Ammo For Sale

« « Congrats | Home | Is Poker Gambling? (redux) » »

Restricting Dog Capacity

I guess I just kinda assumed that the king of the nanny states probably already banned politically incorrect dogs. Apparently, they do not but are looking into it:

State legislators will hold a hearing later this month on whether to outlaw pit bulls, though Walsh said lawmakers hope to look into broader issues regarding dog safety.

State Rep. Vincent Pelone said the state may consider either banning pit bulls outright or requiring owners to get training or a dangerous dog license.

“If you want to own a pit bull, which in my estimation can be the same as owning a weapon, the owner and the dog should receive training,” said the Worcester Democrat.

Breed specific legislation is mostly a waste and I’ve covered this topic quite a bit (see here). You ban one breed and the bad owners just latch on to another. In the 70s, it was German Shepherds. The 80s, it was Dobermans. In the 90s, it was Rottweilers. Now, it’s pit bulls. Trouble is that dogs are practically identical genetically.

Also, there’s this:

“You can’t allow people to be afraid all the time,” said Avril T. Elkort, vice chairwoman of the Canton Board of Selectmen, where a new ordinance limits residents to one pit bull per household, the Herald reported. “It was a public safety issue.”

The correlation between stupid dog laws and stupid gun laws is astounding. Pit bulls are actually bred to be less people aggressive than other breeds because they were bred to fight other dogs. So, it was helpful that the owners be able to end the fights without getting bitten. They do, however, have natural inclination to being dog aggressive. This can me mitigated somewhat by socialization. For example, I trust my dog completely around people and kids. But I do not let him around other dogs. And since I don’t have a new pic, here’s an old one:


4 Responses to “Restricting Dog Capacity”

  1. Tennessee Budd Says:

    Beautiful animal, Unc. I had an APBT until he died of old age (at 16). Never even tried to bite anyone; in fact, my then-toddler cousins delighted in being dragged around the yard by him while hanging from his ears or tail.
    It’s all about the owner.

  2. robert Says:

    If you don’t know the provenance of your dog, does that make it automatically a pit bull or not a pit bull? Seeing as how most legislators can’t tell a pit bull from a pekingese, why not just ban a list of features that you would expect to see on a pit bull? I’m thinking spiky collars, choke chains, that spot that just covers one eye and, because I watch too many cartoons, bowler hats and turtleneck sweaters.

    Personally, I would prefer a ban on those little yip dogs. I mean they are vicious, portable and easily concealable. Clearly the Saturday night special of the dog world.

  3. Jim W Says:

    All the bad or annoying dog behaviors I have personally encountered were the fault of the irresponsible owners who either didnt train them properly or didnt restrain them properly (proper restraint varying depending on the dog).

    Banning breeds of dog isn’t going to stop “docile” breeds from occaisionally snapping and it ignores the main culprit- the hand that feeds the dog and holds the leash.

    But saying that here is like preaching to the choir.

  4. Nomen Nescio Says:

    the one pit bull i’ve personally had the pleasure of knowing was the kindest, gentlest, friendliest canine i’ve encountered. might’ve claimed she wasn’t a pit bull, too, as she was adopted from a humane society that had put down “Jack Russell terrier” on her papers. even as a young puppy that must’ve been an obvious mistake. did claim she was an american staffordshire terrier on a couple occasions; who’s to say she wasn’t…?

    that dog died of cancer a couple years ago, now. pity. would’ve trusted her far more, and more easily, than i can my current two siberian huskies.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges