As we’ve mentioned in previous posts, the White House is busy cranking-out replies to petitions which met the 25k signature criteria (since raised to 100k) on their We The People widget. TTAG reader dmac received a heads-up on the Administration’s response to a canine-o-centric petition (“Ban and outlaw Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in the United States of America on a Federal level!”) See if you can guess why he brought it to your attention . . .
Breed-Specific Legislation Is a Bad Idea
Thanks for your petition.
We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.
In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds . . .
The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by breed regulations — when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.
For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation — which they call inappropriate. You can read more from them here.
As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.
Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.
And here’s dmac’s recap:
-Banning assault dogs is ineffective and a waste of resources.
-Bad people do bad things with no regard for the law.
-Training/Education the best way to increase safety.
This would be funny if it weren’t so frustrating.
It’s as ironic as 2000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
Also on the topic of irony: dogs, unlike guns, actually are capable of “going off” all by themselves.
And while I don’t support regulating dogs for that reason, I have to concede that I agree with keeping them off the streets, for the children.
+1 for the Alanis reference!
It’s like rayyyy-eeeehhh-aaaiiin on your wedding day…
Keep your day job, A81. A singer, you ain’t.
I’m not usually a grammar nazi, but irony is basically defined as the opposite of what was expected. I.e., sandpaper: it’s ironic that something so rough can be used to make things smooth. That whole song is nothing more than unfortunate, not ironic.
Your point is still valid though. Replace the word breed with gun, and you have the exact argument we constantly make, and is constantly ignored.
Well, “Verbal irony, either spoken or written, arises from an awareness of contrast between what is and what ought to be.” (Concise Encyclopedia)
Debatable on the Alanis song, certainly one could say there are many examples of contrasts between what is and what ought to be, but certainly appropriate for comparing the administrations position between certain breeds of dogs and certain types of guns. That would be a little ironic…
don’t cha think?
If Alanis had ever been to prison, she’d know that it’s pretty easy to make a knife from a spoon. She could have 2,000 knives!
And here I thought they were telling us that laws on paper made everyone abide by them…
Too bad the dumb arses don’t see guns the same way. Take assault weapons out of the picture criminals will use a double barrel, take those away and the crooks will use a knife.
Maybe the gay guys who are being attacked around NYC can get an “assault dog” since they can’t get a gun.
Or you know any gun that can be moved across the border or manufatured locally so pretty much any gun they want
Best comment EVER! Thanks for making my day, which has become a mixed bag.
My favorite thing EVER: “the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by breed regulations — when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds.”
So. The Nobel Peace Prize President claims laws don’t deter errant dog breeders. Which is, of course, obviously true. But gun laws deter gun crimes.
Yeah. That’s, well, PRECIOUS, AIN’T IT?
First I heard I was like, “Waaa? Dollar General handin those out now?”
Then I was like, “Aint he only been on the job like a week?”
After that I was askin, “What’d he do again?”
They don’t make a word for this kind of stupid.
Actually, they make several words for this stupid. obama, biden, feinstein, need I go on?
I like libtard but thats just me apparently
It’s almost like they’re doing this on purpose…
Yup. I was all prepared to complain about this not being at all related to guns, but the way this is written, it really has to be a purposeful “F YOU” to the 2nd Amendment community. Way to keep it classy, White House…
I don’t know. The power of doublethink can sometimes be astounding.
rewrite in 3…2…1…
I fthey rewrite then it will be a fricken riot. (the funny kind not the trampling to death rubber bullet to the face kind )
“Community based approach” = Me shooting the pitbulls running loose in my community??
What? Are you a LEO or something?
You need to work on new material.
I am happy to shoot any loose dog in my neighborhood especially if it’s on my property and threatening my farm animals, without regard to breed or type or “what it looks like”
That is the scariest looking dog I have ever seen. See that dog, kill that dog.
Really? you must have your sensitive feminine side working for you today.
I don’t see it.
Damn right. I’ve had to shoot two dogs (one pitbull and one rott) who decided it would be fun to chase my horses.
For those who don’t have livestock, dogs chasing horses is no joke. Horses WILL run through fences when being chased, which can lead to broken legs or worse. And a broken leg on a horse is basically a death sentence.
