Pit bull ban a step closer
 

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com...601240309/1002

...so what exactly is the point in this? call me stupid but i just dont get it. not all pitbulls are vicious killing machines either.

^thats exctly what I was gunna say...

Poor pitbulls :[ they are so cute when they sleep :]

At least when they're asleep they can't rip your face off I suppose.

Just spreading the news...

Haha cute? They're ugly as Fuck.

The only dogs uglier then them are shaved poodles and those scrawny midget bastards that Paris waltses around with.

A pitbull is a beast. But it depends on the trainer, some of them are amazingly friendly while the ones who are brought up carelessly do tend to portray it's violent nature.

thats a pretty unfair generealization of pitbulls as i & im guessing madeinny have one. my dog is half pitbull & is probably the most gentle one ive ever seen or come into contast with.

I don't. but my relatives had...They are really nice, the ones I've met.

Half pitbull isn't the same deal. I have a cross-alsatian that's incredibly docile and not Alsatian like at all.

Pitbulls are vicious little buggers, and really not safe to be family pets.

Pitt bulls are what they're brought up to be. If they're voilent it's the failing of the carer, not the dog.

I`d rather ban their burberry wearing chav owners myself

i agree. everybody seems to have this notion that ALL pitbulls are mean & vicious. it really all depends on how they were trained. & even if my dog is only HALF pitbull, that still doesnt excuse him from having pitbull behavior. & when he does start to show that side of him we all put an end to it right quick. therefore, he is a gentle animal. there will be no malling of any kind of his part. hell more than likley lick you to death than tear your face off. & im not just being biased because i have a half pitbull. my neighboors have two of his siblings & they are also very friendly.

^It is their bloodline to be vicious. They are historically fighting dogs. But totally, it is fully on the owners shoulders as to how a pitbull turns out to be.

"It's never the tools fault, it's the person using them"

They eat children. Over here a pitbull attacked a child! But luckily a wee terrior came to the rescue and bit at the pitbulls legs so the kid could escape! Weeee...

we already have a ban here, anyone who currently owns one has to get it registered and take out a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy, they cannot be bred, they cannot be walked in public without being muzzled. I do not think this is unreasonable

What's next, a ban on children because a small percentage of them bite people?

@ Mereblood

Not exactly, pit bulls actually have mauled and killed many children. I know of a case in Houston a few years back where a pit bull ate the stomach out of a child in front of its mother. Even so your remark does not even come close to making a realistic comparison between the 2.

In general I somewhat agree with this law. I think their should be an appeals process, but realistically these dogs are not meant for household pets. I am sure that you can raise a perfectly good pit bull, just like you COULD raise a perfectly good lion.... only thing is sometimes they freak. I know that we as Americans love the idea that we can pick whatever flavor we want, but seriously people have died because you want a 'cute pit bull'; instead pick some other kind of dog to fill the void in your life ;) (i really love animals dont get the wrong idea)

The pick up truck didnt maul and kill children, the person behind the wheel did.

You absolutely can put a 'blanket ban' if it is something unnecessarily infringing on someone else's rights. Thats the reason its a problem. Kinda like how the FDA banned jalapeños after less than .01% of the US population got salmonella... it was technically once in a blue moon, but it was something that was preventable and not a necessity. Thats how the legislation process works, its not like people are just going around banning things to piss people off. If it wasn't a problem that needed to be addressed people wouldn't go through the litigation.

I don't know where you live, but I don't know to many old people walking on the street scared that youngsters are gonna mug them. You live in Compton or something?

I say the answer isn't to ban pit bulls but to require a breeder's license for them if anything.

because you know your wrong? whether you agree with it or not, it makes complete sense why people would want to ban them. it is totally justified, as mentioned before it has already been done in some places. because you obviously disagree you just compare it to something completly unrelated and pointless, pit bulls eating children to trucks (wtf?). once you realized how stupid your comparison was you try to save grace by saying "well you cant just make a ban on something because it only happens sometimes" . then i provided you with an exact example of such a case and 'your not gonna waste your time'. sounds like your just unwilling to accept the fact that you were WRONG.

wearing seat belts only saves someones life once in a blue moon, guess what.... they made it a law!

Humans kill people sometimes and its their nature to kill things. In fact a large part of the human race's survival has come from enslaving and slaughtering other animals for meat. I think we should ban all human beings!

You know you're bitching about him making bad comparisons...but you're been comparing jalapenos and seatbelts to pitbulls.

I totally agree, I am a vegetarian so I will be OK... tough luck for the rest of you.

No I am not. I am justifying that banning something because it only affects a small number of people is justified if it is unnecessary and preventable. He was comparing how we should ban trucks because they kill people. We NEED trucks to further advance the human race, and the truck has nothing to do with killing the children... the driver does. Pit Bulls serve no real purpose other than companionship or protection, and that could be replaced by another dog.

