buster81
Regular Member
imported post
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-04-16-vetviews16_N.htm
Veterinarian fully vets the issue of guns, laws and pit bulls
By Patty Khuly, Special for USA TODAY
At the outset, let me state that I am unwaveringly in favor of gun control measures designed very specifically to keep guns out of the paws of our country's criminal element.
With that in mind, it seems reasonable to assume I'd be blanketly supportive of more restrictive gun control measures. And yes, when it comes to confirmed criminals, I'm all for keeping arms as far from them as possible. Surely we can justify that as a penalty for their offenses.
But recently, I tuned into arguments put forth by those who convene in Washington, D.C., today to march in support of gun rights. In so doing, I couldn't help but observe the almost identical nature of arguments made by those who support the preservation of basic gun rights and those who oppose breed-specific legislation such as the pit bull ban we have here in Miami-Dade County.
Icky though that may have sounded to a leftish-wing animal lover who would never deign to keep a firearm at home, my individual rights-supporting side won out. I got the message — part of it, anyway.
Why?
As a veterinarian, Miami-Dade resident and former pit bull owner, I've been a close watcher of breed-specific legislation. And consequently — let me speak plainly now — I hate these laws.
They are based on:
• Biological misinformation (pit bulls' jaws don't "lock").
• Lack of attention to dog-bite statistics (breed bans have not curbed dog bites).
• A profound lack of attention to reality (pit bulls are even more popular now that they're banned).
• A failure to recognize the obvious (those who want aggressive dogs will raise them, regardless of breed).
And these laws are so arbitrarily enforced that those who would socialize their dogs properly in park settings are predominantly targeted over those who would wreak violent havoc with their (mostly hidden) dogs.
These myopic, tyranny-of-the-majority-enacted bans are fear-based. Aimed at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, they have no regard for science or public welfare — just for the kind of political expediency that prompts municipal leaders to get their names attached to a proposal that any safety-loving voter stands prepared to swallow whole.
But then, I guess it'll always be sexier to ban something than to actually work hard to deliver intelligent laws — or to enforce them.
OK, rant over.
But perhaps you see my point now. The ban on pit bull dogs (among other breeds), as for weapons, would seem anathema to our national values given that the Second Amendment is right there with all responsible dog owners: You can't take away my dog based on her breed any more than you can take away my revolver just because bad people tend to use a .357 Magnum. The law doesn't allow you to make those decisions for me. Not if I haven't given it just cause to discriminate against me.
Sure, the problem with the Second Amendment is that our forefathers never foresaw a nation of AK-47-wielding street thugs terrorizing common citizens with their drive-bys, or an urban culture where spike-collared, muscle-bound dogs (of all breeds) straining against their chains was considered the epitome of street-sexy.
As a mother and a frequent animal-bite observer, of course I'd like more laws targeting these evildoing, dog-wielding creeps (not least because the dogs suffer, too). But am I willing to accept the consequences of such laws? Not when they unfairly target the dogs instead of the people. What we need is not more laws crafted to punish the dogs. Rather, we simply need to enforce existing laws to punish animal cruelty offenders and those whose dogs commit violent acts.
As with guns, the push should be to punish the criminal, not his weapon, and not to penalize those who would choose to peacefully keep a dog of any particular breed.
Now, don't condemn me for equating pit bulls with guns. As a former pit bull owner (and a defender of dogs in general), I don't typically see dogs in this light at all. But that doesn't alter the fact that those who would ban them do. And with that recognition comes the obvious conclusion:
If you respect an individual's right to bear arms, whether for protection, sport or collector's obsession, then any censure of an individual breed of dog (ostensibly for its inherent danger to the population at large) deserves the same broad protections — along with the kind of enhanced enforcement of crimes that result from their abuse.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-04-16-vetviews16_N.htm
Veterinarian fully vets the issue of guns, laws and pit bulls
By Patty Khuly, Special for USA TODAY
At the outset, let me state that I am unwaveringly in favor of gun control measures designed very specifically to keep guns out of the paws of our country's criminal element.
With that in mind, it seems reasonable to assume I'd be blanketly supportive of more restrictive gun control measures. And yes, when it comes to confirmed criminals, I'm all for keeping arms as far from them as possible. Surely we can justify that as a penalty for their offenses.
But recently, I tuned into arguments put forth by those who convene in Washington, D.C., today to march in support of gun rights. In so doing, I couldn't help but observe the almost identical nature of arguments made by those who support the preservation of basic gun rights and those who oppose breed-specific legislation such as the pit bull ban we have here in Miami-Dade County.
Icky though that may have sounded to a leftish-wing animal lover who would never deign to keep a firearm at home, my individual rights-supporting side won out. I got the message — part of it, anyway.
Why?
As a veterinarian, Miami-Dade resident and former pit bull owner, I've been a close watcher of breed-specific legislation. And consequently — let me speak plainly now — I hate these laws.
They are based on:
• Biological misinformation (pit bulls' jaws don't "lock").
• Lack of attention to dog-bite statistics (breed bans have not curbed dog bites).
• A profound lack of attention to reality (pit bulls are even more popular now that they're banned).
• A failure to recognize the obvious (those who want aggressive dogs will raise them, regardless of breed).
And these laws are so arbitrarily enforced that those who would socialize their dogs properly in park settings are predominantly targeted over those who would wreak violent havoc with their (mostly hidden) dogs.
These myopic, tyranny-of-the-majority-enacted bans are fear-based. Aimed at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, they have no regard for science or public welfare — just for the kind of political expediency that prompts municipal leaders to get their names attached to a proposal that any safety-loving voter stands prepared to swallow whole.
But then, I guess it'll always be sexier to ban something than to actually work hard to deliver intelligent laws — or to enforce them.
OK, rant over.
But perhaps you see my point now. The ban on pit bull dogs (among other breeds), as for weapons, would seem anathema to our national values given that the Second Amendment is right there with all responsible dog owners: You can't take away my dog based on her breed any more than you can take away my revolver just because bad people tend to use a .357 Magnum. The law doesn't allow you to make those decisions for me. Not if I haven't given it just cause to discriminate against me.
Sure, the problem with the Second Amendment is that our forefathers never foresaw a nation of AK-47-wielding street thugs terrorizing common citizens with their drive-bys, or an urban culture where spike-collared, muscle-bound dogs (of all breeds) straining against their chains was considered the epitome of street-sexy.
As a mother and a frequent animal-bite observer, of course I'd like more laws targeting these evildoing, dog-wielding creeps (not least because the dogs suffer, too). But am I willing to accept the consequences of such laws? Not when they unfairly target the dogs instead of the people. What we need is not more laws crafted to punish the dogs. Rather, we simply need to enforce existing laws to punish animal cruelty offenders and those whose dogs commit violent acts.
As with guns, the push should be to punish the criminal, not his weapon, and not to penalize those who would choose to peacefully keep a dog of any particular breed.
Now, don't condemn me for equating pit bulls with guns. As a former pit bull owner (and a defender of dogs in general), I don't typically see dogs in this light at all. But that doesn't alter the fact that those who would ban them do. And with that recognition comes the obvious conclusion:
If you respect an individual's right to bear arms, whether for protection, sport or collector's obsession, then any censure of an individual breed of dog (ostensibly for its inherent danger to the population at large) deserves the same broad protections — along with the kind of enhanced enforcement of crimes that result from their abuse.