My family has horses too, but not any feral dogs in my area. My previous comment was a feeble attempt at being facetious. Any animal attacking our horses would be summarily shot without question.
yes and considering the $1,000s and $1,000s of real dollars I have invested in my horses, a loose dog which represents a person who didn’t care enough about the animal to contain it or teach it any farm manners is a small price to pay to protect my investment.
As much as I love dogs, if they endanger my horses, they’re toast.
Oddly enough, my last quarter horse loved chasing my dog.
I also have a dog chasing horse.
And he means *&&&^(%^$## business, too!!
Key word is “Farm Manners”. Some dogs, like the Rottweiler have the instinct to herd. My Rottie Sheba who recently died delighted in “herding” our Paso Finos and Paints. The horses never seemed to care as she would never, never bite or try to attack them – i.e. she had Farm Manners. I was always more concerned about my Sheba getting trampled than horses breaking fences. The AmStaffs OTOH are extremely wary of horses, they keep their distance (smart dogs :D).
Were it a strange dog on our acreage chasing the horses, as much as I love dogs, I wouldn’t hesitate to put it down. I wouldn’t take any pleasure in the act as some of the commenters on here seem to have when they shot a dog, but YGDWYGD.
The damned thing about this is replace dog for the word firearm in the above text including the CDC doesn’t have the specific facts for the last 20 year’s and “sacred poo” you got some common sense.
Irony overload…sarcasm emitters not responding…
Yep, same here. The mind boggles.
Just substitute ‘gun’ for dog and ‘type’ for breed and it sounds awful familiar…
Wow. If this wasn’t so sad, I’d be laughing my rear off. Simply amazing.
Oh, the Ironic semblance!
Seriously this soooo exposes they do have common sense, they only chooese not to use it.
Well, let’s just ask ourselves a simple question: which threatens the Ruling Elite, killer dogs running wild, or modern firearms?
Yes, that criterion seems to account for many apparent inconsistencies, doesn’t it? The rank-and-file Progs just don’t seem to catch on.
cmon, this has to be a joke. They left the intern in charge of this and s/he has a sense of humor.
If only this were true.
That’s one healthy looking Pitty! I work with a rescue group that specializes in Pitty’s and can tell you first hand they are very loyal and loving dogs. However, in the wrong hands, they can be turned mean just like other breads. Kind of like my TRP……..
And we know which sort of hands they tend to fall into….
They know which audience they’re playing to.
I feel sorry for that dog. Yes he looks well cared for. But that S&M outfit he’s having to wear is down right embarrassing.
yup. A rubber mask and a cat-o-nine tails clenched in it’s teeth would complete this.
hm. interesting sideline.
I have never thought of the “dressed up” dogs as S&M style but more “tough guy” style.
in any case, I don’t like it but you know: to each his own!
Wrong. Pitbulls are trash dogs for trash people. They are bred to be violent. In almost all cases, regardless of upbringing, they live up to their reputation. Stop kidding yourself. Pitbull lovers ignore the fact that different breeds of dogs have history of breeding to create a dog that is behaviorally and physically biased towards a specific task. Pitbulls were bred to kill shit, not to be family dogs.
There is something to what you say, for certain. Dogs, like people, are what they’re bred to be, and we don’t expect personal responsibility from dogs.
Oh, the stupid, it hurts…
Well, Julian, if you like pits, you are indeed stupid. Yes, their problem is genetic. They are what their DNA makes them, and it controls much more then looks. As a landlord I have had encounters with dogs four time in which I was bitten, or nearly bitten, and all were pits. I have a clause in my contract that forbids them, Rotties, and a few others. Nurture will not turn a rattle snake into a kitten.
JeremyR: “I support the Government’s right to limit your choices as to what type of pet you desire and feel is right for your family, and to dictate to everyone the list of ‘acceptable’ vs ‘unacceptable’ pets.”
