The felon thing seems like a dumb idea. Like, 90% of the attacks ITT seem to involve people with no criminal record.

That's not really the point. Criminalizing an activity is a way to disincentivize that activity - it really doesn't matter whether the person doing the activity has a criminal record.

Would you decriminalize murder if you found out that 90% of murderers have no criminal record?

You're not criminalizing an activity, though. We're talking about not allowing felons to own a pitbull, not making pitbull owners felons.

I don't know what exact result it will have, but that's the point. It seems to me that freedom is the correct default rule, along with rules that attempt to allocate responsibility for bad acts to those who cause the same. That seems to me to be the best way to reduce the extent to which those occur.

But yes, my theory here assumes rationality. That is indeed a questionable assumption, but I've never heard an adequate answer to the counter: "who gets to decide who is rational?"

Okay, I didn't know you were Chump Change, I'll go back and look for your other posts. I've read all the recent posts itt, and skimmed most of the rest, but may have missed or forgotten things from years ago. It may take me some time to do so though, as it's a lengthy thread, so if there's anything you want to link to, or just give cliff notes on for now, please do so. I'm going to continue to respond to current conversation in the meantime, and will reply on previous stuff when I get to it.

My understanding of your position now is that you seem to be for (1), perhaps against (2), and I'm not sure if you've currently addressed (3) or (4). Is that right?

I used dogsbite because they were one of the first Google links, and they appeared to have citations and legal references. I haven't vetted the site myself, so I didn't use their statistics or refer to them authoritatively. I merely referenced them as "a site that advocates for victims and against pit bull ownership," which seems accurate, and as such, quoted their rationale for (2).

If you want to link to your discreditation or provide cliff notes, please do so, or I will look for it when I get a chance. Even if they are not reputable though, there does appear to be a reasonable rationale for (2), which is also why it is included in many state laws even where owning lions/tigers/etc is legal, or where felons are prohibited from gun ownership. That is a separate debate regardless of dogsbite, to which I have not yet seen a good argument on why it is a huge loss of civil liberty for felons to be prohibited from pit bull ownership when they can own 99%+ of types of dogs.

Cool, so we agree then that pit bulls are inherently more vicious. What is the "something separate" that you are referring to, is it that you were also talking about whether pit bulls are more likely to attack other dogs? If so, isn't that something that even pit bull advocates admit to, and try to say that they are not more likely to be human aggressive even though they are more dog aggressive?

And what is so insane about this thread? (besides one dude not knowing about pit bull species status)

We are? My bad, I thought we were talking about making pitbull owners felons if their dogs attack.

Are those that want pitbulls banned willing to be part of the roving pitbull murder bands going city to city extinguishing this threat. Not trolling, mean it as the Ned Stark question. It just seems like it would be a lot of dog murder at the end of the day.

Still against felon ownership. Any restraint on liberty, however minor (in your eyes) is still a loss of freedoms. Would rather no one be allowed pitbulls than felons banned. (I'm backing off this, I'm not like the living embodiment of the ACLU or anything).

Also, I stayed away from this thread for a long time because I have a pit mix that is a good, decent dog and I thought it would make me too mad. I do wonder where you stand on mixes, though? Is this like a "one drop" philosophy or what?

I had my dog DNA tested and she's basically 1/2 boxer, 1/2 American staffordshire terrier. The AST bloodline is pure, the boxer is not.

Actually both have been discussed (no felon ownership and manslaughter if your dog kills someone) so you are not wrong.

I feel dumb, but can't figure it out: What is a GSD, HT?

Thread title:

There are more ways than wholesale slaughter to keep dogs from breeding.

I get thread title, but we have been discussing bans more recently. A ban would require someone to turn in the animal (or move) or the state to take it. Not sure how else it could be implemented.

Ah, sorry: German Shepherd Dog. Cognoscenti call them that. I think it's mildly silly and pompous and I use it in a self-mocking way.

I was going to ask who the 'cognoscenti' are, but I just Googled that one. Sure beats the Sesame Street word of the day: brainstorm.

This person's pitbull attacked two people, but they are great around kids! And now they started a petition to try to keep it around so it can attack more people.

LOL

The comments are even worse. Yikes.

That lady is a literal excuse machine and is everything that is wrong with pit owners in general. Just a complete dip****.

Couldn't imagine having a pit tool like this living anywhere near me, it would suck so bad.
Athol, indeed.

I wonder if I can start to petition to kill Lillie.

7 y.o. MA boy torn apart and mauled to death by brother and sister ESA pitbulls.

Lol ESA pitbulls. They apparently were in a fenced in yard all day every day and barked at every single thing that walked/drove by.

27o is an anti-pitbull racist, so he isn't telling the full story of how that kid totally provoked the attack:

*woofist

How many stories are there of Labs and Retrievers getting teased and then killing a kid?

It's good to see the pitbull crowd latching on to the ESA trend. Looking forward to sitting next to one on my next flight and maybe they will gobble up some of the annoying children.

I got nothing to add but this picture made me laugh and reminded me of this thread:

11 year old playing in driveway was attacked in New Haven. Luckily a Good Samaritan was there to pry the dog off before it killed the kid. Victim blaming is a popular post on some of the local news stations social media pages.


http://www.wfsb.com/story/36816294/p...l-in-new-haven

http://ktla.com/2017/12/15/woman-mau...em-for-a-walk/

Just can't help some people.

amazing

They could find pieces of her in the dogs stomach and they would still not blame the dogs.