Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Should Pit bulls/Rottweilers be more heavily regulated?
Over half the fatal dog attacks in the United States involve these two breeds. What would it take to get your support for breed specific legislation?
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-pitbullattack-111409,0,4547181.story
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-pitbullattack-111409,0,4547181.story
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
November 15, 2009 01:09 PM
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Breed specific legislation does not cover enough ground. We should extend the law criminally to all animals owned or kept as pets. We need law and order with teeth.
I would think a better plan than tighter regulations on a breed(s) would be to hold dog owners responsible for their dogs actions criminally. The law should just extend *real criminal responsibility* to the owner of the animal(s) and treat these cases 100% identical in the penalty/punishment phase.
If a dog or animal destroys property the owner is charged as if he/she did the damage (felony or misdemeanor) ~ financial responsibility100% possible jail time
If a dog or animal assaults a human then the owner is charged with the felony (1st degree assault w/deadly weapon) ~ serious prison time 7+ years
If a dog or animal causes the death of a human then the owner is charged with murder.(1st, 2nd, 3rd degree) just like in a human to human case.. exactly ~ serious prison time 25+ years or life without parole.(even death penalty in applicable states for 1st deg/premeditated)
And in all cases of assault/murder the dog or animal is put down. Real life penalties for real life crime.
This will stop the ownership and or keeping of high risk dogs of every breed and every high risk animal species. All animals should be considered equal in the eyes of the law no exceptions.
I would think a better plan than tighter regulations on a breed(s) would be to hold dog owners responsible for their dogs actions criminally. The law should just extend *real criminal responsibility* to the owner of the animal(s) and treat these cases 100% identical in the penalty/punishment phase.
If a dog or animal destroys property the owner is charged as if he/she did the damage (felony or misdemeanor) ~ financial responsibility100% possible jail time
If a dog or animal assaults a human then the owner is charged with the felony (1st degree assault w/deadly weapon) ~ serious prison time 7+ years
If a dog or animal causes the death of a human then the owner is charged with murder.(1st, 2nd, 3rd degree) just like in a human to human case.. exactly ~ serious prison time 25+ years or life without parole.(even death penalty in applicable states for 1st deg/premeditated)
And in all cases of assault/murder the dog or animal is put down. Real life penalties for real life crime.
This will stop the ownership and or keeping of high risk dogs of every breed and every high risk animal species. All animals should be considered equal in the eyes of the law no exceptions.
| Asker's Rating: |
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (3)
November 15, 2009 12:47 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
There is nothing that could cause me to support breed specific legislation.
Dangerous dogs are made by people who don't know how to handle the breeds to begin with and by people who don't know enough about the breed, breeding them. A dangerous dog can be obtained from any breed. If people are really concerned about dangerous dog's the laws should be placed on all breeds tightening breeding practices and imposing more strict punishment on those that raise dogs to be dangerous or in an incorrect and abusive manner.
You want ironic?
http://www.dogguide.net/blog/2008/07/the-3-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-revealed-pit-bulls-rottweilers-youll-be-surprised/
Pittbulls and Rottweilers actually AREN'T the most aggressive breed of dog. They are just big and powerful enough to do real damage when they do become dangerous, as well as have a less than cuddly appearance (in some people's opinion I for one disagree)
In short, BSL is non-sense.
Helpful Answer?
Dangerous dogs are made by people who don't know how to handle the breeds to begin with and by people who don't know enough about the breed, breeding them. A dangerous dog can be obtained from any breed. If people are really concerned about dangerous dog's the laws should be placed on all breeds tightening breeding practices and imposing more strict punishment on those that raise dogs to be dangerous or in an incorrect and abusive manner.
You want ironic?
http://www.dogguide.net/blog/2008/07/the-3-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-revealed-pit-bulls-rottweilers-youll-be-surprised/
Pittbulls and Rottweilers actually AREN'T the most aggressive breed of dog. They are just big and powerful enough to do real damage when they do become dangerous, as well as have a less than cuddly appearance (in some people's opinion I for one disagree)
In short, BSL is non-sense.
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 15, 2009 01:29 PM
I don't see any place where I accuse Pit bulls of being more aggressive or being responsible for being dangerous. If people are causing the problems, why not require people to be trained in breeding, training, and handling of Pit Bulls, and then check up on them to be sure they are following the proper procedures, because when they don't, it can cause serious injury or death, unlike those vicious chihuahuas. We don't have the funding, or the need to train and check up on all breed, since all breeds aren't involved in fatalities (unless you know of hundreds of fatal Chihuahua attacks that I've missed?)
Are you saying the status Quo is fine, we don't need to do anything? I'm pretty sure you aren't suggesting we should concentrate our efforts equally between Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas (well maybe you are saying that).
Anything (or animal) that is dangerous and is involved in fatalities should be more heavily regulated than things that are small and relatively harmless. Squirt guns are not regulated, but Machine guns are. Screwing in a light bulb doesn't require a license or a permit, but wiring an office building does.
I guess I'm most surprised that NOTHING could change your mind. I was thinking that most people would be a least slightly impacted if they were to see their child mauled and killed by a Pit Bull, but it seems that you would still be in favor of treating Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas equally. that seems odd to me, but it's your opinion, which is what I asked for.