If JeremyR doesn’t also support Assault Weapons Bans, and limiting the rights of citizens to their chosen weapons for whatever their personal reasons, then JeremyR is a limp-wristed, yellow-bellied, hypocrite. Just like Obama.
notice that JeremyR like most hypocrital integrity-free individuals without a leg to stand on also opens with the well-trod ad hominim attack “If you believe X then you must be stupid!”
keeping it classy, JeremyR .
I’m you’re someone who’s batting for the other team.
I have owned several pit bulls. Never had a violent one. Only loyal. Learn what you are talking about before you fly off at the mouth. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Almost every single breed of dog was originally bred for hunting and/or killing. Keep your race hating to yourself.
Hunting. Killing. You are correct. What puzzles me is that you are confusing those with “fighting”. Hunting and killing are in the same ballpark. Ancient dogs bred only to fight were as reprehensible as dogs bred only to fight today.
I lied. You didn’t confuse me for one bit with that malarkey. And you hold yourself “morally superior” to our despicably amoral POTUS?
Or rather I should say the dog’s MASTERS were, and are, reprehensible. All a dog ever wants to do is please its master, you skunk. In order for your theory to be correct, you would have to convince me that dogs have a natural affinity for fighting to win money for their owners.
Dogfighting has nothing whatsoever to do with human survival; don’t you try and convince ME that it’s necessary to human survival; I’m not stupid like that other guy. Don’t you EVER try and do a switcheroo on moral values on ME! Dogfighting is about PROFIT and LOSS, not survival.
Your attempt at moral misdirection is despicable.
And guns are only useful for killing. Staffordshire terriers are some pretty nice dogs, and most pit breeds come out of the box more friendly and less anxious and fearful than about 30 other breeds I could name. I’m a vet and I’ve been bitten by a lot of dogs, but never any of the pit bull genre. You’ve been had.
If dogs and guns have something in common, it’s that bad owners ruin the reputations of both.
+1 to Merit and +1 to g. I’ve been around pits my whole life, and they have been nothing but the best dogs I’ve ever seen. They wouldn’t hurt a fly if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. What g said is absolutely true though, a bad dog owner gives all dog owners (and also dogs of that breed) a bad name.
You’re kidding right? I’m not used to seeing that level of stupidity on this site. Please erase yourself from the gene pool if you are serious. Not flaming, but dood…You’re killing me smalls. Trashy dogs for trashy people? I consider it a compliment to be considered trashy by such an ignoramus.
Jeff, that is by far the most ignorant thing I’ve heard or read in a long, long, long while. How about you educate yourself on America’s history with bully breads, to include pit bulls, and then get back to the community of rational thought and mutual respect of individuals?
You can start with this easy to Google phrase “which dog breed was America’s nanny breed” but I’ll even give you this freebie of a site to start your dog history education:
lol, you guys. I think it’s great that SOME of you have successfully raised pits to be gentle and kind. I have known one that was. It simply does not pale in comparison to the level of out of control pits that are out there. They are an unpredictable breed that appeal to thugs and low-lives because they are easily molded into attack dogs. There are certainly awful owners out there, and a pit is certainly not born a wild killer, but pits seem to take to this treatment like no other breed.
Yes, they are loyal, and that’s part of the breed’s problem; it is overprotective to the point of attacking strangers and children.
Seriously are you guys even trying?
I am an animal lover and I have had at least one pit as mentioned earlier that I knew well and loved. He was so gentle and submissive that his companion female black lab would feign mounting him. It doesn’t change the nature of the breed.
Don’t ever quote dogs bite me . org in respectable company ever again!
Do you have ANY integrity at all?
Mina, he has more cred then you. The statistics are there, pits and rots are a signifigant problem, but worse by far are the liars who defend these monsters.
JeremyR: I don’t respond to limp-wristed people with no character or integrity. You are a hypocrite. I have nothing to say to you.
I am sure you also cite Victims for Responsible Gun Laws for gun stats, too.
Point made. Thank you!!
I always love when the hypocrits show their true colors.
Guns good. Always good. For all people everywhere. Becauses citizens are responsible people who deserve to exercise their rights.
But … certain dogs bad.Always bad. For all people everywhere. Because citizens are not responsible and therefore do not deserve to exercise their rights.
People who are consistent and stand on one side of both issues have my respect: either you are for gun control and you are for dog bans or you are against both.
