Opinion Pitbulls vs Firearms

I had dogs, now I don't have nor health reserves nor free time to deal with dogs.
Some from my friends had pits...when I was young and they needed someone to deal with them when they can't they had asked me. I did this only because I then needed some real stuff from them . . not money . I didn't had problems with them... then...short time stuff but they IMHO are not bad dogs.

For me were predictable...easy to deal with.
 
From life experience stuff I didn't had imagined to predict was one guy. He had purchased construction materials for small company.
Paid always in time as he had told and signed papers. Was normal. FOR ME ofc.
I don't know how he dealt with his dog. Looks that one day he had attempted to teach his boxer (!) dog discipline with ....beating in his flat. For him this experiment ended with neighbour call about blood in his room... morgue and coffin. Dog had processed guy.... after attempt to teach with beatings....
 
deviake said:
Sincere question: Does anyone who thinks pitbulls should be banned think guns should be legal? If so, what is the reasoning?
Click to expand...
Me. Animals are not as predictable as guns and there are still plenty of other breeds to choose from. There are so many to choose from you really aren't losing anything. I'm not saying all pitbulls should be euthanized. But phase the breed out for sure.
 
deviake said:
Sincere question: Does anyone who thinks pitbulls should be banned think guns should be legal? If so, what is the reasoning?
Click to expand...
Keep them both locked up where other people, especially kids, can't get at them (or vice versa), and I won't care about either.

Anyway, it's a false equivalency. A gun doesn't load itself and run out of its yard attacking people for passing by and you can't prevent the creation of more of them just by neutering the ones you have.

And just to be clear, I'm not pro-gun per se--I don't own any and I never have--but I think interdiction of illegal arms sales and more mental health services would be more effective uses of resources to reduce gun violence than prohibition.
 
I think it's time to accept this is just a troll account.

No one one could be this stupid.
 
TS, your brain working okay?

Handguns and pitbulls eh? Definitely apples and apples…..
 
Andy Capp said:
Keep them both locked up where other people, especially kids, can't get at them (or vice versa), and I won't care about either.

Anyway, it's a false equivalency. A gun doesn't load itself and run out of its yard attacking people for passing by and you can't prevent the creation of more of them just by neutering the ones you have.

And just to be clear, I'm not pro-gun per se--I don't own any and I never have--but I think interdiction of illegal arms sales and more mental health services would be more effective uses of resources to reduce gun violence than prohibition.
Click to expand...
Well said and agree.
 
Andy Capp said:
Keep them both locked up where other people, especially kids, can't get at them (or vice versa), and I won't care about either.

Anyway, it's a false equivalency. A gun doesn't load itself and run out of its yard attacking people for passing by and you can't prevent the creation of more of them just by neutering the ones you have.

And just to be clear, I'm not pro-gun per se--I don't own any and I never have--but I think interdiction of illegal arms sales and more mental health services would be more effective uses of resources to reduce gun violence than prohibition.
Click to expand...
I've guns and have never had a pitbull so I'm actually on the opposite side of the equation lol. I know places that have bans have very few gun deaths and don't have mass shootings like here in the US though I tend to agree with you in a vacuum, though there is a whole argument about what guns should be legal, why, enforcement of laws, etc, but that is a whole other broad topic.

I've never had a pitbull but I've dealt with gentle pitbulls and terriers generally that weren't remotely threatening, in my personal experience I've seen every breed I've encountered other than pitbulls be a problem though statistically, pitbulls are very dangerous when they go rogue. The counter argument I've heard and read about banning them is that it's not the breed but the way they're raised and treated, i.e., a personal responsibility problem with the owners, which is where the gun comparison comes in, as well as the fact that in the US far more people are killed with firearms than by pitbulls and neither is a necessity. It's not a 1:1 comparison with firearms of course but I've noticed similarities used in the pro arguments for both. I bring the potential for harm argument in because the reason why I can't own any weapon is the potential for harm regardless of the fact that we're talking about inanimate objects, so that does play a factor in both cases. In the case of pitbulls, if we agree that they can be fine if they're not bred to fight then I find the juxtaposition between holding both stances curious.

Contrary to what some in here seem to think, I don't have a hard stance on either and in the US banning firearms would be nigh impossible for obvious reasons. I suppose it gives me a sort of head tilt response, particularly from my fellow "freedom loving" Americans, when a pro gun person sees merit in a flat out ban for one as an effective way of deterring harm, but not the other.
 
