Gun Bans and Breed (dog) specific legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

captain54

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
52
O.k. Let me start by saying that maybe this doesn't go here, but I do not know where else to rant about this one.

Did anyone ever take notice of the similarities between gun bans and breed specific legislation aimed at outlawing a certain dog based soley on their specific bread?

In Reading PA, they are pushing hard to enact new gun laws such as the one gun a month and they want to be able to enact their own laws different from the state. Recently they have had a rash of Pit Bull attacks and now want to enact an ordinace that all Pitt bulls must be muzzled in public and be on a leash when outside of the home-even if the dog is on its own property.

The reason I post this here is because I see the same arguements being made and none of them address the person that possesses the gun or the dog. Granted there are some dogs out there that will attack, uprovoked vs. a gun that will never fire if someone doesn't pull the trigger, but usually from what I have seen, and I have a lot of experience with dogs, is that a dog that attacks can be traced to a lousy owner/trainer but yet the owners don't get blamed, the dog does.

I own German Shepherd. German Shepherds in some places fall under the breed specific legislation. I guess maybe that is why I notices this and compare the two.

I am just curious as to what others think about the similarities. Maybe others don't see any. Your thoughts?
 
One difference between guns and dogs, is that guns are inanimate objects with no minds of their own. Guns have not been bred to fight or attack, they just do what the person holding them directs.

Dogs on the other hand do have minds and it is not always predictable what they may do. Some have been bred to attack or have a strong instinct to protect.

I do not see a connection, and I am one who does support legislation to limit or prohibit certain breeds under certain conditions and places.
Like parents who always claim that their child is a good boy and would not hurt anyone, dog owners have a tendency to do the same.

I am not aware of a gun that was not in someone's possession shooting someone, but I have read of many instances of dogs attacking and even killing people without much or any provocation.

Regards,
Jerry
 
Poodles tend to bite more often than pit bulls.

The thing with put bulls is, if you treat and train them right they are, for the most part, very gentle dogs. However, due to the bad rep they've gotten from the general public, the people who tend NOT to treat and train their dogs right, i.e. dog fighters, thugs, etc, tend to gravitate towards them.

In that case as well as with firearms, it really is the owner who is the determining factor, and not the dog/firearm. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Also, here's a new saying for you; Pit bulls aren't naturally violent, people train pit bulls to be violent.
 
I think the relevant parallel here is that of public perception vs reality.

The public fears EBRs, because they've been taught to. The gun they're actually most likely to have pointed at them, however, is an old S&W .38.

The other thing is that the unfashionable dog changes every 10-15 years. Set the wayback machine...in the 90's it was Rotties & Pit Bulls, in the 80's it was Dobermans, before that it was German Shepherds....
 
PDOWG881-that is kind of what i getting at-the dog gets trained/conditioned to fight or attack without the owner present. But the dog was TRAINED for that. It is still an owner issue. Pit Bulls are not inherently dangerous. As a matter of fact, Pit Bulls used to be known for how gentle they were with kids. People made them this way. Again, this is just my opinion and my experiences. I do not support any bans based on a breed just as I don't support a ban on a gun just because of its looks.
 
As someone with a very friendly pit bull I see an absolute parallel between EBRs and certain dog breeds.

People like JerryM, who have no idea what they're talking about, think they do, and they want to make laws forcing people to kill perfectly friendly family dogs, as in Denver.

Same goes for EBRs. People who know nothing about guns get all emotional about military lookalike guns and want to make laws to make criminals out of target shooters and to disarm law-abiding citizens.
 
captain, i totally agree with you. I'm just making a point that even thoug the owner may have conditioned the dog to be agressive, the owner doesn't directly tell the dog to attack at a certain point in time, as opposed to a gun, which requires the act of pulling the trigger. The person must be present and act on the gun to make it work. The owner doesn't have to be present to tell a dog to be agressive and attack.

The dog makes the ultimate choice, it is not an inanimate object like a gun. The individual dog itself should be dealt with. Not the breed. I never made any mention of a dangerous breed. I said "a dog". I just think it's important to stress that I am speaking about the individual dog, not the breed of that dog.
 
