Gun Bans and Breed (dog) specific legislation

[joab]

Shepherds were bread to heard sheep.

So is that why the police dept all over the world use them

The original GSD was developed as a herding/watchdog.
What do you think he was watching for and what do you think he was supposed to do after he saw it?

The Shepard of today are not the same dog developed a couple of hundred years ago
These dog were developed since WWII as protection dogs and used extensively as anti personnel weapons

Pits were developed with aggression towards other animals not people for obvious reasons

Just about every big dog you can think of was developed to attack in one form or another, if not no one would have kept these insatiably hungry animals around

but would defend his family from an intruder with his life

I got a lemon
My Pit is the biggest wimp in three counties
My wife and I were accosted by a group of teens and all he wanted to do was play with the possum he found in the woods
About a month later he tucked tail and ran faster than I have ever seen a dog run, from a Mini Pin

 

[leadcounsel]

I see an almost exact parallel between the gun and dog bans.

We already have laws against murder, why do we need laws against certain guns based on cosmetic features and their efficientcy at shooting?

The same is true with dogs. We already have good laws against vicious animals and dog fighting. What more do we need?

Why can't the legislators see 5 minutes into the probable future? If you ban gun X, then criminals will continue to use gun X and gun X is prohibited to own by law abiding citizens.

If you ban dog X, then criminals will continue to either use dog X or instead find dog Y and train it to be vicous.

The real victim is all of the tens of thousands of GOOD wonderful dogs that are put down because of their breed, not their behavior. How do WE gun owners like being labeled for our "breed" rather than behavior. It's not fair and it's not morally right.

 

[dfaugh]

I see an almost exact parallel between the gun and dog bans.

We already have laws against murder, why do we need laws against certain guns based on cosmetic features and their efficientcy at shooting?

The same is true with dogs. We already have good laws against vicious animals and dog fighting. What more do we need?

EXACTLY!!!!!

So is that why the police dept all over the world use them

The original GSD was developed as a herding/watchdog.
What do you think he was watching for and what do you think he was supposed to do after he saw it?

The Shepard of today are not the same dog developed a couple of hundred years ago
These dog were developed since WWII as protection dogs and used extensively as anti personnel weapons

GSDs (and its "Shepherd" BTW) are used for almost every type of work imaginable, because they are one of the most intelligent and adaptable breeds. They have been bred that way for 100 years (the first GSDs were bred by Max von Stephanitz (sp?) in Germany in the early 1900s. They were bred to be the consummate working dog, and have been bred carefully (in Europe, not the U.S.---you won't see very many AKC GSDs as working dogs) for that reason. They are also very social, and good with people, especially children, which is another reason they're so widely used.

I have been involved in several dog-bite cases where a GSD bit someone (as a long time trainer, I was asked to give testimony on whether the dog was "vicious" or not. In many cases, I WAS UNABLE TO GET THE DOG TO BITE ME-- NO MATTER WHAT I DID. And, I know what buttons to push).

IN EVERY DOG-BITE CASE THAT I"VE EVER BEEN AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS (ANY BREED), the person that got bit provoked the bite. Not intentionally, mind you, but provoked nonetheless. I'm sure there are some dogs that will bite without any provocation, but in all my years I've yet to see one.

My town took it one step BEYOND. I bought 10 acres of land, with the express intent of having a place to train dogs. The town OUTLAWED ME from training dogs here, because of all the "dangerous dogs" (according to my neighbors, who know nothing about dogs, of course) that we trained here (including Search and Rescue, Drug and bomb dogs as well a Schutzhund and police dogs). Mostly GSDs, plus a few Rotties and Malinois. Note that we often train in public parks, as well as private property, in EVERY OTHER jurisdiction in the area.

Just another example of the "dangerous dog" hysteria---Not unlike the "evil assualt rifle" hysteria. Both fueled by ignorance, and the media.

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

I know several people with pit bulls, they are all wonderful dogs and have been trained to get along with other dogs. The difference is that the owners took the time to socialize them and train them.

That being said, when we play with their rope toy, the dog will latch on and I can pick him up off the ground and he will not let go. I would definitely not want to get bitten by a pit bull with those strong jaws.

 

[Walkalong]

the dog gets trained/conditioned to fight or attack

I know several people with pit bulls, they are all wonderful dogs and have been trained to get along with other dogs.

