This may be a pretty pointless thread, but I’ve actually been thinking about this for quite a while. It has to do with something they’re trying to do where I live, and after reading about it in the paper enough, I’ve just started thinking WAY too much about it. Time to get some input, I suppose.
But it concerns how certain places (in the United States at least, dunno if they do it anywhere else) are trying to ban certain breeds of dogs. Specifically, pit bulls (which I guess I’ll use for this, although they’ve also started targeting Rotweilers and other breeds). They set up a deadline, and if the dogs aren’t gone in a certain time, they haul them all up and kill them. They say it’s for the safety of others, but… How? The argument for it is that pit bulls were bred for fighting, and that fighting and killing are in their blood. And that no matter what you do, you can’t breed it out of them. That is their purpose, that is what they always will do, so nobody is safe around them.
Well… There’s a breed called the Rhodesian Ridgeback. It was bred to kill lions. People keep it as a pet, and they are never targeted for doing anything violent. And I’d imagine that a dog bred to kill a lion would be a lot stronger and more violent than a dog bred just to fight. But no, they bred the violence out of them. Why not for all breeds?
Seems a bit uneducated to me. I’ve done some research and found that an average of three people are killed by pit bulls each year. True pit bulls. A lot of people can’t tell the difference between them and other breeds.
A lot of people say that they are not all violent, but (because of their breed’s history), they have the potential to be violent. But, isn’t this true of any breed of dog? Or cat, or bird, or lizard? Or humans? I mean… If they want to make sense, they’d have to just outlaw the animal kingdom as a whole, wouldn’t they? They all have the potential to be violent, don’t they?
Does it make any sense to ban certain breeds of dogs? I mean, I’m not an animal-rights activist by any means–I like them, but I think animals are animals-- but I can’t find any sense to this. No matter what argument they use, there’s always something that proves them wrong. It just seems like some mindless law they came up with, like the law in Seattle that says it’s illegal for a fish to swim backwards on public transportation. Just a very extreme, senseless law.
But maybe I’m looking too much into it.
(And yes. I was gone for a while. You may take me to court over my truancy now.)