But it is the end result that is pertinent.
It matters little whether the owner or the breed is at fault. When a child, or adult, is mauled or killed it is of little comfort to the family what the root cause was.

I was stationed in Alaska some years ago, and there were several instances of a husky or malemute mauling a child within the family. They are not bred to fight.

On the other hand I never heard of a collie, English setter, or lab attacking a person unprovoked. I remain convinced that certain breeds have a much greater tendency to attack people than many other breeds. In addition, those breeds have the capability to seriously injure or kill an adult human.

If one is determined not to accept that reasoning and evidence, then what more can be said. But there is no correlation between banning dogs and guns.

Regards,
Jerry
 
JerryM-I do have to disagree with you on this. If it is the end result that matters, that arguement could be used to say all guns should be banned. It is of little consequence that the original owner purchased it legally, it is the end result that matters and the end result is that a criminal stole the gun and used it to kill someone's relative. The relative won't care if someone bought it legally, the end result is it ended up in a crimianls hand and if the original owner would not have been able to buy it, their relative would still be alive. That is how I interpret your reasoning. I may be wrong and please further explain if I am. I posted this here to get debate and opinons.

Again, my main point is that to ban anything, dog or gun, based on a perceived characterstic without taking into fact the whole picture is just wrong in my eyes.
 
I definitely see a couple parallels here:

Scary = Bad

Dogs and Guns are innocent things, they are what their owner does with them.
 
pdowg881-ok, I see what you are saying. the breed as a whole should not be blamed for the bad actions of one individual. My point exactly. Gun owners should not have to put up with BS laws becasue some idiot gets an illegal gun and shoots someone. Everyone see the similarities?
 
Hi Captain,
No, there are a lot of differences between the two. If a gun is stolen and ends up in the wrong hands it is still an inanimate object under the control of the user. A dog acts on his own, and especially in a pack of one or more other dogs can, and have been known to, attack without provocation.

Dogs act on their own, and guns do not. Owners are usually convinced that their dogs will not do such, but I have read of the dogs of those breeds killing or mauling a child of the owner. It is too late then.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. You asked for thoughts and those are mine. Guess we'll just disagree and go on to the another topic.:D

Regards,
Jerry
 
JerryM-I do agree that dogs have been known to attack without provocation. I also agree that a gun is an inanimate object. That being said, again, my opinion based on my experiences and observations is that in a majority of the dog attack cases, the owners have some involvement as to how the dogs were raised and treated that would lend the dog to more aggressive behaviors. My thing is that someone should not tell me I can't own a pit bull, or in my case a German Shepherd because they as a breed have a history of biting. But that is o.k. that we see this different. This is the king of discussion that I look for to educate myself on other views of subjects. On a seperate note to this subject, I do know of instances were a lab attacked/bit someone unprovoked. Tomorrow, provided I have the time on break at work, I will look up the articles and post links to them. And yes, there are fewer documented cases with labs then with Pit Bulls, but it can happen to any dog breed. As a matter of fact, one year in the 1990s, I believe, cocker spaniels had the highest rates of bites on children.
 
The owner doesn't have to be present to tell a dog to be agressive and attack.
Click to expand...
But just like a gun it is the owner's responsibility to make the dog safe from negligent discharge

If you own a large dog you must at all times make sure that that dog cannot harm a person or pet, just as you do when carrying your gun

If you act irresponsibly with your gun you should be punished just as you should be with a dog

Responsibly carrying or owning a gun requires that it is under your control at all times, just like a dog

If a gun is stolen it is certainly not your fault if it is abused and used for bad purposes, just as with a dog

Most vicious dog attack I ever endured was from a Cocker Spaniel, and I have gone through 23 so far including a wolf and a really big boxer, ban those little suckers first
 
Here's the thing. Both sides are kind of right on this issue. Firstly, a dog is not like a gun, in that a dog can act on it's own, whereas a gun can't. A dog is for a decent part, product of its owner. That said, many pitbull owners buy their dogs for their fierce reputation. The American Pitbull is through and through bred for fighting. That was it's origins. I've met a couple nice pitbulls, so I know they're not all bad. Again, the American variant was bred for fighting. Dobermans and German Shepperds were not. I personally see no reason to bat an eye if they banned pitbulls. It's not RKBA related. It's pet-related. I personally loathe the machismo attitude the tends to go with the breed too. As for me, I'll take a Pomeranian and a Kalashnikov please :).
 