Last edited:
I love guns and have never killed (or even shot) anyone. I've owned pitbulls (always neutered/spayed) nearly my entire adult life and none of them have ever hurt anyone.
 
deadshot138 said:
More bullshit. You can't hunt with a nuke or high explosives or use them recreationally in a confined space like a shooting range. The dog is sentient. The gun is not. How many gun deaths come from a gun that wasn't held by a person?
Click to expand...
I was using that as an example for the potential of harm from inanimate objects being the reason for their ban but you make good points. I have a longer post on the next page to the topic in general but I agree with you here.
 
The alpha-athletic pit-bull breed attracts the most irresponsible dog-owners possible, for the most part.

I’m not saying all owners of the pit family are irresponsible

I work for a city as an electrician. The city has an animal shelter. Guess which breed dominates the shelter? Guess which breed rarely finds a new home as a full-grown adult?



I have a pair of them down the road the owners can never keep under control. They are always loose running like a pack through the hood. I’ve even been aggressively approached by them at the mailbox. I would feel no sympathy should I have to smoke both those dogs shall they ever try to attack me, my son, or my little 25-30lb dogs I keep in my yard
 
Fox by the Sea said:
No idea. it's still silly to compare explosives or weapons to dogs though.
it's a clear category error. neither explosives or weapons possess the ability to move about on their own and chase people down and kill them.
maybe you can find something else so compare pitbulls with, cause currently it's a stupid comparison.
Click to expand...
This.

Comparison is retarded and agenda driven
 
deviake said:
I was using that as an example for the potential of harm from inanimate objects being the reason for their ban but you make good points. I have a longer post on the next page to the topic in general but I agree with you here.
Click to expand...
Animals are not inanimate objects. That was a significant aspect of my reply. But it wasn't the only one so it's also not "the reason" but "a reason" and I think it's disingenuous of you to frame it that way yet again.


deviake said:
I've guns and have never had a pitbull so I'm actually on the opposite side of the equation lol. I know places that have bans have very few gun deaths and don't have mass shootings like here in the US though I tend to agree with you in a vacuum, though there is a whole argument about what guns should be legal, why, enforcement of laws, etc, but that is a whole other broad topic.

I've never had a pitbull but I've dealt with gentle pitbulls and terriers generally that weren't remotely threatening, in my personal experience I've seen every breed I've encountered other than pitbulls be a problem though statistically, pitbulls are very dangerous when they go rogue. The counter argument I've heard and read about banning them is that it's not the breed but the way they're raised and treated, i.e., a personal responsibility problem with the owners, which is where the gun comparison comes in, as well as the fact that in the US far more people are killed with firearms than by pitbulls and neither is a necessity. It's not a 1:1 comparison with firearms of course but I've noticed similarities used in the pro arguments for both. I bring the potential for harm argument in because the reason why I can't own any weapon is the potential for harm regardless of the fact that we're talking about inanimate objects, so that does play a factor in both cases. In the case of pitbulls, if we agree that they can be fine if they're not bred to fight then I find the juxtaposition between holding both stances curious.

Contrary to what some in here seem to think, I don't have a hard stance on either and in the US banning firearms would be nigh impossible for obvious reasons. I suppose it gives me a sort of head tilt response, particularly from my fellow "freedom loving" Americans, when a pro gun person sees merit in a flat out ban for one as an effective way of deterring harm, but not the other.
Click to expand...
That's an awfully long way of saying you're going to ignore the false equivalency and keep making the same argument anyway.

Again, a (civilian) firearm can't get up and start roaming the neighbourhood attacking people.

The nature/nurture argument is an entirely separate one. And again, I concede, you can have assholes everywhere, asshole gun owners, asshole drivers, asshole food preparation staff, and any of them could cause harm to others, even many others, with their assholery. So, we make road cameras, radar guns, car seats, and airbags, employ the Department of Health, and the list goes on. Presumably, gun laws are intended similarly but I don't know enough to be sure what ones are effective, only that that is what they are for. Regardless, these are all defensive, preventive, and preparative measures. What can members of the public do to prepare in advance to prevent being attacked by the roving dog of an asshole owner (so not for defending one's self once the attack starts)?