I have been around pits for 30 years plus. The ones that have been game bred for a 100 plus years by qualified breeders are very gentle with people. They have to be since they are in close contact with people under stress in a dogfight. Those breeders will not keep any dog that shows any aggression towards people at all. Those same dogs that are so good with people will absolutely not get along with other dogs. They cannot be "trained" to do so any more than a dog that does not want to fight can be "trained" to do so. 99.99% of the dogs who bite people are not quality bred bulldogs, but mutts(even if purebred) bred by folks that have no clue. The same breeding that made pits the fighters they are made them gentle with people. People who want their pit to be "mean" just piss me off to no end. They are idiots. A pit who has been made mean by people is a dangerous animal and needs to be killed.

My pit is as gentle as he can be,(all of the ones I've had have been) yet people are scared of him because the media has taught them to be scared, which is the general point of the thread (both guns and dogs). I have the best of both worlds. peolple won't go in my yard to steal and I don't have to worry about him biting someone and getting sued.

 

[joab]

peolple won't go in my yard to steal and I don't have to worry about him biting someone and getting sued.

I agree with almost everything you sat, but

I also used to think this until a warning nip in the butt to a kid that had been picking on the dog for a year has me in court with no insurance to cover the eventual judgment

Inadequate coverage was my fault, having a gate that could actually be opened was also my fault
You have to expect that there are idiots out there that will do idiotic things, like open a gate to a dog that they had been picking on just to see what would happen

But the interesting thing is that my vicious 85 lb Pit gave a simple warning nip that barely broke skin.
Hardly the death rush that the media will have you believe is customary for the breed

 

[alex_trebek]

Dogs and guns are related in the sense that ANY dog has the capacity to bite, there are no "assault" breeds that any more dangerous. Just like all firearms can kill, therefore no certain type should be more respected than others. All should be regarded as potentially dangerous.

Also both are related in the way the media portrays them. Just about any dog attack is caused by a pit bull, according to the media. Many bites are falsely attributed to a "scary" breed, just like many shootings are automatically blamed on a "scary" rifle/handgun. I wouldnt be surprised if many of the attacks blamed on pit bulls are actually another breed similar in size.

Lastly, in both cases a lack of owner responsibility is blamed on the gun/dog instead of its owner. Dogs required constant guidance, and a watchful eye. This is no different than having a loaded gun in the house, the owner should know at all times where the gun/dog is. Especially if the household is prone to people coming over.

 

[dfaugh]

But the interesting thing is that my vicious 85 lb Pit gave a simple warning nip that barely broke skin.

Perfect example of what I was talking about before---"Attack" was provoked, and dog responded accordingly. This dosen't make the dog "vicious" by any stretch of the imagination.

Hope you fight this w/ everything you've got, as it's BS, especially if it occurred on YOUR property.

P.S. All of my dogs(GSDs) are listed as "mixed breed" for licensing purposes. (Well, they are--mixed Czech, East German, and West German!) This is what you tell your insurance company. Many homeowners policies are now "prohibiting" certain breeds but I have Farmers, which is one of the few that DOES NOT have any breed restrictions. Also, look into the ADOA (American Dog Owners Association) for more advice.

 

[trueblue1776]

All of my dogs(GSDs) are listed as "mixed breed"

Yeah, just make sure they are never in any claim pictures

 

[Dravur]

a site to look at

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

Not sure about his stats, but he does claim over 50% of all fatalities involving dogs is a rottie or a pit bull. He also mentions that German Shephards bit the most.

 

[REOIV]

A little bit about my history.
I bred dogs and worked in a kennel for 2 years and a Zoo for 3 years. I wanted to be Veterinarian but ended up making more money being a programmer with much less schooling involved.

After having taken care of almost every breed under the sun. These are the following observations I have.

1. Of the small dogs, old toy poodles nipped and growled the most. Funny thing is I had 2 toy poodles at the time and they were the sweetest most wonderful dogs ever with me (see #3).
2. Of the big dogs Chows are by far the meanest and most aggressive to anyone other than their owner. To this day I flat out hate Chows.
3. It doesn't matter how good you train your dog. The only thing consistent is that you are there. When you aren't there your dog is an entirely different animal. Many of the sweetest dogs in the world became bundles of snapping fear and anger the minute their owners left them.

A dog's breed has a lot do to with how it behaves when the owner isn't there.