Straddlers who take either side on the two debates are phonies, fakes, hypocrits and liars and the worst kind of yellow-spined scum without an once of character or integrity.
My once gentle Weimaraner can no longer be trusted around small dogs because it might eat them – something about violent yappy little dogs just trips her trigger. My Weim hates little dogs more than Feinstein hates freedom. Conversely, I just met a very friendly male pit at a gunsmith in Show Low, AZ last weekend. Dogs can be like Transformers: more than meets the eye.
+1 I’ve rescued and trained so called aggressive breed dogs for over 15 years. Sure I’ve been bitten, and it was always my fault. The worst bite was from a yellow lab. He bit off the end of my right ring finger when I was stupidly trying to break up a fight. (Docs sewed it back on, it kinda works now, piano is harder though) All dogs can bite, but I’ve never had a problem with “pit bulls”. They are by far some of the smartest dogs out there, very easy to train and eager to please.
The issues of gun control and BSL are undeniably similar. One cannot straddle that fence and not be hypocritical. Period.
Jared, I like you very much but this: “The issues of gun control and BSL are undeniably similar.” is wrong.
They are IDENTICAL.
Poor choice of wording on my part. As far as I can tell, the issues are one and the same. “Similar” sounded more politic to my pre-coffee saturated mind.
I’d read somewhere that most dog attacks were by Golden Retrievers. Which (at the time) probably just reflected the fact that they were the most commonly-owned breed.
and would the fact that most murders were committed by Smith & Wesson .45 handguns matter?
then why does it matter what breed of dog bites the most?
answer is: It doesn’t. Just as what gun happens to be present for most murders is immaterial what “type” of dog did the biting is immaterial.
There are a host of factors why a dog bites. NONE of them have one whit to do with their breeding, type or looks. None.
I think you missed my point. I was making essentially the same point as you: It probably doesn’t matter so much what breed the dog is, and the number of attacks for various breeds is probably more a function of what types of dogs are most common. Like the stat that more people are shot with .22s than any other caliber, because that is the most common chambering (especially in inexpensive guns).
Base rates explain far more than most other factors, though humans don’t naturally tend to think in terms of base rates. Hence, hysteria over Sandy Hook, even though a nut going off with an AR-15 is a statistical anomaly.
While the point is well taken, most of us, if we had to be shot, would rather take our chances with a .22LR than, say a .308. Same deal with dogs: if I have to get attacked, can it please be an Irish Terrier, and not a Pit Bull?
Good one, Ben. I like it!
too bad your theory that “pit bull” type dogs inflict “more damage” than other breeds.
intution does not equal fact. and the data prove your intuition wrong.
show me again how “less guns = less crime”
oh, that’s right you can’t. sure as shootin’ , it’s that old problem with facts getting in the way of intuition again, huh?
“Wrong. Pitbulls are trash dogs for trash people. They are bred to be violent. In almost all cases, regardless of upbringing, they live up to their reputation. Stop kidding yourself. Pitbull lovers ignore the fact that different breeds of dogs have history of breeding to create a dog that is behaviorally and physically biased towards a specific task. Pitbulls were bred to kill shit, not to be family dogs.”
“Assault rifles are trash guns for trash people. They are built to kill people. In almost all cases, regardless of the owner, they live up to their reputation. Stop kidding yourself. Assault rifle owners ignore the fact that different types of guns have a history of being created and use towards a specific task. Assault rifles are make to kill people, not to be family defensive weapons.”
Jeff: exposed for being a hypocrite, yellow bellied, limp wristed human being. Categorized under “just like any gun grabber or Obama.”
Ban specific guns and mags. Sounds just like Assault Rifles !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The bad guys totally disregard the law so why pass the laws in the first place?
The argument to ban assault rifles is exactly identical, in every way, to the argument to ban pit bull type dogs.
That’s why it is very unbecoming to see men, so proud of their ability to be consistent and firmly ensconced in their moral position, take the position that dog bans are a necessary and reasonable thing.
They are hypocrites, plain and simple. They are not men. Men take positions and hold the high ground no matter the topic. Waffling and taking two different sides on these identical issues exposes them for the limp-wristed people they are.
