Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23
It seems like the most moderate and sensible call to action after the Connecticut shootings was not to ban all guns, but rather to acknowledge that there is a problem with gun violence in the U.S., in particular with the access people have to assault weapons. These are weapons designed not only to kill, but to kill at a higher rate than more conventional firearms. Therefore, access to them should be restricted much more greatly, if not banned outright.
The same principle applies to pit bulls and other vicious breeds of dog. I don't really give a damn if people enjoy that particular breed of dog over others, just like I don't really give a damn if someone would prefer to own an AR-33 over a shotgun. The objective risk of public harm (backed up by data related to the breeds of dogs which are demonstrably more prone to violent attacks than others) outweigh the subjective enjoyment that one person may get from owning a dangerous animal.
My family always had guns in the house. My family always had dogs in the house. But we had shotguns or deer rifles, not assault rifles, and golden retrievers, not pitbulls.
|
Except the comparison of assault rifles to any dog breed is ridiculous.
You are comparing a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in seconds, vs a dog breed. It's a little over the top.
The only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill quickly. Pitbulls for the most part are great dogs it's a really silly comparison.