Gun Bans and Breed (dog) specific legislation
- Thread starter captain54
- Start date
- Status
common sense v. legalism
A spreading American mentality - aversion to common sense – is expressed both by gun control advocates and breed specific laws regarding dogs. We also see that aversion to common sense in a host of zero tolerance laws, bureaucratic regulations and educational policies. It is called legalism - the belief in a system of forms and rules, rather than a search for justice. We have been steadily removing a justice-based standard, which requires human judgment and common sense, from our society in favor of legalism. Legalism produces endless paradoxes.
Rather than laws that govern keeping and harboring dangerous or viscious animals, we ban breeds. Rather than laws that apply to behavior, we ban guns or certain classes of guns identified by appearance.
This "antisocial law” is the subject of author Jonathan Rauch's analysis here:
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/hidden_law_1_the_legal_assault/index.html
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/hidden_law_2_why_i_am_communitarian/index.html
Rausch identifies two different mechanisms for averting and resolving conflicts. One, Hidden Law, is communitarian and informal. The other, Bureaucratic Legalism, which provides due process for every problem. As his articles indicate, civilized life generally depends on Hidden Law.
Hidden Law consists of unwritten social codes.
In a crowded and diverse society, we will have moral disputes. Civilized life depends on informal rules in preventing mundane conflicts from becoming legal battles or media sideshows. Otherwise, communities become neurotic, quick to take offense, slow to reconcile it. Bureaucratic Legalism results in an inability to make moral choices when there is a conflict. Sound familiar?
In the legalistic worldview, there are no moral absolutes, and hence there is no way to judge the relative value of conflicting moral choices. Decisions become simply a matter of determining which rules apply, and ignore anything else.
It would serve us well to remember that the rules themselves do not constitute justice, rather the rules only exist to establish justice.
A spreading American mentality - aversion to common sense – is expressed both by gun control advocates and breed specific laws regarding dogs. We also see that aversion to common sense in a host of zero tolerance laws, bureaucratic regulations and educational policies. It is called legalism - the belief in a system of forms and rules, rather than a search for justice. We have been steadily removing a justice-based standard, which requires human judgment and common sense, from our society in favor of legalism. Legalism produces endless paradoxes.
Rather than laws that govern keeping and harboring dangerous or viscious animals, we ban breeds. Rather than laws that apply to behavior, we ban guns or certain classes of guns identified by appearance.
This "antisocial law” is the subject of author Jonathan Rauch's analysis here:
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/hidden_law_1_the_legal_assault/index.html
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/hidden_law_2_why_i_am_communitarian/index.html
Rausch identifies two different mechanisms for averting and resolving conflicts. One, Hidden Law, is communitarian and informal. The other, Bureaucratic Legalism, which provides due process for every problem. As his articles indicate, civilized life generally depends on Hidden Law.
Hidden Law consists of unwritten social codes.
In a crowded and diverse society, we will have moral disputes. Civilized life depends on informal rules in preventing mundane conflicts from becoming legal battles or media sideshows. Otherwise, communities become neurotic, quick to take offense, slow to reconcile it. Bureaucratic Legalism results in an inability to make moral choices when there is a conflict. Sound familiar?
In the legalistic worldview, there are no moral absolutes, and hence there is no way to judge the relative value of conflicting moral choices. Decisions become simply a matter of determining which rules apply, and ignore anything else.
It would serve us well to remember that the rules themselves do not constitute justice, rather the rules only exist to establish justice.
.
I believe the only way to improve the situation is to hold owners of badly
behaved dogs directly responsible and liable for their pets' actions.
The 'properly secured', dog trainers, and 'he'll never attack' people here
are well and truly blinkered, sorry to say. Your well-wishing and good
intentions have not stopped a single attack, nor held the owners
accountable, and the dog apologetics are a bit appalling.
I believe the only way to improve the situation is to hold owners of badly
behaved dogs directly responsible and liable for their pets' actions.
