In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 748
Online now 1599 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I think the solution may be education. I've been to communities where the pitbulls are obviously more intelligent thant their owners.
Not to discriminate against someone I don't know or without knowing all of the details, but it doesn't look like the dog owner was all that much of a law abiding citizen:
With the multitudes of breeds available, selecting a pitbull for a pet is a huge indicator of an abysmal IQ level and a blatant disregard for the people around them.
Do you not see the parallel between an unqualified/negligent dog owner and an unqualified/negligent gun owner? Both are putting other people's lives at risk.
I have no problem with honest discussion regarding how to deal with the issue, but people jumping to "BAN ALL PIT BULLS!!!" are no different than those screaming "BAN ALL GUNS!!!!"
They are issues that are far more complicated than those on either side try to make them.
Cars are designed to kill people? Which ones? You mean, like, the Batmobile?
"Look at this. An entire generation of Cinderellas, and there's no glass slipper coming." -- Mother in ALMOST FAMOUS
You seriously can't be this retarded to try and equate the banning of pit bulls with the banning of guns.
This post was edited by Walter_Sanchez 13 months ago
As an aside, it amazes me how people still take VargMan seriously.
They can definitely be sued.
probably more like; they acquire the dog, teach it to be a killer, to guard the trailer when they're away, and when it kills someone...... Surprise!!
As stated already in this thread, there is no constitutional right to have a particular breed of dog. You cannot compare the two issues. And, it would be very easy to get rid of pit bull dogs, not so much for guns. Simply permit cities to pass an ordinance banning all pit bull dogs with a criminal punishment for violating. The citizens will happily regulate the issue and quickly eliminate the demand for the dogs.
About that time.
Just imagine the carnage if pit bulls could fire guns.
this is only happening because God was ripped out of our schools!
Or if guns could breed.
Sort of, but I think they refer to the phenomenon as "reverse Darwinism"
So there aren't types of firearms that are illegal? What if a certain type of handgun was used primarily by gangs and accounted for a high percentage of gun deaths. Would you be OK with banning that type of firearm?
wish more cities took the lead that Toronto has in regard to pitbulls.
We do ban 100% automatic weapons... even if it is a handgun so... no we wouldn't ban handguns we would ban the specific type of handgun, sort of like no one is saying ban all dogs, just a specific breed of dog.
Weapon > gun > handgun > automatic handgun
Animal > pet > dog > pitbull
see the distinctions?
Also most gang members have 1. illegally obtained their handgun and 2. are illegally using it and therefore in those cases is really isn't the gun at fault. Whereas with dogs, especially pitbulls, even if you do everything right some dogs have a higher propensity to attack than others.
That explains the "woman had a gun in her cooch" thread...
I understand the argument that Pit Bulls "have a higher propensity to attack". The problem is that many pit bulls are owned/bred by people who are doing so for illegal reasons or are woefully unprepared to train a larger breed of dog. So, because of those people, there is a movement to ban that subset of dog.
Likewise, because of people who obtain/use "semi-automatic" firearms illegally there is a movement to ban all people from using those types of weapons.
I'm merely trying to point out the fact that the ideas as to why they should be banned are the same. I don't own a pit bull. I don't own a gun. I just think both issues are more complex than people make them out to be. Then again, I don't spend much time on Wells so I guess my independent views are ill-suited for this place.
I agree. I don't really support a pitbull ban but that said I think in practice banning pitbulls would eventually reduce 1. their existence and 2. pitbull related deaths pretty significantly and both of those would occur way before a similar phenomenon with guns.
I agree with you that the call for a ban for both are similar in the reactionary-ness I just think in terms of effectiveness one has a pretty clear advantage over the other.
Total fail post and it has been up three hours at time of this post.
Question authority. Power to the people
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports