This weblog is licensed under a Creative
Commons License.
Powered
by
Movable Type 3.2b2
Archive
Syndicate This! Categories Art (3) |
October 14, 2005
What Gun and Dog Defenders Have in Common California just loosened its ban on breed-specific dog laws, thus allowing cities like San Francisco to take measures to address pit bulls and the like. I have tried to keep an open mind in this debate, and so I read some of the websites that oppose breed-specific legislation ("BSL"). And you know what, they use the same arguments that the NRA uses. Check it out--this is from Pitbulllovers.com: BSL is a flawed concept from the moment it is conceived. In most cases the dogs are targeted leaving the owner, which is the responsible, rational thinking party, out of it. Some impose fines along with their laws but are often not enforced to the maximum so the owner gets away with a slap on the wrist. Dogs are not the problem and BSL does not reconize this. People are the problem and until we find a way to punish people for their neglectful actions which allow dogs to bite and terrorize the public we will never stop the problem. First problem is, take one breed away, these people will find another breed to replace it. Since the APBT bans the Rottweiler is now on the rise as the most popular breed. Now these dogs are taking heat from the general public and the BSL supporters. Again they are restricting the dogs and not the people. BSL can be compared to gender profiling or racial profiling. Simply because a dog appears to be a dog on the restricted list it is treated as one. What if you were driving down the road and the police took you to jail, sentenced you, and placed you on death row just for looking like a certain ethnic group? BSL does exactly that to dogs. So why is it then that more BSL laws are implemented daily? God forbid a person have to take responsibility for their irresponsible actions and BSL supports these people by not placing very harsh punishments on them.
Post a comment
Powered
by |