The 'properly secured', dog trainers, and 'he'll never attack' people here
are well and truly blinkered, sorry to say. Your well-wishing and good
intentions have not stopped a single attack, nor held the owners
accountable, and the dog apologetics are a bit appalling.
joab
Member
Fine
Then establish rules of ownership just like any other property capable of causing harm
Pools have been determined to be dangers to society in Fl and rules have been established according to known causes of accidents
No one would call for a ban on pools, just responsible ownership
No one here would call for a ban on specific guns but most do advocate responsible ownership and support laws that assure that
Why support bans on a specific breed of large dog when all large dogs can be made mean
Isn't it just wishful thinking that people who want bad dogs will find or make them somewhere?
There are known common denominators for animal attacks
These should be addressed not breed banning
KMBRTAC45
Member
I agree with ALMOST everything you have said so far, except for the AKC registration. I owned 2 GSD's that I bought from the Czech Republic through a very good breeder/importer in AZ, they were both AKC registered as were almost all of the GSD's imported through him. There were no delays or any problems with the registration. I do agree with you that breeders in the U.S. have screwed up the GSD(and other pure breeds) lines in this country with the high rate of inbreeding, trying to breed out the very instincts in these dogs for their entertainment. In Europe(especially the Military/Police breeding programs) dog breeding is tightly controlled. My dogs were very well trained protection dogs that I had to learn to control. As jfaugh said in other posts you have to secure your dogs properly but you also need to train them properly too. Most people just buy a dog and don't do anything with them, if you neglect your dog, just like your KID you will end up with a huge problem. You get out what you put in.
Here is the answer. It's not about the Gun, Dog, Smoking in public or any of the thousands of laws we abide by. It's about CONTROL that is it. They are conditioning us for that fatefull day when we have to ask the Government for EVERYTHING. Master may I!!!!
Thats complete BS. Merely being around the dog at that point is provocation. There is no way to care for a dog if it won't let you near it to clean it or pick up its mess.
This is the same type of logic that:
Short skirts provoke rape.
Having expensive stuff provokes being robbed.
Being Jewish provokes hate crimes.
Guards wouldn't get stabbed by inmates if they let the inmates come out of their cells when they felt comfortable.
Opening the door provoked the dog.
Being male is provocation.
It doesn't make sense. You are making up excuses to let dogs act like animals and instead of blaming their behavior on them you blame the humans for just being there. If a dog is provoked by basic interaction with a human being for example petting, walking by them, being in the same room, touching them, eye contact, or talking that dog has the problem not the human. It is the dog's fault. You don't let dogs take a poop in your house and say I provoked it by not having grass for my floor or not letting the dog out every 5 minutes.
I have seen and taken care of dogs that were fine for days, that were friendly to you that morning and the last 3 trips to the kennel snap and lunge at you.
It doesn't matter the training. Or how you carry yourself. Dogs attack people for no freaking reason. My golden retriever, who is friendly around everyone when I am there, has to wear a muzzle at the vet because he gets so freaked out and bite happy.
The vet I assisted lost 3 stethoscopes in one week from nervous dogs snapping through the rubber.
A 10,000 dog, dog show where they are around their owner/trainer isn't even close to the same. Show dogs live in cages and around other dogs/strange people all the time. If they were bothered by lots of dogs/people/noises they wouldn't be good show dogs. Did you interact with /care for all 10,000 of those dogs while there owners were gone for 24+ hours? I took care of many show dogs while I worked at the kennel and I never had a single problem with any of them, aside from one that loved to poop in his food bowl and didn't like the shiny coat additive we gave to him with his food. I also helped the on staff trainer and again the dogs going to training didn't have problems either, aside from pulling on the leash, jumping on people & licking their face and not listening to their owners.
Its like saying I've been to a gun show with 10,000 well cared for guns and no one was shot and I only took care of/and looked at my guns at that gun show. Therefore negligent/accidental discharges never happen or if they do happen it is because the people deserved it.
Dogs do attack unprovoked, to say that they don't is just silly or giving them too much leeway.
That is what is being discussed.
Dogs get out. Under current law if you own a known dangerous animal and a person is hurt by it, it is your fault. Even if you took every precaution and did your due diligence. You're still liable for that animal.
I couldn't care less if a person wanted to own a pit bull or a grizzly bear. But to say that bans on dogs are like bans on guns are disingenuous. If they were talking about banning black dogs, dogs with more than 8 nipples, or imported dog breeds (essentially cosmetic bans) then it would be more like the assault weapon ban. But even then it is comparing apples to oranges in that a living intelligent thing is totally different from an inanimate object.
