Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:52:14 -0500, diddy <none> wrote:

[...]
>I'm in favor of cutting losses and quit protecting MAGNITUDE

Diddy, would you please be kind enough to translate that into English
for me?

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a
small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price
to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlZmY1NzBhMDk4NTU3ZGJhYTZjMDdjZ...MjFjZmQ

"Shooting Michael Moore," a new documentary. Yo! Judith! Payback's a bitch, eh?
http://www.shootingmichaelmoore.com/about/index.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

elegy wrote:

> <http://www.stopbsl.com/>


Thanks.
--Lia
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

On Jul 31, 11:52 am, diddy <none> wrote:
> Julia Altshuler <jaltshu....DeleteThis@comcast.net> spoke these words of wisdom innews:ZpCdnRZBIeVgzzLbnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've been spending more time on rec.food.cooking than here. Like
> every
> > usenet group, they get off topic. Most recently, they've started
> > talking about how all pitbulls are vicious and untrustable and how
> much
> > they like the idea of laws banning them altogether. They got on this
> > subject when someone's neighbors' dog did a topnotch job of cleaning a
> > rotisserie spit when it was left out after an outdoor campfire. I
> don't
> > want to get into arguing this subject over there, but I don't feel
> like
> > I can stay out of it either. Could someone direct me to a good,
> > succinct online source that sums up clearly why breed bans are a bad
> > idea, a source that might be read an understood by non-dog people?
> I'd
> > like to direct them to the page, then bow out.
>
> > --Lia
>
> the reason people protest breeds bans is because they fear the "topple
> theory" with each successive popular aggressive breed being banned until
> there are no more (which is PETA's agenda)
>
> The problem with that is, as long as all breeds close ranks behind the
> pitbull, people still feeling the need to protect themselves against
> the horror stories as another mangled child and pit bull get flashed
> across their evening tv screen at supper time. So instead, they demand
> broad sweeping very bad laws against ALL dogs/owners/breeders.
>
> The problem with pitbulls is there are many badly bred ones out there.
> With many bad owners, and when they do damage, they do it with
> catastrophic MAGNITUDE.
>
> Sure, Your cocker spaniel is more likely to bite than the pitbull, but
> the damage is less likely to be as severe.
>
> It's the MAGNITUDE that i have issues with, and having the fallout of
> the pitbull backlash being imposed on all the rest of the breeds that
> aren't even the problem.
>
> I'm in favor of cutting losses and quit protecting MAGNITUDE

Unless I'm mistaken, those opposed to BSL are also opposed to all
other forms of bad legislation governing dog ownership as well. I
know I am. The key is there is a correct way to solve the problems
with dog related injuries, and there is an incorrect way. BSL is a
wrong way, just as "Broad sweeping very bad laws against ALL dogs/
owners/breeders" are the wrong way.

Nick
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

"the.longest.username.available@gmail.com"
<the.longest.username.available.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spoke these words of wisdom
in news:1185911241.987346.261630@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>
> So because low lifes are attracted to powerful breeds, you are OK with
> banning them. When they can't get their kicks with pit bulls they
> will just work their way down the breed ladder of strength, they may
> reach a breed you care about quicker than you expect. You accuse
anti-
> BSL people of not fixing the problem, yet your solution just pushes
> the problem under the rug until the media take note of the next breed.
>
>

Perhaps if all power breeds were banned except... those with CGC, or TT,
(and microchipped to prove it) I doubt the thugs would bother.
Thus having one would be cause to stop and investigate. If you can prove
responsible dog ownership and good temperament, as well as training,
then there isn't an issue. It would make it easier to weed out the good
ones from the bad ones.

I still recall though, a person who had been on my want to buy a puppy
list for NINE years. When I contacted them and told them I was planning
a litter, they were excited. Home visits (in California) showed they had
several pit bulls. I opted to scratch them from consideration.

Of course there was protest. Her pit bulls were the gentelest sweetest,
most wonderful dogs evah. I didn't say that home was not suitable for
dogs, it just wasn't suitable for MY dog.

6 months later, this person, knowing the breeding hadn't happened yet,
contacted me, She had been out of contact, because her pit bulls for
some reason turned on her, one almost scalped her, and the other one ate
off her foot.

She's STILL in rehab. She said no more power breeds ever. Can she still
have a puppy.

I've seen the arguement over and over how MY pit bull would not ever...

Just as Kelly (culprit) prosetylized how fantastic pit bulls were for
years, and then last year, she was in trouble with the law with pit bull
aggression issues.


People like Kelly (culprit) who are so wreckless with their dogs just
because they want to blindly wish away any responsibility. I don't have
a problem with ELEGY having them. I feel her responsibility is real, and
knowing what she has is well grounded, and precautions are taken.


And then there are people like Paul who thinks power breeds won't do
things like that simply because he doesn't want them too is just plain
scary. There are many MANY people like that out there.