I have no respect.
This would be funny if it weren’t so frustrating.
It took me a minute, but I see what you are talking about. *sigh*
Total hypocrisy from the Obama administration. SMH. I don’t own dogs and admit that I know virtually nothing about dog breeds. I don’t care what dogs are legal or illegal. As long as I can bear arms to quickly dispatch threatening animals. There was a recent case in my area of a homeowner standing his ground against a threatening dog with some quick shotgun work. The homeowner was not charged, but the dog owner was cited for several animal-related violations.
Thank you. Someone without an opinion about specific types of dogs who gets it right, right out of the box.
You’re one of those smart, consistent men with character and integrity, aren’t you?
You could be right about him; I simply read what he said as being from someone who’s never owned a dog.
I mean, it’s possible, right?
you don’t need to know anything at all about dogs to understand why there is a direct parallel between being for dog bans and being for gun control.
people who do and understand their position enough to be consistent within it are people who have character and integrity.
Well, Mina, you have a point, and here’s mine: not ONE of my guns ever ran wild in the neighborhood and attacked anyone.
You also don’t allow your guns out of your direct control, do you?
Because a dog under his owners direct control is not going to be running around the neighborhood left on his own recognizance to not threaten anyone (ignoring the fact that dogs should be taught manners.)
And if that dog IS out of his owners direct control, then is is the DOG who went wrong or the OWNER?
Is it the GUN who shoots someone or the PERSON HOLDING IT?
If your gun is out of your direct control and someone takes it and shoots someone, whose fault is it? Yours, the gun stealer or the gun? Yours and yours alone.
Works the exact same way with dogs. If your dog gets out from under your direct control and hurts someone, it is your fault. There is zero difference.
How nice of you to ask, Mina. No, I do not.
So, Mina, if someone breaks into my house and steals my locked up guns and shoots someone else with it, I and I alone are responsible?
I am sure I don’t need to point out that in the case of a stolen gun the parallel is a stolen dog.
since no one can predict the outcome of someone stealing your personal property and doing something heinous with it, it’s not a fair comparison to match “dog not under owner’s direct control” and a “stolen gun”.
Dogs do get out of the house accidentally or they are allowed out. In either case they then roam the neighborhood on their own recognizance. In either case this is irresponsible dog ownership.
So, the question on the table is thus: Should “pit bull” type dogs be banned or restricted because of these few irresponsible dog owners and how their irresponsbility threatens “community safety”? Let’s explore that, shall we?
But first, the parallel ….
Direct quote from a Government legislator anti-gunner, advocating for “responsible gun owners should welcome sensible gun laws”:
“…focusing the discourse on public safety allows us to address what responsible gun ownership should look like …
There are responsible gun owners out there, but there are also those who are not.
Whether it is illegal ownership, ownership with criminal intent or with negligence, irresponsible gun ownership is the problem. Our gun laws should establish a rigorous system of checks and balances that deters and punishes irresponsibility when it comes to guns.”
Therefore I can assume since we are responsible gun owners here Robert’s frequent articles “Irresponsible gun owner of the day” are reminders to us all that we should welcome sensible gun laws, right?? Or are they reminders that because some of us are irresponsible that all of the rest of us should submit to bans and restrictions? It’s all worth it for the improvement to public safety, right?
If those are your conclusions then surely we dog owners should correspondingly welcome “sensible dog laws” – because some of us are irresponsible, allow our dogs out of our direct control, fail to train and socialize our dogs it is therefore COMMON SENSE to push legislation on all dog owners, including those who are responsible, limit the choices as to what types of dogs they can choose for our families and restrict their rights to enjoy their chosen dogs in the manner in which we see fit. It’s all worth it for the improvement to public safety, right?
I can continue to draw parallels all day long for you. Muzzles, containment structures, safety mechanisms, fingerprint disablers, carry restrictritions, mandatory spay/neuter, onorous storage requirements, dis-assembly requirements, mandatory training, registration. It’s all there.
Dog bans = Gun bans. Issues cited to ban/restrict dogs = Issues cited to ban/restrict guns. Advocates for dog control = Advocates for gun control.