The only ban needed is overly aggressive animals. Your dog harms someone, and YOU don't have a legal reason to harm that person. Then that dog should be destroyed and you should be fined/charged with assault if necessary.
joab
Member
Not really
It is still a ban on property base on media education and not real life
To say that one large breed is any more dangerous than what another similar sized dog can be made to be is disingenuous
I have known labs that were vicious and pits that were not
When I was a kid my father had a Spitz that had to be smuggled out of Mobile county because he had been declared an outlaw by the sheriff, that dog was a stone cold killer and I never hear any mention of that breed in these discussions
I have also known 40 pound curs that I was terrified of
Holding the owners responsible after the fact does no good when the majority do not believe that their dog will bite.
Setting standards and rules for ownership, just like with cars, guns and swimming pools or any other potentially dangerous property is the only way you are going to get anything done on this
leadcounsel
member
Harsh penalties for vicious dogs and dog fighting is all we need. No need to make it complicated and add dogs to the list.
First it was pits. Next Huskies. Then GS, chows etc. etc. The list can become endless and ambigious (well, he kinda looks like a ________ and if you can't prove he's not we'll have to confiscate him and kill him, despite the fact you've had him for 8 years and he's super friendly...).
Why do we insist on complicated and illogical laws in this nation...?
First it was pits. Next Huskies. Then GS, chows etc. etc. The list can become endless and ambigious (well, he kinda looks like a ________ and if you can't prove he's not we'll have to confiscate him and kill him, despite the fact you've had him for 8 years and he's super friendly...).
Why do we insist on complicated and illogical laws in this nation...?
Frog48
Member
I dont recall anything in the Constitution about the "right to keep and bear dogs."
So... comparing the two is apples and oranges.
Prince Yamato
Member
I'm going to post again and say that I see no parallel between guns and dogs, other than the fact that I like both. I think your insurance idea makes a lot of sense. Heard, "oh, he's such a sweet dog, never bites anyone..."
Also, to prove there is no parallel. Try the following:
Give an anti-gun person a large gun, unloaded, tell them, "don't worry, it won't go off and kill you". You can 100% guarantee it won't go off and kill them.
Give an anti-dog person a large dog, can you guarantee the same 100% of the time? I think not...
But I'm also going to say that it is in part due to owners. There are TONS of dogs all throughout Europe, and they don't have near the problems with dogs that we do. I think it is in part a "macho" culture thing and that many unsavory sorts tend to gravitate towards vicious animals as part of a "thug" culture.
What about "pursuit of happiness" and "secure in their privacy/property" (didn't look up the exact wording-too lazy).
When my town banned me from training dogs, the lawyers said I could challenge it, and win, on Constitutional grounds. EXCEPT it would probably cost me $20,000 to do so, which I didn't/don't have laying around.
Amen! I was once at a training seminar, talking with a bunch of trainers, who do it for a living (train other peoples dogs)---And every one said they had been bitten/tried to bite MOST by Golden Retreivers. Surprised the heck outa me.
I too, worked for a Veterinary clinic, many years ago (I was considering becoming a Vet, myself). I NEVER had a problem with a dog. Alot of it has to do with how you "carry yourself". When I'm around unknown dogs, I don't have a problem, as having always had EXTREMELY dominant dogs, I automatically act like the "alpha". In training dogs I've been around some that were pretty psychotic (that I would never own), and never been bitten. In fact, with one exception (and I PROVOKED THAT ONE) the only time I've ever been bitten was breaking up dog fights (my own
dominant dogs), when they accidentally got me, instead of the other dog. I wan't reffering to AKC registered dogs, just the one's you see shown at AKC shows, etc. I shoulda been more clear. Many imported dogs are AKC registered. I used to, but AKC registration doesn't mean much in my circle, so I don't bother anymore.
joab
Member
But that blatantly violates rule No. 1
That rule also should apply to dogs at all times
trueblue1776
Member
joab
Member
Assuming that past actions guarantee future performance
trueblue1776
Member
dang, I'm never gonna be paranoid enough to be cool around here.
joab
Member
- Status