And then there are the people running around the streets with their big
bad dawgs, see you walking your dog, jump out, let their dog attack
yours, and jump in the car with their dog after it's thoroughly
whomped.. and drive off.
I DON'T have an answer. But it's got to stop.

Lets just ban the whole hip hop culture.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

"the.longest.username.available@gmail.com"
> the problem under the rug until the media take note of the next breed.
>
>

Lets see.. Outlaw media coverage of dog fighting and dog attacks? will that
make the problem go away?


If just one child is mauled, ask that mother if it's ok, because the dog is
friendly, it just had a bad owner.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

"the.longest.username.available@gmail.com"


> Unless I'm mistaken, those opposed to BSL are also opposed to all
> other forms of bad legislation governing dog ownership as well. I
> know I am. The key is there is a correct way to solve the problems
> with dog related injuries, and there is an incorrect way. BSL is a
> wrong way, just as "Broad sweeping very bad laws against ALL dogs/
> owners/breeders" are the wrong way.
>
> Nick
>
>

I agree, but Pit bull owners try to enlist ALL dog owners to protect
their breed riddled with misdeeds by their owners and breeders. In doing
so, they offer no way to reason and police the guilty and problem
makers, they simply appeal in many ways trying to save their breed, yet
offer NO way to protect the public from the evil doers.

since they have successfully pooled the cavalry, but still have not
solved the reason why people are still upset, the people upset
understand racial discrimination is not a cool thing. So they enact laws
against dogs in general because NO ONE has come up with a way to stop
pitbull maulings of people and other dogs.

If Pit Bull people would do something more proactive to stop these
things, it would be easier to support anti-pit bull measures.

By supporting pit bulls, we are selling out our own breeds.
But what people are doing is saying the Pit bull is REALLY nice. DON'T
touch them, while the evening news nightly provides a preponderous
evidence that the problem still continues.


If we defend the pitbull, we lose ground on the slippery slope of
credibility.

Put Bull people need to police their own breed, get pitbulls that are
dangerous off the streets, out of the hands of people who are causing
the problems and help the police shut down dog fighting rings. Only
then, once the pitbull people have accomplished this (after all, they
want no laws against pitbulls-so they need to do this themselves) can
the public feel safe.
I think protecting pitbulls endangers every other breed.

I am not opposed to banning Mossoler breeds simply because of the
magnitude of damage they are capable of and the types of people
attracted to them and I don't see any progress being done to stop any of
it.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

elegy <elegy RemoveThis @DOGPOOPshattering.org> spoke these words of wisdom in
news:tb9va3l1juknqo52210hvi8b1r1etga0gp@4ax.com:

>
> can't we just ban stupidity?
>
>
>

Well they make a whole lot of other silly unenforceable laws.. why not?
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:20:35 -0500, diddy <none> wrote:

>"the.longest.username.available@gmail.com"

>> Unless I'm mistaken, those opposed to BSL are also opposed to all
>> other forms of bad legislation governing dog ownership as well. I
>> know I am. The key is there is a correct way to solve the problems
>> with dog related injuries, and there is an incorrect way. BSL is a
>> wrong way, just as "Broad sweeping very bad laws against ALL dogs/
>> owners/breeders" are the wrong way.
>>
>> Nick

>I agree, but Pit bull owners try to enlist ALL dog owners to protect
>their breed riddled with misdeeds by their owners and breeders.

Define misdeeds.

>In doing
>so, they offer no way to reason and police the guilty and problem
>makers, they simply appeal in many ways trying to save their breed, yet
>offer NO way to protect the public from the evil doers.

Life is a dangerous affair. For example, thousands of children die
each year from drowning, mostly in swimming pools. Thousands more are
crippled for life, or suffer brain damage.

There's no way to fully protect the public from DANGER.

I have no idea as to whom or what you're referring to when you use the
term "evil doers."

If it's the people who irresponsibly own or breed pit bulls, why would
you expect them to help out here???

>since they have successfully pooled the cavalry, but still have not
>solved the reason why people are still upset, the people upset
>understand racial discrimination is not a cool thing.

Neither have gun owners. How do you feel about that?

>So they enact laws
>against dogs in general because NO ONE has come up with a way to stop
>pitbull maulings of people and other dogs.

Yes, the typical knee-jerk reaction to any perceived "problem" is to
pass more laws, especially members of the "reality-based community."

>If Pit Bull people would do something more proactive to stop these
>things, it would be easier to support anti-pit bull measures.

A lot of pit bull people are their breed's worst enemy. So why would
you expect them to cooperate in their own demise?

>By supporting pit bulls, we are selling out our own breeds.

No, we're not. We're standing up for the dogs themselves. The dog
isn't the problem. Their owners and breeders are.

Just like guns aren't the problem; their irresponsible and criminal
*owners* are.

The irresponsible and/or criminal owners/breeders of pit bulls should
be punished, not the responsible and law-abiding pit bull owners.

Why would you want to punish, say, Elegy, along with Michael Vick?

