Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogled
Seems heavy handed but I get where they're coming from. Pitbulls have always gotten a bad rep by the media even when it is the owners who are the source of the issue.
Unfortunately, a few bad apples can ruin it for a collective group. They should be targeting owners and perhaps implementing way more stringent requirements for those who want to own pitbulls but I am sure they've thought of that before passing this law.
While I understand that dogs are often members of the family and are treated as such, they are also somewhat of a product as well and I don't mean that in a bad way. Much like vehicle licensing standards, different vehicles classes require different standards.
Some may contend that pitbulls are no different from any other dogs but the difference is that their capacity and potential for harm. A pitbull bite is not a chihuahua bite is not a cat scratch. The theme is that stereotypically certain breeds are used for certain functions.
IMO "dangerous" and "can be dangerous" are two very different things but often this gets diluted in conversations.
I hope that current pitbull owners can retain their furry lovables and that there is a more harmonious way to solve this than just banning them.
|
Agreed. Getting a bite from a small dog vs a big dog is a minor annoyance vs hospital or even death, as was the case that spark this inquiry.
I believe having a dog, driving, gun ownership, etc are all things that we should prove we are capable of handling the responsibility. If we can't meet those requirements or violate them after the fact then the privilege should be removed, fines, jail, beatings administered, etc. I always hate the collective being punished because of the individual. It's even worse when it affects your pet/fur baby. Sounds like alot of these dogs could get put down.