A guest writer for the DogsBite.org Blog.
When it comes to pit bulls and other dangerous dogs, much heated debate revolves around opposing concepts of “freedom”.
The freedom of a citizen to buy whatever dog they choose vs. the freedom of every other citizen to walk around free of violence inflicted by someone else’s choice of breed--notorious for a history of dangerous outbursts.
The freedom of a dog to roam free vs. terrorising the neighbours imprisoned in their houses because they can’t trust that loose, wandering dogs won’t bite.
What defines “freedom” in regards to owning a dog? The choice to own a dog involves limiting future choices, not expanding them. Dog ownership isn’t about freedom. If so, dog owners could take a week-long vacation in Bali, leave an open kibble bag, raise the toilet seat then let the dog crap and pee all over until returning home to clean up the results along with sofa remnants.
The question for owners of dogs is, “How seriously do you take your responsibilities to your dog, your family and your community?”
Dog ownership is about responsibility.
The reason one takes on the responsibility of a dog is that, generally, the relationship is worth the effort. A responsible dog owner puts effort into training a dog that will exist harmoniously in human society. They ensure the safety and comfort of people and pets that inhabit their community. The question for owners of unmanageable dogs is, “how much of your freedom are you willing to sacrifice to maintain everyone’s safety from a vicious dog or a breed with a proven history of unprovoked violence?
Some communities outlaw certain breeds of dogs statistically proven to be the most dangerous. Such communities view the freedom of their citizens to interact safely as more important than the freedom of a select few to own dangerous dog breeds.
Breed lobbyists attempt to overturn such bans or enact legislation that prohibits breed banning claiming that such bans infringe on the “rights” or “freedoms” of certain individuals or their genetically engineered breed of dog.
Yes, I see a problem with this. Many do.
An individual cannot be allowed to impinge on the rights of the many due to their personal choice of dog breed. It’s not uncommon to legislate for the “greater good”.
The freedom of to drink alcohol then drive a car is curtailed while the freedom to imbibe in one’s own home is not. Dangerous products are forced off the market by legislation—because the right of the individual to own a product that endangers lives is restricted for the common good. It’s perfectly legal for an individual to shove a rock off an isolated cliff. It’s not legal to shove a rock off a city skyscraper onto a busy sidewalk endangering those below who did not consent to dodging rocks. It is a matter of public safety. The rights of the pedestrians vs. The freedom of the rock tosser.
“Freedom” is the siren call often shilled loudest by those desiring to impinge on the rights of others who seek a reasonable level of justice, peace and safety in their communities.
It’s not unfair to demand that owners of dangerous dog breeds define what level of “freedom” they expect from everyone else.
Including their victims.
CC BY-NC-ND August 10, 2021
06/25/21: What Are Pit Bulls Good At? - By Boni
09/30/20: Are Sensible Dog People A Dying Breed? - By Boni
Thank you, Boni, for your clear presentation of the unjust gruesome tragedy that those who are both lawmakers and dangerous canine worshipers inflict upon their perfect victims.
Legislating the ownership of known and proven vicious types of dogs makes sense in the same way we legislate the ownership of other dangerous animals like bulls, tigers, and bears.
At least three psychological studies have been done on these types of dog owners, none are flattering. They should have to meet the same insurance and containment standards as the owners of other potentially deadly animals.
The moment we decided Fido’s quality of life was more important than our neighbor’s quality of life was when we stopped being a civilized society.
I don’t see how America can be considered a first world country any more. Citizens are regularly mauled to death by roaming dogs. These are not people who are trekking through the wilderness and accidently stumbling in to the habitats of wild animals. Kids waiting for the bus, adults walking for fitness even the homeless that live in cities are all frequently devoured by someone’s pet that is allowed to roam.
One of these canine IEDs may even break in to your home, break through a door or even bust through a 2nd story window just so it can detonate where fresh victims are.
Our own tax money is used to distribute these WMDs. A sleeper cell of the breed of peace may be operating at your local animal shelter.
It’s worse elsewhere. South of the border, and Central America and South America have much lower rabies vaccination rates for their canines. Same with Eastern Europe and Asia. What about Canada and Western Europe? When people are attacked by aggressive dogs in those locations, the victims are not allowed to have adequate self defense. In the USA, people who let their dogs loose may possibly not have had their dogs vaccinated against rabies. Victim gets bit, that right there is unreasonable risk of grave threat of severe body harm from a virus that is virtually 100% lethal if symptoms appear. In a fraction of a second, life is over. “He was always so friendly” is how the same old song goes.
No freedom of nice, normal people to walk around with out being butchered on the street by dangerous breed canines: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dogs-maul-texas-man-in-one-of-the-worst-attacks-paramedic-has-ever-seen/ar-AANOe0u