Quote:
Originally Posted by livinitup0
isnt this pretty much like saying an assault rifle is more dangerous than a .22 handgun? No **** sherlock.
Banning them is lol
special license...whatever...but imo if you're going to do this then just make it for dogs of a certain weight and higher have to be registered, mandatory innoculations, have to fill out an application, take a class whatever... you could even treat them like guns and prevent violent felons or something from being able to own them...however limiting this to pitbulls is just media-driven paranoia.
however your biggest problem here however is enforcement. Without some really intrusive inspection process I dont see how this would work. Seems like it would just create a new black market opportunity.
It's more like saying a real gun is more dangerous than a bb gun.
When something has the potential to cause severe and irreparable harm, there's a requirement for due diligence on the part of the person who takes on the responsibility of owning it.
And it isnt enough to just hold the owner responsible once that **** goes down, because often they won't be able to compensate the victims adequately and the litigation process ends up being such an enormous cost that it's barely even worth pursuing.
For the same reason why car insurance is mandatory, it's not unreasonable to make it mandatory to insure any dog that is physically capable of ****ing people up severely. The chances of having a fatal car accident are remote.. .and the chances of a pitbull (or any other large and aggressive dog) is generally speaking remote... but you cant just absolve yourself of responsibility because you have the general belief that you're a 'good owner'.
That doesnt mean you're going to be paying through the teeth to insure your dog. It will be proportional to whatever the actual risks / potential damages are.
And the cost of that will go down based on how well trained it is / how it performs at a state sponsored evaluation.
Much like it's illegal to drive without auto insurance, it should be illegal (and heavily fined) to own a potentially dangerous dog without insurance.
Can you always enforce it? no.
There will be people who slip by, and keep their dog out of sight.
But if they are caught, it should carry heavy fines - just as driving without insurance does.
And if their dog does snap, and they never bothered to register/insure/train it formally - then they should be held criminally responsible for negligence.
And it doesnt matter how many animal advocacy groups are against that; they're not the ultimate arbiters of what is right with animal laws - just as I wouldnt trust the NRA to decide on an effective gun law. it's a public policy decision, and it's something more suited for an economist to evaluate than a veterinary organization.
Last edited by Abbaddabba; 01-23-2010 at 08:08 PM.