine gun. Creating laws which outlawed the breeding of certain dangerous breeds, and restricted ownership of others, would effectively dramatically reduce the number of those dangerous breeds without actually killing any of them. Of course there would always be people who owned them illegally, but that number would continue to decline.
I simply have a hard time seeing a valid argument against these ideas.