OK, Captain, one more.:D
I would agree that no one should tell you that you can't own a certain dog. However, that is what zoning, for example, is about. If you live on a farm or large estate, then own one.

However, just as you cannot own horses inside city limits (at least in most towns that I am familiar with) you can be told that you cannot own certain dogs in a particular area due to the danger of their attacking humans, and especially the elderly and children.

I know that the Libertarian thinking disagrees, but some individual rights must be given up for the good of the majority. Where that starts and stops of course is a matter of discussion, and probably disagreement.

I own guns, but I cannot discharge them in the city except for exceptional circumstances. If I liked loud music I would be limited as to when and how loud I could play it in order that others could have their rights to peace and quiet. And so it goes.

We will never agree completely, and that is a function of government to pass and enforce laws or ordinances that hopefully make a society function better for the whole. We do not do a very good job, but that is the form of our government, and it is still the best though imperfect.

Regards,
Jerry
 
Joab-maybe you should stay away from dogs as they don't seem to like you
Click to expand...
Bugman and postmen are the first ones that little wouldn't hurt a flea fluffy goes after
Again, the American variant was bred for fighting. Dobermans and German Shepperds were not
Click to expand...
yeah
Dobermans and Shepards were bred to attack people. Think about it
Human aggressiveness has been bred out of those fighting dogs while it was intentionally bred into guard dogs

All dogs bite, big dogs just bite harder
 
Shepherds were bred to heard sheep. Dobermans were indeed bred as guard dogs, but they were bred for defensive purposes. Pitbulls on the other hand were bred for offensive purposes.
 
Pitbulls on the other hand were bread for offensive purposes.
Click to expand...

Dogfighting, not offense, these dogs were bred to be handled by humans. They have a lot of drive, like retrievers, which translates to boredom when they are ignored.
 
When you're in serious trouble you're dog is right beside you to protect you. Your cat ran away five minutes ago and is under a bed somewhere.
 
Pit Bull is a collective term for many specific dogs. Most look similar, but is the name used for Staffordshire terriers, american staffies, etc. It's hard for me to see such avid gun owners be biased against a certain breed of dog. How a dog is raised, trained, and socialized plays a HUGE part. Ultimately, the actions of the animal are the fault of the owner. You are in control of your animal, and if you can't be responsible for a breed or have the fortitude to be able to handle a large and or strong dog, you have no reason to keep one.

Pits excude very terrier like qualities in general, only are bigger than most terrier varieties. Like many terrier type breeds, they have a tendency toward dog aggression (aggression toward other dogs). Pits type dogs, including the ORIGINAL british bull dog (not the deformed little dog we have today) were bread for bull baiting, bear fighting, etc.. They are very good with people and were created to work well with people. Like many terrier types, they are confident dogs and some have a tendency not to back down from a challenge. A friend of mine has a pit that I could pull a steak out of his mouth with my own with no challenge at all. He's the sweetest dog I've ever met but would defend his family from an intruder with his life. My own Jack Russel has more dog aggression problems than any pit I've known, but a small dog like that is not usually to receive press because of her size. It's like the poster above said, "A bigger dog has a bigger bite."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
"Dangerous Dog" registration (illinois)
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
dfaugh
D
Zundfolge
  • Locked
So will a Chihuahua require a CCW?
Replies
18
Views
771
HankB
H
T
  • Locked
Vicious dog @ large
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
TallPine
T
G
  • Locked
Denver Bans Pitbulls
Replies
19
Views
638
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
J
  • Locked
Illinois Bans Possession of Dogs by Convicted Felons
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
progunner1957
P
Back
Top