Straddlers are ugly. Don’t be a straddler.
I rather you continue to do it all day long with someone else. My comment about someone else was not equivocation; I simply prefer my own species over dogs and a related species, dog fanatics.
the entire sequence of events starts with your irresponsibility. assuming of course the gun isn’t stolen.
so, for the purposes of drawing a parallel you have to play a role in the gun getting out of your direct control in the first place. otherwise no parallel can be drawn.
so let’s assume you lend the gun the someone you don’t know. that’s about a parallel with a dog getting out of your control – you open the door and let the dog out without a fence, leash, or any means of recall.
could you predict that the person you lent your gun to would do something bad with it?
if your dog starts running rampant around the neighborhood could you predict that he would do something bad?
does the person to whom you lent the gun bear some responsibility? yes. and he should pay a price for that. but your irresponsibility set the wheels in motion. you are to blame.
does the dog who got out and rampaged the neighborhood bear some responsibility? yes (… and no … because clearly well socialized dogs don’t do such things even if they get out) and he will pay a price for that. but your irresponsibility set the wheels in motion. you are to blame.
clearly parallel situations. identical, actually.
God knows you couldn’t be a good dog owner; you can’t even control your own barking.
Looking a legitimate shooting so far
Oh man…my head just wants to explode. Frustrating indeed.
I’d rather clean up after an AR than a pit bull, and reloading is a lot more sanitary.
Like all things in life, you get out of it what you put into it. Reloading a pit bull is the sanitary part. The rest I just leave in the yards of people with Obama/Biden stickers on their cars.
Good. Just the image of a pirate watching his dog dump on an obama supporters lawn is good for a chuckle.
Flagrant is the word of the day. Just waggle it around out the window why don’t you.
First person who starts talking about how great their “pit bull” is and why no one should hate them gets my ire vote.
That data is Irrelevent.
Either you a patriot and have a right to exercise your rights or not. End of story.
what kind of dog you have and how nice he is no one’s business but yours and you certainly should not feel compelled to explain anything at all.
Please don’t. It doesn’t help!! It just lets the hypocrits and the limp-wristed set the frame and decide what you get to talk about.
The focus of the post is what are the parallels between the two types of bans and why does it make Obama a limp-wristed, spineless, hypocritical person.
Do us all a favor and Stay on topic.
In other news the sky is blue and my feet stink.
There is clear evidence that the majority of the American public likes dogs. The same can not be said for guns. Banning a specific breed of dog is a slippery slope that will leave us with nothing but chiweenies and pomeranians, people can see that. What people have a harder time connecting is banning semi-auto rifles will lead to the same slippery slope, but people are less afraid of you if all you have is a derringer.
This is not to say that people that walk large, or aggressive breed dogs don’t get the same fear that is aimed at scary guns, I won’t walk my blue heeler on the same side of the street as a big @$$ rott; in the same vein, I wouldn’t like to be on a bus with a person carrying a rifle.
My point is that it’s all about perception, namely, how the other side perceives us. As much as we all hate the word, I think there are common sense gun laws that we can have, as long as a bunch of idiots don’t go walking down the street open carrying a rifle.
Change the perception and win the fight. Everyone knows a big scary-looking dog that is good at heart, but even though dogs and guns are both possessions, it takes a lot deeper knowledge to know what the person with a gun is harboring in his heart.
“but people are less afraid of you if all you have is a derringer.”
Which is actually really ironic. Because the man with a derringer is much more dangerous than the man with the AR. Think about it. If the government came to take away all your guns tomorrow, and you could only hide one, which would it be? The derringer is easily concealable and effective, and can be used with great efficiency in a police state to take down some govt. thugs and relieve them of their advanced weaponry. Conversely, the AR can not be easily concealed, and it’s use is limited pretty much to a shootout from the cover in which you’re hiding it (your house).
If you study the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, you will see exactly what I mean. In that case, a few men used handguns to kill unsuspecting Germans, and take their guns and ammunition. The uprising was fueled almost exclusively by using the weapons of the enemies.
But of course, fight for your AR now, or they will be coming for your derringer later.
