Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside
Why don't you try and solve the problem in a less extreme way. Instead of pushing for a ban push for regulation, increased penalties, and mandatory training.
You come across as a spaz. The owner of the Husky attacked doesn't even feel that the breed needs to be banned.
The problem here is that the owner had the damn dog running around without a leash and he's clearly a dirtbag as he just left the scene.
Dog experts don't feel that breed needs to be banned, so I find it funny that people who know nothing about dogs (you) want to ban them.
Want to decrease the number of dirtbag owners? Increase the cost of owning one of these animals. Cost both in dollars, and their time.
I think pushing for increased penalties and tougher regulation has a much better chance of getting through.
|
Because the typical person that buys these dogs will never follow through with any of these things. They have better things to spend their money on, like tribal tattoos, Affliction T-shirts, truck nutz, and white Oakley sunglasses for the back of their head. I mean c'mon, those UFC PPV's aint gonna pay for themselves. It sounds like hyperbole, but virtually every single one of these Pitbull attacks, the owner of the animal fits the above description to a tee, with a smoke behind his ear, sunken in cheeks, twitchy movements, a face tattoo and a grade 6 vocabulary in his inevitable global interview.
Banning a breed of dog, isn't like banning Siberian White Tigers or something. These breeds have been developed in most cases over a couple hundred or thousand years of inbreeding mutant copies of Canis lupus familiaris. How do you think dogs like sharpeis, pugs, or wiener dogs exist. I have read if humans disappeared tomorrow, toy breeds would be gone within a couple years, and within 5 or 6 generations, we would pretty much be back at simple 'dog' again. These breeds are strictly for the vanity of humans, and in reality, all dog breeds except for wolves are deformed mutants to an extent. So what is the big deal if we stop breeding the ones that pose a significant risk?
This whole argument of "It's the owners, not the animals." Is so much like the US gun debate, just to a lesser extent. Americans have access to whatever weapons they want, and look where that has got them. Nothing good can come of giving loser, unpredictable, bottom rung humans with a chip on their shoulder, access to dangerous fighting machine dogs, that are bred with the sole purpose of killing in the most efficient manner possible.
Until it is proven Pit Bulls tears are a hidden cure for cancer, the breed needs to be banned.