[kdbrich]

The difference is that a gun can be placed on the shelf, and as long as no one touches it, it will sit for years and years and years w/out hurting someone. It's an inanimate object.

You can't say that about a dog.

[Dave1215]

Originally Posted by saltine

Require insurance.

Great idea; however, a number of insurance companies have bred-specific restrictions and won't cover a pitbull - so while a good idea it might not be practical.

[Go Ne]

Its stupid to make a size limit, what if we banned dogs under a certain size for being aggressive (small dogs usually are more aggressive than large dogs because of wanting to be dominate) than by bye to your pouches.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

Its stupid to make a size limit, what if we banned dogs under a certain size for being aggressive (small dogs usually are more aggressive than large dogs because of wanting to be dominate) than by bye to your pouches.

Then tell me how to effectively ban only the aggressive breeds.

And I have yet to see an argument for the simple fact that a large dog simply causes more damage than a small one when it attacks. It's common sense.

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

The difference is that a gun can be placed on the shelf, and as long as no one touches it, it will sit for years and years and years w/out hurting someone. It's an inanimate object.

You can't say that about a dog.

Yes you can. You could keep the dog in a fenced in backyard or kennel away from people the same you could a gun.

I don't think vilifiying things is the answer. You can say that lots of things kill and injure people but don't get the bad attention as a few things. PIt bulls aren't the best thing to have around but I don't think they should start banning breeds of dogs. My cousin and a friend were mauled bad by a golden retriever when they were little kids but you don't see people wanting to ban those dogs.

[Happygolucky]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

Pit bulls are dangerous.
Guns are dangerous.

Pit bulls can go off at any moment.
Guns can go off at any moment.

If the guns injures it's the fault of the owner for making it dangerous to others.
If the pit bull injures it's the fault of the owner for putting the dog in a situation where in can injure others.

I'm not for witch hunts and lynch mob mentalities based on emotion so I don't think a ban is neccessary.

This is not a witch hunt or lynch mob, this is a problem that occurs regularly in Omaha. We as citizens have to draw the line on this.


You cannot compare guns to Pitbulls.
Guns just do not go off at anytime. Pitbulls do! If the sound of a plastic wagon on the sidewalk makes a dog mad/crazy enough to do what it did.....
......well enough said.

Guns are not dangerous, the person behind the gun is dangerous.
I can load a pistol, **** it with the safety off, and put it on a table for 100 years it will not just go off.

Felons that use guns are dangerous.
Felons that use knives are dangerous.
Criminals and thugs that use guns are dangerous.
Commons Citizens with conceal carry pistol permits are not dangerous.
Target shooters are not dangerous.
Police are not dangerous.

Pit bulls are dangerous and can attack at any moments notice, the owners of these dogs are the problem because they just do not see the danger.

I wonder if we have any lawyers out there that can chime in with some liabilities that a pit bull owner may have with owning a dangerous animal in the city limits.

I would like to know who is going to pay for the medical bills for this family.
By the looks of the lady that owned that dog, she did not look like she could afford the costs............... hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[ehenningsen]

Yeah, there is a big difference between pit bulls and guns..

Guns don't jump up and bite you... Pit bulls have by far, and by exponential value, more attacks on humans than all other dogs.. They are a very dangerous breed..

[ran39822]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

It's simple. You don't need a large dog in the city limits. Larger dogs need more room anyway--and are generally not good house dogs. You don't have a constitutional right to a large dog, nor is it a basic human right. Sometimes when we choose to live in a city we have to make concessions. Your dogs may be lovable, nice animals--but they are still dangerous under certain circumstances.

Common sense tells you that if a large dog attacks it will do more damage. If the beagle that attacked ran39822 has been 2-3 times bigger it would have done more damage.

There is no reason larger dogs should be banned from within city limits. It is also not true that they require a lot of land. As long as an owner walks the dog and exercises them they can thrive even in an apartment setting. You must not have ever had a large dog if you say that they do not make good house pets. Or perhaps you have had a bad experience, but that is broad and unfair generalization.

You have a constitutional right to your property, a dog is property whether it is large or small.

If there is no Constitutional right to a large dog there is no right to a small dog. Why don't we just ban all dogs by your logic.

A large dog does not equate danger.

[ran39822]

Originally Posted by Dave1215

I understand what you are saying about the owners, but you also can't deny that it appears there is a higher percentage of harmful attacks recently in this area from the specific bread.

Those that propose not banning the breed but working with the owner I don't hear any practical things they say need to be changed that could also be enforced.

Favor: What do you see as the specific policy that would be passed that is also enforceable. I would like to understand a practical law, but until I do I fully support the bred-specific ban.

My logic for bred-specific (until I hear a practical owner based policy) is that between PitBull and Rotweiller those two have been the top two breds responsible for human death (not just bites, but resulted in death) from bites. Those two causing over 50% of the documented deaths in recent years. These two breds cause the higher proportion of serious harm or death. A bred specific ban may not dramatically reduce the number of bites, but it will reduce the serious bites and death caused by bites.

The bred specific ban is not an end all be all policy but it does help.

So what is your specific and practical policy that could be enforced?

I would prefer a policy that required owners of certain breeds to undergo various obedience and socialization classes with their dogs prior to being able to purchase them. It would be also be part of the licensing process that is required within the city. It would reduce the number of irresponsible owners who would attempt to acquire a pit bull or other more aggressive breed.

[ran39822]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Then tell me how to effectively ban only the aggressive breeds.

And I have yet to see an argument for the simple fact that a large dog simply causes more damage than a small one when it attacks. It's common sense.

A large dog may be able to cause more damage, but overall they are much less likely to cause ANY damage. Ability to do something is not a reason to ban. My lab is over 80 pounds and would never attack or injure someone. He has endured people pulling on his ears, falling on him, biting him, pulling his tail, being dressed up in clothes, and the list can go on. I doubt that your little dog would put up with even half as much as my lab before trying to bite. It is illogical to ban all dogs over a certain weight just because if they decided to bite it might hurt more than when your little dog bites.