And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.
I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.
I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.
I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.
I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.
And yet you are the one that continually talks of being prepared.
We don't want to go too far with this, but with regards to Minority Report... are you saying that if you could prevent a murder from happening you wouldn't because it would violate the murderer's rights?
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Denver should ban Labs.
Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.
Screw it, ban all dogs, cats, guns, cars, abortion, climbing on ladders, bathtubs, electricity, swimming, flying in airplanes, smoking, drinking, and amusement parks. Clearly since people have died to all of the above they are all threats to public safety, I demand accountability.
Put a police officer in military riot gear on every corner, require everyone to wear a helmet at all times, and place pillows all over for people to walk on. All in the name of safety!!!
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Denver should ban Labs.
Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.
Clearly the ownership of Labs is disproportionate to the population, couldn't have too many people owning Labs. I bet some are even unregistered! Oh, the humanity!
Screw it, it's a free for all. Go get an orphaned cougar, wolf, bear, or wolverine for a pet. Don't wear your seat belts or clip to a harness when washing high rise windows. Drink and drive as much as you want and if you want to go fast... go as fast as what you want because we are free men, I demand freedom.
Get rid of all police because we are very capable of managing ourselves and get along so well with each other without any police intervention. If we all have guns on our hip, we can just deal with any problem that might have typically demanded police service. All in the name of freedom!!!
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
I'm with you in principle, but what happens when society decides that you are the one that is "unfit" for something?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Denver should ban Labs.
Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.
Clearly the ownership of Labs is disproportionate to the population, couldn't have too many people owning Labs. I bet some are even unregistered! Oh, the humanity!
You offered a table detailing ratios of dog bites. If there are 10X the amount of labs to pit bulls, it stands to reason that there are going to be more lab bites.
Is it too much to ask for a complete statistical overview before we jump to the conclusion that labs are more dangerous than pit bulls?
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.
I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.
I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.
And yet you are the one that continually talks of being prepared.
We don't want to go too far with this, but with regards to Minority Report... are you saying that if you could prevent a murder from happening you wouldn't because it would violate the murderer's rights?
I'm prepared simply because I don't expect or demand that someone or some entity care for me because I was lazy and lacking common sense.
Why don't we want to go too far with this? You base your logic on potential, you said so yourself.
"People are going to get on here and say, "My Rottweiler wouldn't hurt a flea!" Just as some gun owners are going to say, "My AR-15 has shot nobody!" To both of these types, I commend them for their responsible ownership; however, the fact remains that too many people are not as responsible, and, as such... considerable risk is assumed by society when we do not take any steps to limit or restrict ownership."
Restrict ownership = regulate.
Don't back away now, stand proud that you prefer to not give people the opportunity to have some self-responsibility.
Screw it, ban all dogs, cats, guns, cars, abortion, climbing on ladders, bathtubs, electricity, swimming, flying in airplanes, smoking, drinking, and amusement parks. Clearly since people have died to all of the above they are all threats to public safety, I demand accountability.
Put a police officer in military riot gear on every corner, require everyone to wear a helmet at all times, and place pillows all over for people to walk on. All in the name of safety!!!
Yay...hyperbole and exaggeration.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.
I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.
I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.
and your whole argment is based on a theory of freedom that doesn't work in the real world...if your gun or dog or car..whatever freedom you champion, is the cause of death to someone there is nothing else that matters...i can kill you, send you to prison, torture you, or forgive you and my family member is still gone forever.. That is why we restrict your THEORETICAL freedom in the real world. Do you think drunk driving should be legal??? Honestly? Because your ideology says it should be, but I'll bet you see that in the real, practical world, we have to limit a persons OPPORTUNITY to hurt others, not just punish them afterward.
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
I'm with you in principle, but what happens when society decides that you are the one that is "unfit" for something?
Then you abide by society's rules or you
A) Go to jail Move
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Screw it, it's a free for all. Go get an orphaned cougar, wolf, bear, or wolverine for a pet. Don't wear your seat belts or clip to a harness when washing high rise windows. Drink and drive as much as you want and if you want to go fast... go as fast as what you want because we are free men, I demand freedom.
