BSL in Boston
After a small dog was mauled, the Boston City Council fast-tracked a dangerous dog law:
Under the new ordinance passed 7-4, owners of dangerous dogs must spay or neuter the animals, muzzle them in public and post signs outside their homes warning that there are pit bulls inside. Violation of the restrictions will result in a $100 fine, and the dogs could be impounded.
During the debate, supporters of the ordinance presented statistics showing that pit bulls bit Boston residents 144 times over the past three years – nearly three times more than the next worst culprit, German shepherds.
Animal rights advocates immediately denounced the measure, and said the law would be unenforceable. They also say the law will not stand up in court because it discriminates against a particular breed.
Using breed as the criteria for dangerous doesn’t work. Any breed can be dangerous if not appropriately socialized. The appearance of doing something is more important than doing the right thing, apparently.
June 24th, 2004 at 8:23 am
While I normally agree with you on such issues, I do think accuracy is important. While it’s true that any dog can be dangerous without proper socialization, and any dog can be well-behaved with proper socialization, it’s also true that some breeds are more naturally inclined to aggression than others. This means that the owner of, say, a Rottweiler, needs to be a lot more diligent about socialization than does the owner of, say, a Newfoundland.
That said, I agree that such laws are counterproductive, and oppose them.
June 24th, 2004 at 10:15 am
So pit bulls in Boston have bitten people almost three times as often as German Shepherds have. Neat. Now maybe they can tell us how many German Shepherds there are in Boston, vs. how many pit bulls. Only then will the numbers mean anything.
I guess under Boston logic, alcohol and tobacco are much more dangerous than crack, and a .38 revolver is infinitely more lethal than a hand grenade, a Howitzer, or anyy weapon that meets anyone’s definition of an assault weapon.
June 24th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
Xrlq:
I guess under Boston logic, alcohol and tobacco are much more dangerous than crack, and a .38 revolver is infinitely more lethal than a hand grenade, a Howitzer, or anyy weapon that meets anyone’s definition of an assault weapon.
To be fair, such logic is not exclusive to Boston, or even to “more government” types. I have argued with people here who have claimed, with a straight face, that because cars kill more people every year than guns, therefore cars are more dangerous than guns. My counter-argument was very similar to yours: how many people handle guns and how frequently, versus how many people are in or near cars and how frequently.
I support gun rights, but will not tolerate crap logic, even in support of a position I agree with. 🙂
June 24th, 2004 at 3:41 pm
I agree, the logic is just as bad on cars vs. guns. Better logic would also take into account how they are used. The way guns are used in an emergency setting can’t really be compared to driving a car. The way they are used recreationally, at a well-managed range, can be; it’s like driving a car on your own private, one way highway. Conversely, typical driving is like shooting at a range where half the shooters stand on one side, with targets in between. OK, as long as everyone hits their paper target every time…