Sorry for such a long reply, and please don't take this as an attack, you are welcome to snuggle with the beasties as you see fit.
Report
Are you saying the status Quo is fine, we don't need to do anything? I'm pretty sure you aren't suggesting we should concentrate our efforts equally between Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas (well maybe you are saying that).
Anything (or animal) that is dangerous and is involved in fatalities should be more heavily regulated than things that are small and relatively harmless. Squirt guns are not regulated, but Machine guns are. Screwing in a light bulb doesn't require a license or a permit, but wiring an office building does.
I guess I'm most surprised that NOTHING could change your mind. I was thinking that most people would be a least slightly impacted if they were to see their child mauled and killed by a Pit Bull, but it seems that you would still be in favor of treating Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas equally. that seems odd to me, but it's your opinion, which is what I asked for.
Sorry for such a long reply, and please don't take this as an attack, you are welcome to snuggle with the beasties as you see fit.
November 15, 2009 02:04 PM
The more I think about this the more I wonder about my reply. Wouldn't breeding and training practices be breed specific?
Peace.
Report
Peace.
November 15, 2009 02:38 PM
No, that's my point it shouldn't be breed related at all. ANY dog has the capability to be deadly, pitbulls and rottweilers are not the only big dogs in the world that ever bite people. To put specif legislation then on those two breeds is non-sense.
This source says a lot:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm
Your telling me you don't think my 150 lb malamute could do more damage to you than a pittbull? Because I beg to differ. However the giant malamute is not commonly used as a guard dog, an attack dog or for fighting. The media does not view the malamute as a dangerous breed. However the malamute, the rottweiler and the pitbull all have the same level of inborn aggression, the same power and the same capability for fatal attacks. Why then should only 2 breeds be picked out?
My suggestion was to tighten breeding regulations and impose more strict punishments on those that raise dangerous dogs and/or keep them in an abuse manner.
By this I would mean require a license to breed any dog, and make it a crime not to do so. Granted that won't cut down on criminals who already break the laws but it will cut down on people who are only breeding these animals to sell them and are doing so incorrectly. Budda basically covered the second suggestion with more strict punishments. If I raise my dog to attack people and he mauls some child, it shouldn't matter what breed the dog was i should be held responsible more so even than the dog.
On that last note, no it wouldn't change my mind a bit, if a dog attacks my child I shoot the dog, not the breed, because I have more knowledge than to assume the only factor in the attack is the dog's breed.
On the second comment: No. While certain breeds do require certain knowledge, the laws themselves would not need to be breed specific.
Report
This source says a lot:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm
Your telling me you don't think my 150 lb malamute could do more damage to you than a pittbull? Because I beg to differ. However the giant malamute is not commonly used as a guard dog, an attack dog or for fighting. The media does not view the malamute as a dangerous breed. However the malamute, the rottweiler and the pitbull all have the same level of inborn aggression, the same power and the same capability for fatal attacks. Why then should only 2 breeds be picked out?
My suggestion was to tighten breeding regulations and impose more strict punishments on those that raise dangerous dogs and/or keep them in an abuse manner.
By this I would mean require a license to breed any dog, and make it a crime not to do so. Granted that won't cut down on criminals who already break the laws but it will cut down on people who are only breeding these animals to sell them and are doing so incorrectly. Budda basically covered the second suggestion with more strict punishments. If I raise my dog to attack people and he mauls some child, it shouldn't matter what breed the dog was i should be held responsible more so even than the dog.
On that last note, no it wouldn't change my mind a bit, if a dog attacks my child I shoot the dog, not the breed, because I have more knowledge than to assume the only factor in the attack is the dog's breed.
On the second comment: No. While certain breeds do require certain knowledge, the laws themselves would not need to be breed specific.
November 15, 2009 04:56 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I agree with @unwirklich and @buddawiggi.
All dogs can be dangerous.
I own a Chihuahua (dont' laugh!) and even though there are more stories about them being mauled and killed by pits and rots, they can get into trouble too!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10652469/
We need laws that force ownership of dogs to take more responsibility. Period.
Helpful Answer?
All dogs can be dangerous.
I own a Chihuahua (dont' laugh!) and even though there are more stories about them being mauled and killed by pits and rots, they can get into trouble too!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10652469/
We need laws that force ownership of dogs to take more responsibility. Period.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 15, 2009 10:34 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I am a FedEx driver and ecounter many dogs each day. I see Pitt's that are meek as kittens and Boxers who would rip you apart. I don't support breeds being singled out. The breed that attacks me the most are actually little Poodles but they don't hurt when they bite.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All General QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
- ST HELENA WINES
- SUNSHINE MARKET
- WINE CENTER
- COST PLUS #240
keepontryi...
buddawiggi...
I think if we were to just ask owners to tighten up a bit with the training of the animals and themselves we would be turning one step into two as inevitably another breed will do something horrific or an owner/animal within the confines of the new training and regulation law gets a free ride on something he/she would not have if the law was just to move from where we are now to direct and equal criminal liability of animal owners/keepers for the action of these animals.
buttonpush...
buddawiggi...
This way will be uncomfortable for the owners of large, dangerous or uncontrollable animals instead of it being uncomfortable for those who do not own but live near or encounter these animals.
That seems fair to me.