Dobermans are timid and shy.
Labs and Golden Retrievers couldn't care less as long as you play with them
Collies are about half and half shy/aggressive. I got bit by a fearful Border Collie and have no feeling in the tip of my left ring finger because of it.
Most spaniels are random. They might nip, they might love you they might piss themselves in fear.
Rotties, Pits and Boxers play rough and attack other dogs. I have seen many people try to pull a pit/boxer/rottie off another dog and get attacked in the process. There was a policy at the kennel to not break up dog fights for this very reason. The dogs will flat out attack and hurt you.It is this tendency to be aggressive to other animals that can cause a problem.

It isn't fair to say pulling a dog off of your dog provoked the pit/rottie/boxer to bite you. A dog bred to be aggressive to other dogs needs to be broken of that habit early on. Much like people housebreak and socialize their animals.

It also isn't fair to say that because you can pull food away from your dog that others can do the same. Some dogs just accept you're the alpha dog and will challenge anyone/everyone else.

It depends on the dog.

The dog to gun analogy is good but isn't fair.

In that if you aren't around your gun doesn't go off on its own.
Guns always do what they are told if they do anything. Dogs, not so much.
Guns don't wander off, or climb fences.
2 loaded guns left alone won't make MORE guns.
When you buy a gun you don't have to spend 2 to 8 weeks training the gun not to go off on its own, to not leak powder in the house etc etc.
You don't leave children under 10 around a loaded gun (though the same care should be taken around dogs as well).
You don't rough house with your gun and excuse it if it scratches or nips too hard.

Dogs are living breathing animals and have their own personalities.

Banning dogs by breed is sstupid even though there is proof enough that certain breeds are just flat out more dangerous to people than other breeds.

Using the logic of banning a breed because of how dangerous it is, one could argue that because there are more blacks and Hispanics in prison than whites that people of a given ethnicity should be banned from town/state.

That is the argument that should be made to show how absurd banning a dog by breed is.

 

[joab]

P.S. All of my dogs(GSDs) are listed as "mixed breed" for licensing purposes.

I tried that it didn't fly

 

[joab]

In that if you aren't around your gun doesn't go off on its own.

Neither will your dog if properly secured

Guns always do what they are told if they do anything. Dogs, not so much.

Which is why it isa your duty to see that they are properly secured

Guns don't wander off, or climb fences.

Neither do properly secured dogs, just as a properly secured weapon will not wander off with the help of others

2 loaded guns left alone won't make MORE guns.

I tell my wife that they do,
And a properly maintained dog will not make more dogs either

When you buy a gun you don't have to spend 2 to 8 weeks training the gun not to go off on its own, to not leak powder in the house etc etc.

Instead you spend that time at the range learning to be proficient with the gun and at the reload table making the rounds to shoot through it

You don't leave children under 10 around a loaded gun (though the same care should be taken around dogs as well).

With proper training and familiarity many kids are perfectly capable of being around guns without supervision although I would never do that anymore than I would leave them around a large dog.

You don't rough house with your gun and excuse it if it scratches or nips too hard.

I know a few people who do this with both
It goes back to proper training and maintenance

Using the logic of banning a breed because of how dangerous it is, one could argue that because there are more blacks and Hispanics in prison than whites that people of a given ethnicity should be banned from town/state.

That is the argument that should be made to show how absurd banning a dog by breed is.

Unfortunately to too many people this is not an absurd argument

 

[REOIV]

IN EVERY DOG-BITE CASE THAT I"VE EVER BEEN AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS (ANY BREED), the person that got bit provoked the bite. Not intentionally, mind you, but provoked nonetheless. I'm sure there are some dogs that will bite without any provocation, but in all my years I've yet to see one.

You haven't been around enough dogs. I would say I have taken care of well over 4000 to 5000 dogs ( 50 to 60 a week with holidays bumping it up to 100 to 200) and there are times where a dog will give no warning, make no noise and just attack you with no provocation what so ever.

Lean to close to a pen/cage and get bit or attacked through the door/grate. Put the hose in to refill their water and watch the hose and the door get attacked as the dog tries to get to you.

Open a closed cage to get the dog on the leash to take out doors to goto the bathroom and they can and will charge/bite you for no reason.

You get used to it and can sense which dogs will and won't be mean. But take it from me there are dogs what will attack people with no warning and unprovoked.

 

[209]

I think my neighbor's dog (a pit) has adopted our house as part of his property. As such, he's more than willing to question anyone that comes here. The only problem is he was abused by a kid and doesn't trust little folk much.

He's fine with adults. But, anytime a UPS or FedEX delivery comes around, the drivers are usually a bit put off by him. Our horse feed delivery guy just throws him a biscuit- they're best buds.

My guns haven't been abused by kids. They could care less if the person nearby is young or short. Strangely, I get the same response if the driver sees a gun.

I'm assuming that there are guns out there, probably due to poor up-bringing, that have jumped out of a holster and just shot someone. None of mine do that- they're trained right!

 

[Isildur]

We have gun as well as dog bans in Germany and yes it's pretty similar. The same Antis are calling for both an the motives are similar as well.

I am afraid - State do something!

Who cares whether this fear is justified or whether this "doing something" infringes on people's rights, we live in a democracy and if the Anti majority is afraid, some nonsense will be done about it. Most likely the rights of minorities will be infringed, no matter whether this is about dogs, guns or anything else.

This is the natural result from the lack of absolute values. Ask an Anti, he probably does not truly believe in any inalienable rights, let alone self-ownership.

 

[REOIV]

Neither will your dog if properly secured

See your answer is securing a dog. Problem is a gun will not/can not break free.

I have see dogs pull posts free, snap steel cables, break collars, uproot trees and posts, eat fences, and drag owners to get free. I saw a dog euthanized because it literally ate through the floor of the house it was in during the day to get out and run around. Yes you read that right ate through the floor.

A gun doesn't do that. A gun doesn't get bored and destroy things without you.

Dogs do stupid unpredictable stuff that we gloss over or find endearing that a gun won't ever do because it is inanimate.

 

[ID_shooting]

I see the point that anti-dog legislation is paralleled to anti-gun legislation. that said, I have been attacked by three dogs in my life, a Lab in the duck blind, and Shepherd while riding my motorcycle, and my mothers god-awfull toy poodle.

The Lab: We have an area os state land set asside for hunting near here it has several small ponds and trails that criss cross thruought the entire place (Ft.Boise WMA for those around here) and sadly it is quite popular. My buddy and I were on a trail looking for a good spot to set some decoys up and do some wing shooting. We were walking past a guy who had a blind setup and unprovoked, his lab came shooting out of the blind and jumped on my back and pushed me over and was trying to tear into the back of my neck, thank goodness for it being really flipping cold that day. MY buddy kicked the dog off of me and when the dog turned im he gave it two barrels of 10 guage in the face. The dog died.

The shepherd: I was ridding my dirt bike down a trail past this guys house, Never seen the dog before, never seen the guy before. The dog comes running out the guys yard, grabs me by the pant leg and pulls me and the bike over. I still have scars on my claf. The owner came out right behind the dog and secured it. He told me he was the nicest dog on the planet and never hurt anyone before. Well, I suppose somone has to be first. His home owners paid my med bills, clothing cost and the damage to my bike. I never did take the guy to court.

My moms dog: I hate this darn thing. It niops at my heels and feet every singe time I am there. Being a toy poodle though, I am not too scared. It was abused as a pup (breeding female in a puppy mill) and did the same to my dad for a few years. The dog is getting better, but still does not like adult men at all.

My point is, yes, the owners are the responsible ones when a dog decides to attack, but the trouble is, a dog will attack whatever it thinks is a threat, justified or not, that is a dogs nature, any dog. They are capable of independant action unlike firearms. I do not feel that breeds should be singled out, any large dog is capable of severe damage, pitts, labs, sheps, mastifs, even St. Bernards. I do however agree with the requirement of insurance for owners of large dogs and possible, though not 100% in behavioral testing and subsequent liscensure if in city limits. If you say your dog is the most gentle dog on the planet, fine, prove it. Give it a bowl of food and let a stranger approach it. If the person can take the bowl of food away and the dog shows no agression, give the dog an insurance waiver or a clear license.

Before somone thinks to parralell guns with that, no, guns are not the same. They are not capable of independant action and therefore will never attack unprovoked for somthing it precieves as a threat to it or it's people.

 

[joab]

See your answer is securing a dog. Problem is a gun will not/can not break free.

Neither will a dog if properly secured
If you are unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to secure your gun or animal then you should get rid of it or be responsible for the damages done

 

[roo_ster]

I think REOIV nails it out of the park.

Functioning as if no dog has ever attacked without provocation is not in accord with reality.

Also, some dog breeds are more likely to cause injury to humans than others. The most aggressive teacup Chihuahua is a something to be squashed with your boot. An aggressive large dog is a whole 'nuther matter.

In this country, those large dogs that cause most serious injuries are the usual suspects/breeds.

That said, REOIV's analogy between those particular breeds and disproportionately criminal minority populations is more apt, certainly more apt than the gun~breed analogy.

Also, the enforcement of BSL is fraught with problems, what with similar-looking breeds, mutts, and bad owners turning to new breeds to do their worst to. Laws that can not be reasonably & reliably enforced and do what they are intended to do ought not be passed, no matter how meritorious the underlying idea.

Another problem showing up the problem of the gun~dog analogy: How many dog owners think it right that a dog owner ought to go to jail for murder, assault, theft, etc. if their doggie gets out and causes harm?

Most say, "the owner is responsible," but understand that the dog has a will of its own as mitigating the responsibility somewhat, so that the owner doesn't actually get charged criminally with the full effect as if the damage were done directly by the owner with a firearm.

One last thing: it is really disconcerting to see folks equating to obviously dissimilar things with entirely different natures.

 

[joab]

How many dog owners think it right that a dog owner ought to go to jail for murder, assault, theft, etc. if their doggie gets out and causes harm?

Probably about as many as gun owners that think they should be prosecuted for murder if their unsecured gun falls out of their holster or through some other negligent act shoots an innocent bystander

Those opinions will change drastically when they find themselves as test cases

 

[Isildur]

My point is, yes, the owners are the responsible ones when a dog decides to attack, but the trouble is, a dog will attack whatever it thinks is a threat, justified or not, that is a dogs nature, any dog. They are capable of independant action unlike firearms.

In contrast to humans a dog is a truly social being and he will never attack a fellow citizen unless he really is a threat. Yes to a certain extend the dog "decides" something but this decision is reasonable and true unless someone has mistreated the dog.

Yes there is still a possibility that the potential victim misbehaves in a way that the dog will attack but this is true for humans as well. Generally a dog does not pose a threat to you but some humans do and in their hand a dog is nothing but a weapon(because he then is a slave).


Apart from that I've explained why anti-dog and anti-gun legislation is the same BS in my post above.

 

[dfaugh]

You haven't been around enough dogs.

Well, I've been to competitions/shows where there were 10,000 AT ONCE. But, since I've trained with trainers/club from 5 countries and 11 states, I've been around hundreds of dogs.

Lean to close to a pen/cage and get bit or attacked through the door/grate. Put the hose in to refill their water and watch the hose and the door get attacked as the dog tries to get to you.

Open a closed cage to get the dog on the leash to take out doors to goto the bathroom and they can and will charge/bite you for no reason.

In ALL those cases you provoked the bite....You encroached upon 'Their territory"
Open the cage/crate, let the dog come out on its own, and you'll see a distinct behavior difference.

 

[ID_shooting]

"In contrast to humans a dog is a truly social being and he will never attack a fellow citizen unless he really is a threat."

That simply is not true. A defensive dog can fine, perfect in fact around the kids in the family it resides with but be truely hostile to other kids or adults that come near "its kids." Case in point, guy he falls, hits head and becomes unconsionce, dog will not let energency responders anywhere near him to offer help. The dog was acting on instinct to defend the owner. Are EMS a threat? No, but dog sure thought so.

http://tallahassee.com/legacy/special/blogs/2007/06/pit-bull-attacks-paramedic-treating.html

 

[ServiceSoon]

I see a big parallel between your two topics. We have smoking bans. The government is telling private property owners what legal activities can or can’t take place on their property. And now there is a city ordinance in place that requires you to get a parking permit if you are having a party and 10 or more cars will be coming. I’m sorry sir, the guy next door is already having a party that weekend and has registered the parking in front of your house...could you reschedule yours for next week? More fines and revenue for the city I guess. That quote, “The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws” makes more sense everyday.

This creates a problem for gun ownership. Crime increases and politicians or the Brady Bunch call for more registration etc etc. You know the story. Government can’t and shouldn’t solve ALL of our problems. The problem is selling that to the average American. Which should be easier because everybody wants to pay less taxes.