Ferocious Pit Bull Kills Everyone at the Westminster
Oh, wait, no.
He won Best in Show. Too bad breed specific legislation will keep him out of Denver.
Oh, wait, no.
They still have dog shows in Denver and no one's storming those events to confiscate bulldogs.
[Edited to add for Summer and others, here's the link to the explanation for why I'm calling the Best in Show dog a "pit bull." It also ought to explain why I'm opposed to bans on pit bulls. Any dog, as that brilliant Uncle* says, that can trace its roots back to the old English bulldogs can be and probably has been called a pitbull at one time or another.
But people throw the term around like it has meaning without checking to see if everyone is using the same definition. Which is why I'm not surprised that most "vicious" attacks are blamed on "pitbulls." If you have a bunch of different kinds of dogs that can be called "pitbulls," and "pitbulls" are then blamed for all the attacks made by those different kinds of dogs, then yes, it's going to look like "pitbulls" bite a lot more people than, say, Golden Retrievers.
This is also why I find the "breed specific" bans to be laughable and obnoxious. A "pitbull" is not just a breed of dog, it's a catch-all term for a type of dog. But are they looking to ban this dog (note the cute euphemism--"can be scrappy with some dog") or this dog ("some males may be dog aggressive")? No, because, even though they come from similar stock, we aren't on a witch hunt against them.
*With the caveat that he's wrong, wrong, wrong about the Walmart/Massachusetts controversy.]
posted by Aunt B at 2/15/2006 09:47:00 AM
20 Comments:
HAHAHA! Pretty funny stuff.
Thing is, this isn't the type of dog people refer to when they talk of dangerous pit bulls. I mean, I don't think he goes home at night to be put outside on a chain that can be used to tow a train, fed scraps, and punched and kicked at will as the ones I have seen have been.
Responsible breeders and responsible owners are the only way to properly domesticate and raise any animal. Unfortunately, the Snoop dog/DMX types don't want well behaved domesticated animals; they want beasts, just barely under their control so they can seem tough and menacing. Then when they nearly kill someone like my high school buddy Troy, the owners get all upset when animal control wants to put them down.
That is the problem with legislating breeds isn’t it? It is too hard to tell which type of dog and dog owner we are talking about. Is it the full breed, well mannered, loved and cared for type, or is it the chains, scraps, punches and kicks type? You have to admit one thing though, you don’t hear of a person getting mauled by a vicious golden retriever or man-eating poodle nearly as often as a “pit bull” or rottie. I’m not sure if that is just bias or truth in reporting. From my own experience, I've had dogs since for 30 years, many different breeds, and I've never been bitten enough by any of them to break the skin, but I've only known 3 "pits" and 2 of those had to be put down for attacking someone unprovoked, unless riding a bike in dog world is provocation.
It took me a second, but I found this, which y'all may have seen before.
For the record, I couldn't find the pitbull.
Same reason gun control doesn't work.
There are never any spree shootings at the gun show.
Only at schools and post offices where guns are outlawed.
I agree with you Huck, I think it is a class issue to some extent. I mean, there are certain types of people who want to look a certain way, so having that kind of dog shows them in that light.
I never said other dog breeds don't attack people, it happens, I know it happens, but is it a witch hunt otherwise? I don't know.
But this is certainly the case, almost every "pit bull" web site I went to mentioned a violent nature towards other dogs and animals....um...that would be enough for me. I don't need any violent natured things around me, dogs, people or otherwise.
Sarcasto,
Good point, although gun control will never work either way, cause only the good law abiding citizens register their guns for the most part. The crooks, gangs, murderers, rapists, etc, they don't bother taking the time to fill out the paperwork.
I am by no means defending gun shows, I think it is crazy that anyone can just buy a gun at a gun show and there is no control over that, but really, what does a background check prove anyway, only that you haven't been caught committing a crime. It cannot tell them you will not commit a crime, or if you have and just haven't been caught. Every serial killer in the world had a clean background at some point.
'With the caveat that he's wrong, wrong, wrong about the Walmart/Massachusetts controversy.]'
How am I wrong? Wal-Mart is a private company and can sell what it chooses. Don't like it, shop elsewhere. One of those libertarian principles you're struggling with ;)
The flip side to this is that, while the current political climate there mandates sale of these drugs, a shift in politics there can lead to another .gov telling wal-mart they can't sell otherwise legal drugs.
-SayUncle
See, that's what I love about you libertarians--your eternal optimism that, if only the government would get out of the way, everyone would spend their days having hot, kinky sex with their chosen spouses while smoking pot and growing richer and free-er (more free?) on the power of the free market, which we'd celebrate by shooting our many guns.
But here's the thing about Walmart--they built their empire by coming into small communities with a couple of pharmacies and a couple of clothing stores and a five and dime or two and undercutting the prices at those stores, thus driving them out of business. To say to a woman "Just shop somewhere else" when Walmart's whole business strategy in rural communities has been to drive those "somewhere elses" out of business is laughable.
Where is she supposed to go? Four towns over to another Walmart?
Fuck 'em. Private or not. You don't get to pretend to be all "it's just businesss" when you run your competition into the ground and then get to be all "but we have feelings and moral principles that need to be respected" when it comes to providing me with the shit I need.