>But what people are doing is saying the Pit bull is REALLY nice.

But they *are* really nice, when bred properly, and handled properly.

Why would you even say something like that?

>DON'T
>touch them, while the evening news nightly provides a preponderous
>evidence that the problem still continues.

About 12 people a year die from dog bites. *12.*

Well over *1000* children alone die each year from drowning.

And about 4 youths (17 and under) die each *day* due to firearms.

As a gun owner, can't you see how hollow your argument sounds to
responsible pit bull owners?

You're lost your perspective, Diddy.

>If we defend the pitbull, we lose ground on the slippery slope of
>credibility.

I won't try to speak for anyone else, but *I* defend the pit bull
because their dogs. Period. And magnificent ones, to boot.

>Put Bull people need to police their own breed, get pitbulls that are
>dangerous off the streets, out of the hands of people who are causing
>the problems and help the police shut down dog fighting rings.

Then why not call for just that, instead of a ban on the breed?

I have no problem getting in the face of an irresponsible pit bull
owner/breeder, and neither should you.

>Only
>then, once the pitbull people have accomplished this (after all, they
>want no laws against pitbulls-so they need to do this themselves) can
>the public feel safe.

Pit bull people can't do this all by themselves, because a lot of the
pit bull people themselves are the *problem,* not the solution.

That is, heavily punish DOG owners, not BREEDS, for any injuries or
loss of life caused by their DOGS. Precisely like you would punish
them if those injuries were caused by those same owners' guns.

>I think protecting pitbulls endangers every other breed.

And I think that not protecting DOGS from HUMANS endangers us all.

>I am not opposed to banning Mossoler breeds simply because of the
>magnitude of damage they are capable of and the types of people
>attracted to them and I don't see any progress being done to stop any of
>it.

Yeah, I hear you.

But you're wrong.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Good news about Iraq is apparently a "problem" for Democrats. <spit>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007...001380.

"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a
small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price
to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlZmY1NzBhMDk4NTU3ZGJhYTZjMDdjZ...MjFjZmQ

"Shooting Michael Moore," a new documentary. Yo! Judith! Payback's a bitch, eh?
http://www.shootingmichaelmoore.com/about/index.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:18:10 -0500, diddy <none> wrote:

[...]
>If just one child is mauled, ask that mother if it's ok, because the dog is
>friendly, it just had a bad owner.

If just one child is accidentally shot by her neighbor (while the
neighbor, say, is outside shooting at cats, like you admit to doing),
ask that girl's mother if it's okay. Heck, it was just an accident.

Your "logic" is indeed fascinating, Diddy, if not truly bizarre.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Good news about Iraq is apparently a "problem" for Democrats. <spit>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007...001380.

"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a
small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price
to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlZmY1NzBhMDk4NTU3ZGJhYTZjMDdjZ...MjFjZmQ

"Shooting Michael Moore," a new documentary. Yo! Judith! Payback's a bitch, eh?
http://www.shootingmichaelmoore.com/about/index.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:16:33 -0500, diddy <none> wrote:

[...]
>Perhaps if all power breeds were banned except...
[...]

Define "power breeds."

Rottweilers? Dobermans? German Shepherds? St. Bernards?
Newfoundland's? Swiss Mountain Dogs? American Bulldogs?

Which?

Make sure to list *all* breeds that would qualify for special
consideration in Diddy World.

[...]
>I've seen the arguement over and over how MY pit bull would not ever...

I've seen that said about just about any breed, even Labs.

>Just as Kelly (culprit) prosetylized how fantastic pit bulls were for
>years, and then last year, she was in trouble with the law with pit bull
>aggression issues.

Kelly was an accident waiting to happen.

>People like Kelly (culprit) who are so wreckless with their dogs just
>because they want to blindly wish away any responsibility. I don't have
>a problem with ELEGY having them.

So, you want all pit bull owners to do what? Visit Her Royal
Highness, in her Royal Hideaway in Ohio, and, say kiss your ring,
before they can have permission to own one?

Geez.

>And then there are people like Paul who thinks power breeds won't do
>things like that simply because he doesn't want them too is just plain
>scary. There are many MANY people like that out there.

And then there are people who shoot any cat that dares to set foot on
a certain Queen's royal property, eh?

>And then there are the people running around the streets with their big
>bad dawgs, see you walking your dog, jump out, let their dog attack
>yours,

Isn't this the point where you pull your gun and shoot them dead?

>Lets just ban the whole hip hop culture.

Hey, let's just ban blacks, too, while we're at it!

Right after we ban cat killers, eh?

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Good news about Iraq is apparently a "problem" for Democrats. <spit>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007...001380.

"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a
small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price
to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlZmY1NzBhMDk4NTU3ZGJhYTZjMDdjZ...MjFjZmQ

"Shooting Michael Moore," a new documentary. Yo! Judith! Payback's a bitch, eh?
http://www.shootingmichaelmoore.com/about/index.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need a webpage on pitbulls & breed bans