Another dog that fills the same role would be violent. Dogs that protect don't do it by blowing a panic whistle at the intruder.

Actually many dogs just bark and growl, or they just bite and dont bite to kill. There is a reason this says "VICIOUS animals" and includes pit bulls.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study concerning deaths from canine attacks in 2000. [34] According to the study, between 1979 and 1998, one-third of all fatal dog attacks were caused by Pit Bull type dogs. The highest number of attacks (118) were by Pit Bull type dogs, the next highest being Rottweilers at 67.

You are really beating this to death.

Yeah, and that reason is misconception. It would be like an article saying Mexicans are more prone to doing gang related crimes. It doesn't mean we should ban Mexicans, it means we should put them in jail for impeding the rights of others. Likewise, we shouldn't ban pit bulls, we should create a situation in which they can exist without impeding the rights of others. My solution from earlier still sounds reasonable. Pitbll breeder's licenses would ensure that those who are fit to raise a pitbull can still do so peacefully and those who don't want to or are incapable of it won't or can't. However, if someone wants a pitbull on their property that is quite frankly none of your business unless you don't want to be around it in which case don't go where pitbulls will be. Though I still think thats an overblown course of action and the law should be left as is.

Did this take into consideration who raised them, how they were raised, and how other dogs were raised? I think if the research were deeper than you'd see that nurturing has far more to do with behavior than nature does. Not that nature wouldn't be a factor, but that they could be bred to not be killers.

Also, you don't have much room talking about having things banned considering you'd ban humans. You do realize we humans own the country, not you vegetables, right?

I wasnt being serious, im not even a vegetarian (although i did do a 6 month stint). It was a JOKE... although YOU did suggest it.

What the study did show was that pit bulls, whether properly trained or not, in general have a history of higher rates of fatal attacks. This was not some poor study, the CDC is one of the largest and most comprehensive research groups to date. This shows that it is NOT a misconception, that these dogs by nature are OBVIOUSLY more dangerous or vicious. PERIOD.

Seriously though, quit trying to throw in stupid **** suggesting that banning mexicans, humans, or trucks is the same as banning a certain breed of violent dogs. I actually agree with you the breeders licenses would possibly be a reasonable way to deal with the situation; instead of discussing this I end up having to waste my time explaining to you that banning mexicans is not the same as banning a certain bread of dog. Its starting to look hopeless... I got faith in you though, you seem bright enough.

How is it different? They're both violent breeds of living things.

Hispanics are not a 'violent breed of living things', certainly not comparable to pit bulls. I don't even really think this conversation needs to go any further, if you cant see the difference I pity you. I think I will do you a favor and stop now. Have a good evening.

because you know your wrong? whether you agree with it or not, it makes complete sense why people would want to ban them. it is totally justified, as mentioned before it has already been done in some places. because you obviously disagree you just compare it to something completly unrelated and pointless, Mexicans eating children to trucks (wtf?). once you realized how stupid your comparison was you try to save grace by saying "Seriously though, quit trying to throw in stupid **** suggesting that banning mexicans, humans, or trucks is the same as banning a certain breed of violent dogs. " . then i provided you with an exact example of such a case and 'I think I will do you a favor and stop now.'. sounds like your just unwilling to accept the fact that you were WRONG.

wearing seat belts only saves someones life once in a blue moon, guess what.... they made it a law!

I will continue to banter with you, since you seem to actually go about it in a reasonable manner.

Okay let me explain this very simply put. You cannot compare peanuts to pit bulls. I know what you’re doing and it’s very clever, it’s called shock value. You want to take something very benign and silly and say "well we might as well just ban [insert absurd object here] if we are going to ban pit bulls because they harm people too". If it was only the owner of the pit bull that was getting attacked/killed and taking the risk, it would be comparable. Unfortunately for your arguments sake eating a peanut isn’t going to make some innocent child across the street choke. Once again you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Now your comment about the seatbelts, I agree that it is a personal freedom and at first glance I would agree that it is a silly unjust law. However, the reason that law is in place isn’t because you’re not allowed to risk your own life; it is a lot more complicated than that. Consider the idea that you were in a car wreck while not wearing a seatbelt and your bleeding to death. You are taken to the hospital but you don’t have insurance. Now are they supposed to say "sorry bud" and watch you die? Obviously this isn’t going to happen. So what ends up happening is other people end up paying for some dumb ass not wearing a seatbelt. They saw an easy way to reduce the cost to hospitals and generate money for the local economy so they created a law. \

As far as the drugs go, we could start a whole new thread about this. I think most of the drugs that are illegal should stay that way, with the exception of a few. Let me explain my opinion.