My position is that once a kid is dead it's too late to matter if it's the asshole owner's fault except in the pursuit of societal revenge.
 
Andy Capp said:
Animals are not inanimate objects. That was a significant aspect of my reply. But it wasn't the only one so it's also not "the reason" but "a reason" and I think it's disingenuous of you to frame it that way yet again.



That's an awfully long way of saying you're going to ignore the false equivalency and keep making the same argument anyway.

Again, a (civilian) firearm can't get up and start roaming the neighbourhood attacking people.

The nature/nurture argument is an entirely separate one. And again, I concede, you can have assholes everywhere, asshole gun owners, asshole drivers, asshole food preparation staff, and any of them could cause harm to others, even many others, with their assholery. So, we make road cameras, radar guns, car seats, and airbags, employ the Department of Health, and the list goes on. Presumably, gun laws are intended similarly but I don't know enough to be sure what ones are effective, only that that is what they are for. Regardless, these are all defensive, preventive, and preparative measures. What can members of the public do to prepare in advance to prevent being attacked by the roving dog of an asshole owner (so not for defending one's self once the attack starts)?

My position is that once a kid is dead it's too late to matter if it's the asshole owner's fault except in the pursuit of societal revenge.
Click to expand...
They're not objects but other dogs besides pitbulls also misbehave and bite people, pitbulls are the most dangerous though from any data I've seen. I don't think I've said nor implied they're 1:1 though I have emphasized harm reduction as that is the common ground between people who want to ban one or the other. Maybe I'm mind fucking myself, I'm not perfect nor immune to bias nor fallacies, but I don't think that's debatable. I emphasize that because not every pitbull is a psycho killer and yeah, nature/nurture is a separate argument because guns are inanimate objects but it still falls under the purview of personal responsibility as with firearms. They're not equivalent but there is crossover in the arguments from either side of the aisle about why one or both should be banned, which I'm emphasizing. If there wasn't crossover I wouldn't have made the thread.

As far as I'm aware any government that has banned guns doesn't have mass shootings. I haven't compared the per capita guns deaths of such places to the US.

I get your last point but I'm genuinely unsure whether you're referring to dogs or guns. I'm guessing dogs based on the context of our discussion but it applies to either.
 
deviake said:
They're not objects but other dogs besides pitbulls also misbehave and bite people, pitbulls are the most dangerous though from any data I've seen. I don't think I've said nor implied they're 1:1 though I have emphasized harm reduction as that is the common ground between people who want to ban one or the other. Maybe I'm mind fucking myself, I'm not perfect nor immune to bias nor fallacies, but I don't think that's debatable. I emphasize that because not every pitbull is a psycho killer and yeah, nature/nurture is a separate argument because guns are inanimate objects but it still falls under the purview of personal responsibility as with firearms. They're not equivalent but there is crossover in the arguments from either side of the aisle about why one or both should be banned, which I'm emphasizing. If there wasn't crossover I wouldn't have made the thread.

As far as I'm aware any government that has banned guns doesn't have mass shootings. I haven't compared the per capita guns deaths of such places to the US.

I get your last point but I'm genuinely unsure whether you're referring to dogs or guns. I'm guessing dogs based on the context of our discussion but it applies to either.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I don't think you got my point at all. Please, read my post again. There should be no confusion about my intent in the last sentence. I ask again, what preventative measures can a random individual in a public place take to reduce his chance of being attacked by a dog without specialized training?

And again there is no crossover in the arguments I'm making. None. Stop insisting there is.
 
Andy Capp said:
Sigh. I don't think you got my point at all. Please, read my post again. There should be no confusion about my intent in the last sentence. I ask again, what preventative measures can a random individual in a public place take to reduce his chance of being attacked by a dog without specialized training?
Click to expand...
Training, socialization, and even muzzles, which, btw, I've seen on non-pitbulls.

Harm reduction being the reason to ban something is crossover, that doesn't mean it's the whole story. I'm not even explicitly against banning them, I'm not an expert.

You also live in a country with heavy gun restrictions where, as far as I'm aware, there are no things like school shootings which probably has to do with those restrictions. That may be a component that's missing but I already addressed above, the conversation and the things I hear in America are different than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,651
Messages
58,307,837
Members
175,999
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top