Get rid of all police because we are very capable of managing ourselves and get along so well with each other without any police intervention. If we all have guns on our hip, we can just deal with any problem that might have typically demanded police service. All in the name of freedom!!!
Ah, the anti-gunner equivalent of owning a nuclear missile. That didn't take long.
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Denver should ban Labs.
Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.
Clearly the ownership of Labs is disproportionate to the population, couldn't have too many people owning Labs. I bet some are even unregistered! Oh, the humanity!
You offered a table detailing ratios of dog bites. If there are 10X the amount of labs to pit bulls, it stands to reason that there are going to be more lab bites.
Is it too much to ask for a complete statistical overview before we jump to the conclusion that labs are more dangerous than pit bulls?
There are ten times the amount of AR-15's over BB guns, it stands to reason that there are going to be more shootings with AR-15's. Yet, you want those banned and restricted.
Even though back in 2011 of the 500+ people murdered in Chicago only one murder was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
Screw it, ban all dogs, cats, guns, cars, abortion, climbing on ladders, bathtubs, electricity, swimming, flying in airplanes, smoking, drinking, and amusement parks. Clearly since people have died to all of the above they are all threats to public safety, I demand accountability.
Put a police officer in military riot gear on every corner, require everyone to wear a helmet at all times, and place pillows all over for people to walk on. All in the name of safety!!!
Yay...hyperbole and exaggeration.
More like liberal utopia. Secure, ultimate control over society in the name of safety!
Ah, the anti-gunner equivalent of owning a nuclear missile. That didn't take long.
And that's different than your whole:
"Screw it, ban all dogs, cats, guns, cars, abortion, climbing on ladders, bathtubs, electricity, swimming, flying in airplanes, smoking, drinking, and amusement parks. Clearly since people have died to all of the above they are all threats to public safety, I demand accountability."
...how?
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Screw it, it's a free for all. Go get an orphaned cougar, wolf, bear, or wolverine for a pet. Don't wear your seat belts or clip to a harness when washing high rise windows. Drink and drive as much as you want and if you want to go fast... go as fast as what you want because we are free men, I demand freedom.
Get rid of all police because we are very capable of managing ourselves and get along so well with each other without any police intervention. If we all have guns on our hip, we can just deal with any problem that might have typically demanded police service. All in the name of freedom!!!
Ah, the anti-gunner equivalent of owning a nuclear missile. That didn't take long.
Are you kidding me?
You dragged me into the mud by offering a silly little post and I countered with a silly little post.
Now you call me out?
What's with you today? Did a red light stop you in traffic and now that has you all pissy because it restricted your freedom?
Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.
I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.
I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.
and your whole argment is based on a theory of freedom that doesn't work in the real world...if your gun or dog or car..whatever freedom you champion, is the cause of death to someone there is nothing else that matters...i can kill you, send you to prison, torture you, or forgive you and my family member is still gone forever.. That is why we restrict your THEORETICAL freedom in the real world. Do you think drunk driving should be legal??? Honestly? Because your ideology says it should be, but I'll bet you see that in the real, practical world, we have to limit a persons OPPORTUNITY to hurt others, not just punish them afterward.
My basis of freedom is first derived from the nonaggression principle and the do no harm principle. I do not advocate a free-for-all where people are harmed. Ive said it numerous times, please do not make assumptions on my beliefs, especially incorrect ones.
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Denver should ban Labs.
Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.
Clearly the ownership of Labs is disproportionate to the population, couldn't have too many people owning Labs. I bet some are even unregistered! Oh, the humanity!
You offered a table detailing ratios of dog bites. If there are 10X the amount of labs to pit bulls, it stands to reason that there are going to be more lab bites.
Is it too much to ask for a complete statistical overview before we jump to the conclusion that labs are more dangerous than pit bulls?