One of the main problems with drug scheduling is the way in which drugs were scheduled in the first place. Many of them were put into place to target certain minorities, this alone is a crime. Once the laws are in place, no politician has the balls to question their authority; who dare go against drug laws without being ostracized (thanks Barney Frank, Ron Paul, and all you other REAL politicians who represent the PEOPLE). Even when they want to, alcohol lobbyists spend assloads of money to make sure it doesn’t happen. I know your thinking “but people who smoke weed drink too”. That may be true, but what else is true is that people who smoke weed drink in much smaller quantities and in fewer occasions.

Another big problem is our mindset about drugs. In case you didn’t know, alcohol and tobacco are drugs. So the next time you see a anti drug commercial come on and tell you about the dangers off pot, followed by a commercial for “THIS BUDS FOR YOU!” recognize the hypocrisy. In fact it is not even an arguable matter; it is widely accepted that marijuana, ecstasy, LSD-25, and magic mushrooms are ALL less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. Don’t believe me? How about the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology (Recreational Drugs and their level of harm), do you believe them?

So our great American “war on drugs” (and we here in America LOVE war) has resulted in 20% of the total prison inmates, just a mere half million people (50% for marijuana alone). Well done! It only cost the country billions of dollars a year to put them there, and billions of dollars more to keep them there. Instead of spending money on unjust laws, we could save ourselves billion of dollars by taxing drugs such as marijuana. Now I know that seems strange, but think of it as something like I don’t know… say alcohol or tobacco. That way instead of yearly giving money to say Mexico, Canada, and US crime syndicates, we would be MAKING money. I have done a reasonably thorough estimate on the exact number solely based on marijuana a few months ago, and came up with a $15 billion dollar flip flop with a margin of error at about 15-25% either way. That means instead of our country losing approximately $10 billion dollars, we could generate $5 billion.

Besides all that, mandatory minimum sentences do nothing other than over crowd already crowded prisons. All it achieves is taking a non violent and often otherwise law abiding citizens and turn them into criminals. Instead of dealing with the problem (drug addiction) you let them rot in jail for a while and give them a criminal record making them practically unemployable to anyone. So what do they do, take a job at McDonalds for the rest of their life and live in poverty? No they do the only option left on the table… illegal crime.

One might even go as far as to say the war on drugs “Is about as effective as solving an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum” (song reference… see even my rants contain musical connotations).

EDIT - I forgot to mention, the United States has higher drug use rates than the Netherlands where many drugs are legal (ie marijuana) Drug Use by Country - Featured Image on BuzzFeed

I explained that I think MANY drugs should remain illegal. Most of my arguments were referring to why they should be viewed differently. I do think that marijuana should be made legal, and I think that LSD-25, MDMA (ecstasy), and Psilocybin mushrooms should be allowed to be used in clinical situations and as medicine (decriminalize them not make them legal). These drugs need more research before we go off and make them over the counter however. Unfortunately the big bad DEA which has **** for brains declares them of no medical value... even though they clearly have shown benefits. MDMA is a powerful drug that has shown positive feedback on testing for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Anxiety among other things. Psilocybin mushrooms have been incredibly valuable in treating people with cluster headaches, something that some women have described as more painful than childbirth. LSD-25 has shown properties that help treat addiction to alcohol and tobacco among a whole array of unknowns. Personally it changed my life and who I am today. It made me a happier and more positive person. I can honestly say I am a better person for having experienced it. However, if not taken properly it can be dangerous. This is why I think these should be decriminalized, not made legal. Marijuana though? Give me a ****ing break.

How? He's comparing object with Property A to another object with Property A. Peanuts, if misused, can be deadly. Pit bulls, if misused are harmful. A misuse of a peanut would be to put it a food and serve it to someone with allergies. A misuse of a pit bull would be to train it to bite non-intrusive people. In both case when a certain circumstance is met it becomes deadly. However, if you insist that this isn't applicable because a pit bull is capable of thought and is a living thing (we'll call these B and C) and peanuts are not than we should also look at something with both properties B and C. I'll bring forth to you humans, again. Human beings when misused have properties A, and inherently have properties B and C. If these 3 things in conjunction with each other are what makes something worthy of banning than humans meet all criteria requisite to be banned. If we assume humans are exempt than how about pet snakes? Snakes have properties A, B, and C. Should we ban pet snakes? How about dogs in general? All dogs are capable of A under the right (er... wrong?) circumstances, and also have properties B and C inherently. Again, if A, B, and C in conjunction with each other is what meets criteria for ban than by your logic all dogs should be banned.

If this is not the case than why are they being banned?

Wtf?

there's way too many arguments about why the pitbulls shouldn't be ended. but none of them are being listened to, because the people who want to end the pitbulls really don't give a rat's ass. they just want to kill some dogs, what can we do about it? the obvious solution is for everyone in the world to grab a machine gun and shoot everything. because seriously why not? what could possibly be more fun than everyone getting a machine gun and shooting everything? PINBALL?!?!?! **** you, start shooting.