I don’t see anything wrong with open carrying a firearm, short or long. There is something wrong with people getting scared shitless and calling 911 on sight of armed person not wearing uniform.
This HAS to be satire. Maybe one of the interns is pro gun?
I had to shoot a female pitbull dead because it was attacking my niece, I shot it through it’s spine then shot it again between the eyes. Bans on this POS breed may have stopped this attack, but a ban on the gun I used to shoot the bitch would of definitely prevented myself from from protecting my loved one.
As for the article, this is SNL material.
” Bans on this POS breed may have stopped this attack,”
Sure it would. Just like gun bans stop criminals from having them and using them against innocent people, right?
I don’t think banning breeds is the answer, some of the nicest dogs I’ve met were pits. What I do think would help is mandate pet owners to take their dogs to obedience classes where a) they can get a base line for acceptable behavior and b) trainers can screen for potential problems.
Then you must also support that all new gun owners be required take training classes and allow yourself to be “screened” by the trainer for his/her evaluation as to your “suitability” to be a gun owner.
Different topic. Identical issue.
Remember all the problems inherent in this: Evaluator bias? Subjective determinations? Your right to your personal property determined by someone you don’t know?
I know you support all of those things when it’s about you and your guns. Totally, right? I am sure everyone else on this board would get behind something so “common sense”.
I swear whoever it is that wrote this response is a closet 2nd amendment supporter or something, the substitutions are simply too easy!
“Thanks for your petition.
“We don’t support assault-weapon-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of guns are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.
“In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about gun shots and human fatalities in the United States. They found that ‘assault weapons’ represent a very small proportion of gun shot injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate rates for specific weapons.
“The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit guns aren’t deterred by regulations on type — when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated types. And the simple fact is that guns of any type can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally used for evil.
“For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against assault-weapon-specific legislation — which they call inappropriate. You can read more from them here.
“As an alternative to assault-weapon-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent gun shots. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of firearm owners.”
Not for a dog ban. An owner had better understand the unique traits of certain breeds and act accordingly.
I am sure you also take more care when carrying and using bigger, more powerful guns than other, less lethal guns, right?
You know here’s the thing, why does anyone need an AR-15 anyway? People should understand the unique traits of an AR-15 and be more careful with them.
It really scares me to see someone out in public with such a powerful gun. We can’t trust people to just carry them around and be responsible. There should be more restrictions on those. Public safety and all.
Not a fan of Darwin I see. Not understanding the difference between a Pitt Bull and a 5 pound poodle is your problem, jack. Some dogs have different physical and behavior characteristics than others.
Its science. Your gun analogy is insane. Keeping a Pitt Bull around your baby or a loaded gun around your toddler is your choice.
I could not have put it better; was that Mikey Numbers in mufti?
Dogs come with different physical and behavioral traits. You don’t ban them, you understand them. Its Darwin.
It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with training. My AmStaffs are obedient and kind. The have no problems with my 12 month old niece chasing them around the house and otherwise harassing them…because when I rescued them, I spent the time and energy to train them. Exactly like how one should be trained to handle a MSR.
Mina’s analogy is far from insane. It is logical to a T. French Poodles are bred to be hunting dogs and are mean as fvck btw. I would never own one. They scare me and my “pit bulls.”
I’ve seen pits that would like you death, other than drowning from spit, that’s the only real danger presented. When we raised sheep, our great Pyrenees would chase away anything that he didn’t approve of. I’m sure that liberals would call this a case of being power hungry and overly aggressive on his part but oh well. The only dog that I have seen that have been truly aggressive are chows. They were just mean. I have seen rotts that were very fun to play with, the same with Dobermans and German Shepherds. If you tie a beagle to a tree with a 3 foot rope, throw rocks at it for 6 months, and then cut it loose to roam the hood, its going to bite someone when its pushed into a corner. It wont have the equipment to do it as well as a pitbull but it will bite.
I could not agree more about Chows. An awful breed, indeed.
They’re sorta bizarro Malamutes.
I think the only dogs that will get serious ban consideration, will be armor-piercing dogs, and dogs that can bite more than 10 times before taking a breath.