Ontario's Pit Bull Ban

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

04-08-2005, 03:05 PM

#101

JRace

1000 Watt CAFz'r

Join Date: Jun 2002

Posts: 1,242

[quote]Originally posted by Blind d(-_-)b:

Quote:

but the ban is a way for those who want it to feel safe because oh its set on paper. Thats it thats all..

So punish not only the entire breed but any dog that has some pit bull in it?

This ban is just feeding peoples ignorant views about pitbulls. Which IMO is a horrible injuctice to a once very proud breed. The ban does nothing more than make the breed even more desirable to the lowlifes that abuse and fight with these dogs.

Quote:

As for banning guns, you need a license to own one, that makes people feel better even if its the smallest thing possible.

Put it this way, something on paper for those who know nothing of the breed but hate them or in general that're all for the ban, makes them feel better because a piece of paper is like gold to them. Even if its the small piece of paper that says they're banned. [/QB]

What I take from your statement is that you agree the ban does not make it any safer, just makes some people feel safer.

Quote:

We all know people are going to own the breed regardless. But it gives some hope to those supporters and if an attack was to happen during the ban by the breed then the owner is screwed NOT the dog. To me that's a form of blaming the owner not the dog as you all spoke so highly of before.

Well chances are the owner would have the dog from before the ban and therefore the case would be treated the same as before. If the owner obtained the dog after the ban then it proves my point. THE BAN DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DANGEROUS DOGS

Quote:

And regardless of the fact that I hate pitbulls

That comment right there outlines exatcly why you will never see the other side of the story. I can see both sides as I have seen the damage done by dogs, I have been bitten multiple times. I have also been witness to dogs being mistreated and stereotyped.

Quote:

the only person I would trust with a pitbull is someone like Gilligan or Toyrantula. Why, because of all the things I've already read about their dogs. They aren't the irresponsible egocentric idiots that own the breed that the ban is mostly about.[/QB]

Yet you are 100% for banning the rest of the world from owning them.

For ever bad owner there is many more good owners out there.

For the record I take this so personally because I am the master of a large dog that could do incredible dammage to anyone - and the thought of people blinding banning my dog is ablsolutly heart-wrenching.

The ban is not the answer, it is mearly a bandaid by politicians looking to further there career.

Wow, maybe I should get back to work.

[img]smile.gif[/img]

04-08-2005, 03:15 PM

#102

JRace

1000 Watt CAFz'r

Join Date: Jun 2002

Posts: 1,242

Quote:

Originally posted by defro13:
i agree that the ban isnt a good thing for dogs, but ive yet to hear 1 reasonable/feasable option, registering owners certainly isnt reasonable/feasable, niether is killing the owners, whoever said that needs to get thier brains looked at

You have made some very good points throughout this debate Dave. Your right we havn't made any resonable alternatives. There is nothing that can be done that will satisfy the opponents of Pitbulls as quickly and decisivly as an outright ban. There are some things however that may help the problem:

More education
- People need to be made aware of the special training required to handle a large dog

Equal publicity
- For every Pitbull attack that we see there are countless attacks by other breeds that go unreported. It juts happens to be that pitbull attacks are the medias hot topic right now. It used to be that way about Rottis in BC.

Equal punishment
- The owner of the dog should be charged appropriatlty for the dogs actions. If a person is attacked the owner should be charged with negalgence causing bodily harm and be held accountable. A person kills someone with there automobile they are charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Permits for owning large dogs
- I would pay more and pass the neccesary exams to show that I am responsible owner if it means the right people can own these dogs.

Those are just some steps needed to help solve the problem. But they take time and are not as people-pleasing as "OUTRIGHT BAN".

Oh damm I was sposed to get back to work...
[img]smile.gif[/img]

[ April 08, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: JRace ]

04-08-2005, 06:25 PM

#103

JordyO

4000 Watt CAFz'r

iTrader: (17)

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 6,363

This had been locked but I'm going to open it again. Mods.. we had an agreement to post a reason when we lock, so do it.

04-08-2005, 07:26 PM

#104

Brandon

4000 Watt CAFz'r

Thread Starter

iTrader: (1)

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 4,603

Thanks Jordy.....it's a great conversation I think...lots of different oppinions being voiced which is great, I think you were right in telling us to tone it down a bit....it was getting out of hand and I said stuff I shouldn't have as well as others.

I'll do my part to keep things civil as I'm sure everyone else will as well.

04-08-2005, 07:33 PM

#105

JordyO

4000 Watt CAFz'r

iTrader: (17)

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 6,363

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I hope the others follow suit. Lets remember folks that everyone is entitled to a different opinions than yours

04-08-2005, 07:55 PM

#106

pinhead

1000 Watt CAFz'r

Join Date: Aug 2001

Posts: 1,770

[quote]Originally posted by JRace:

Quote:

Equal punishment
- The owner of the dog should be charged appropriatlty for the dogs actions. If a person is attacked the owner should be charged with negalgence causing bodily harm and be held accountable.

what are they going to do fine them
the unfortunate thing is that most of the meat heads are on welfare
what are you going to do to them
give them a fine
are they going to pay it