There are ten times the amount of AR-15's over BB guns, it stands to reason that there are going to be more shootings with AR-15's. Yet, you want those banned and restricted.
Even though back in 2011 of the 500+ people murdered in Chicago only one murder was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
But we need to ban that, people don't NEED that.
You are correct. They don't NEED that. What do people NEED a weapon designed to kill lots of humans at close range for?
Well... Adam Lanza and James Holmes needed one... so, I guess one might actually be correct arguing for the freedom to own such weaponry. You know... in the event one did actually need to kill a bunch of humans.
And of course it could be done with many other types of firearms, but we've covered that, no need to rehash the past. You still can't legislate morality.
just saw an article about a Catahoula hound that killed a 2 and half month old baby. really sad.
just out of a personal curiosity, for all you pro breed specific legislation people, what is the criteria to make it on your list? what does a dog have to do to make it on your ban list? and what is your opinion on what should be done with all the dogs you don't like, deportation? euthanasia?
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
Comments
People on this forum were demanding the death penalty for the cop.
I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.
We don't want to go too far with this, but with regards to Minority Report... are you saying that if you could prevent a murder from happening you wouldn't because it would violate the murderer's rights?
Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.
Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.
Denver should ban Labs.
Put a police officer in military riot gear on every corner, require everyone to wear a helmet at all times, and place pillows all over for people to walk on. All in the name of safety!!!
Clearly the ownership of Labs is disproportionate to the population, couldn't have too many people owning Labs. I bet some are even unregistered! Oh, the humanity!
Get rid of all police because we are very capable of managing ourselves and get along so well with each other without any police intervention. If we all have guns on our hip, we can just deal with any problem that might have typically demanded police service. All in the name of freedom!!!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Is it too much to ask for a complete statistical overview before we jump to the conclusion that labs are more dangerous than pit bulls?
I'm prepared simply because I don't expect or demand that someone or some entity care for me because I was lazy and lacking common sense.
Why don't we want to go too far with this? You base your logic on potential, you said so yourself.
"People are going to get on here and say, "My Rottweiler wouldn't hurt a flea!" Just as some gun owners are going to say, "My AR-15 has shot nobody!" To both of these types, I commend them for their responsible ownership; however, the fact remains that too many people are not as responsible, and, as such... considerable risk is assumed by society when we do not take any steps to limit or restrict ownership."
Restrict ownership = regulate.
Don't back away now, stand proud that you prefer to not give people the opportunity to have some self-responsibility.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Do you think drunk driving should be legal??? Honestly? Because your ideology says it should be, but I'll bet you see that in the real, practical world, we have to limit a persons OPPORTUNITY to hurt others, not just punish them afterward.
A) Go to jail
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Ah, the anti-gunner equivalent of owning a nuclear missile. That didn't take long.
Even though back in 2011 of the 500+ people murdered in Chicago only one murder was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
But we need to ban that, people don't NEED that.
"Screw it, ban all dogs, cats, guns, cars, abortion, climbing on ladders, bathtubs, electricity, swimming, flying in airplanes, smoking, drinking, and amusement parks. Clearly since people have died to all of the above they are all threats to public safety, I demand accountability."
...how?
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
You dragged me into the mud by offering a silly little post and I countered with a silly little post.
Now you call me out?
What's with you today? Did a red light stop you in traffic and now that has you all pissy because it restricted your freedom?
My basis of freedom is first derived from the nonaggression principle and the do no harm principle. I do not advocate a free-for-all where people are harmed. Ive said it numerous times, please do not make assumptions on my beliefs, especially incorrect ones.
Well... Adam Lanza and James Holmes needed one... so, I guess one might actually be correct arguing for the freedom to own such weaponry. You know... in the event one did actually need to kill a bunch of humans.
I gotta go, everyone have a good day!
just out of a personal curiosity, for all you pro breed specific legislation people, what is the criteria to make it on your list? what does a dog have to do to make it on your ban list? and what is your opinion on what should be done with all the dogs you don't like, deportation? euthanasia?