Well, I mean, they can pretend whatever they like. But it doesn't mean I can't cheer when some state calls them on their new-found morality.
'Where is she supposed to go? Four towns over to another Walmart?'
As I say to every one else who made the same comment, find a place in Massachusetts where said option doesn't exist.
And, of course, what about when another administration says 'wal-mart can't sell this otherwise legal drug' because it's icky or can be used to make meth.
-SayUncle
Yeah, I already have to prove to the pharmacist at Walmart that I really need my cold medicine and am not going to use it to make meth, so I don't think that day is far off. It's kind of already here.
So, not MA, but you'd support such legislation in larger, more rural states?
'So, not MA, but you'd support such legislation in larger, more rural states?'
Not at all. A business should be allowed to sell or not sell any lawful product it chooses. It's like mandating they sell guns, beef jerky, nyquil, or anything else. Unnecessary over reach of governmental regulation.
And regarding this which i did not comment on earlier:
'If only the government would get out of the way . . . market, which we'd celebrate by shooting our many guns.'
You really think the market can't handle supply and demand in this case? I think that's the premise it's built on.
-SayUncle
Until recently, contraception of any kind was illegal in Massachusetts. To single out Wal-Mart and expected the enlightened sages of the Mass State House to right the wrongs they initially created is naive.
Crying about how all the Mom And Pop pharmacies, who still may not have sold you your bottle of Embry-no, were run out of business by bad old Wal-Mart is the acme of foolishness.
I lived in a small mountain town, where the only five and dime and grocery store were owned by the same asshole family. They also owned the trailer park I lived in, but I digress. They sent a million dollars to Oral Roberts after they price gouged everyone in the community. Once Wal-Mart came it, it put those jerks out of business. The town rejoiced with a big "Fuck You" when the family complained they were being run out of business.
I'm starting to suspect, now that Sarcastro has shown up, that this is some libertarian conspiracy to cheer me up by giving me smart people I disagree with to fight with. If so, thank you, gun nuts.
Uncle, in theory, I agree with you, that "a business should be allowed to sell or not sell any lawful product it chooses." But I think there are two points to be made--one specific to the Massachusetts scenario, which is, if the law is that they have to carry commonly prescribed medicines, then they should carry commonly prescribed medicines. Why wouldn't they? But the other is more specific to what's happening in other states, where it's not a company-wide policy, but instead a crap-shoot with the individual pharmacist.
If you went into Walmart to buy a gun and you brought it up to the cashier and she said "I think owning guns is immoral, I won't sell this to you and I refuse to give it back to you to go to another cashier," you'd be rightfully pissed off.
If a product for sale in a store, a person ought to be able to buy it.
Sarcastro, just because something was true in your lifetime doesn't mean it was true "recently." Birth control for all women has been legal in Massachusetts since 1972. You were six years old "recently"?
I fail to see how expecting the state government to change its mind and then enforce new laws constitutes "naive." Isn't that just what happened in this case?
Anyway, I was forced to make the crack about your age, because I had no facts with which to refute your well-taken last point.
'then they should carry commonly prescribed medicines.'
One other nit to pick, I see no indication that the morning after pill is commonly prescribed.
-SayUncle
Oh, I forgot. In the B-centric world, anything that happened before you made your debut can't be recent.
If you went to Wal-Mart to buy a gun and they pulled the "I can't, it is immoral", you would go to another gun store, no?
Or would you pout and write about how unfair the world is on your blog?
Uncle, I'm not sure where one would find that information, other than to say that anedotally, the fact that so many women are complaining about not being able to get it when they go to these pharmacies would indicate that it is being regularly prescribed.
Sarcastro, I would do both, obviously. I find your criticism of my self-centered-ness to be bizarre at best, though. Is this some residual Christianity on your part? "Oh, if only B. wrote more about others, as is becoming of a woman of her station." Or do you just wish there were more posts about you?
'the fact that so many women are complaining about not being able to get it when they go to these pharmacies'
IIRC, the lawsuit was brought by 4 women.
-SayUncle
Damn you, Uncle! If you don't let me conflate the all the women across America who've had trouble getting access with these four women from Mass. I'm not going to be able to make the points I want to make in the ways I want to make them.
a-freakin'-men. as a victim of a breed ban (in Toronto) my subdued, chilled out, protective american staffie (who is nervous in public, but doesn't do anything but cower) is by law required to wear a muzzle in public which does nothing but make her more scared of the whole entire world and if anything, more defensive. frances would like to chase a squirrel, sure, but she's not jumping at any person's jugular. unless of course, there's peanut butter on it. then, you're in lickville, sorry.
Om, my dear Mrs. Wigglebottom is an AmStaff, too. I feel your pain. I'm trying to imagine her in a muzzle and I just can't. How would we play tug of war at the park?
My daughter and son-in-law have a genuine american pit bull terrier - she is the sweetest, most gentle dog I have ever encountered. Deja is one of the family, which may be why her disposition is so good. People have commented "That can't be a pit bull, she's too small and sweet". The problem really is educating the general public and the oh-so-ignorant legislature on what these dogs are really all about.
Post a Comment
<< Home