Thursday, November 12, 2015

BSL collapse V1.0

Happy almost lucky Friday!  Been on the road without a lot of time to blog.

As a follow up to this article, I'll delve deeper into some of the reasons the BSL movement is a mess.  This critique is not to slam them, but to make the movement better.   The truth hurts, you know.

Reason #1:  1)  The movement is DOGmatic and unflexible.  Most of you will not consider any reforms other than a ban.   You ignore all statistics that might indicate that a ban does NOT improve public safety.

Indeed, focusing entirely on the means is a fail on several levels.   Particular to this critique, it has lousy "optics".   Consider this comment from the Ethics website:

I think this is yet another case of people wanting to duck individual responsibility. It is easier to ban ‘scary’ dogs than require that dog owners be responsible for their animals. The same people who want all pit bulls banned are the same ones that would protest if a single mother was fined and jailed because her dog attacked someone. 

Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a WINNER!

See, first you ban the BEHAVIOR then you ban the means.  It is the anti-social, destructive behavior that you want to prevent.  When a pack of dogs kills a jogger the attitude should be "that should not have happened" not necessarily "should those be legal to own?".

Lets look at it this way:  If I were to say "random murders are completely legitimate, so lets restrict high-capacity pistol magazines" the rational response to that statement would be "Did your parents have any kids that lived?".    If you are fine with murder, who cares about the means?   If the act is legitimate, then it must follow that the means are legitimate.

When you focus entirely on the means, this transmits the following messages to the larger audience:

1)  You are a fool with no integrity, or
2)  You are a criminal looking to excuse their own bad behavior.

Here are a few other insipid excuses the dumber BSL folks use to bolster their position:

After-the-fact accountability does not undo the harm.   This is true, but does not matter.  This is worse than a lie, it is a deception.   Lets do a Reductio Ad Absurdum on this:   I could argue that BSL is a waste of time because it will not resurrect anyone killed by Pit Bulls.  So, why bother?  Its not going to bring Roy McSweeney or Klonda Richey back to life, now is it? 

So, you are doing this on an individual level:  You are saying that killing known maulers and jailing their owners is a waste of resources because it will not undo their heinous acts.   Again, this is true but is a total deception.   Roy McSweeney's murderers had been terrorizing that neighborhood for years, sending 2 other individuals to the hospital on 2 separate occasions - the outcome was totally avoidable.

Now, those willing to debate me on the above, please answer me the following:  If Blich's pit bulls had been killed and Blich thrown in jail after the FIRST attack, I am keen to know how a couple of dead pit bulls with an incarcerated owner would move on to kill Roy McSweeney in his backyard?  Is this "The Walking Dead - Canine Edition"?

See, intolerance of canine aggression prevents the dogs AND the owners from pursuing further mayhem.   Think about that for a while.

Bans are cheaper.    This is probably true, but is again a deception.   Who do you think you are, Milton Friedman or some shit?   This argument goes someplace you do NOT want it to go.

Let me ask this, what is the "economy" of criminally litigating folks that kill dogs that are tormenting them?   I'm sure you'd be fine with a pack of dogs terrorizing the neighborhood - going after them would not be cost effective, in your phony Austrian Economic way of pseudo-thinking. 

However, when someone offends against the Almighty Dog, all of a sudden economics do not matter.  If someone were to shoot one of that roving pack, you would want no expense spared to reign in the horrible monster that committed the heinous act!   Call NASA and the Air Force!  Increase the debt ceiling another trillion! 

Here is a clue:   Economics do not mesh well with health and safety issues.   We crush offenders because their behavior is intolerable, NOT because its somehow economically useful.  What are the economics of going after child molesters?   Think about that.

Face it, I could end every doggy problem in my neighborhood and it would be WELL within my household budget.  Again, this argument goes somewhere you do NOT want it to go, so I advise that you drop it.

One last thing.  Tom McCartney - if you are reading this or if you know him - KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!   You are a flood troll of the lowest caliber and you are NOT doing your movement any good.   Dude, work on the netiquette, hmmmmKay?

Happy Lucky Friday!




14 comments:

  1. So you don't feel that pit bulls are, on the whole of the balance sheet, different than other dogs? I understand breeds and temperament quite well, and there are other dangerous breeds. And yes, some potentially more dangerous than pit bulls. Yes, sociopaths can get another breed of dog. If pit bulls are banned they probably will. They probably are working on that right now, with Cane Corsos, various pit bull crosses ect.

    For me, BSL is a foot in the door. You complain about dog culture and how hard it is to get past. I consider BSL to be a first step, but not the only step. It has the advantage of putting some dog owners against others. It works more easily that asking responsible dog owners to step up and support something that every dog owner can shoulder. Start with pit bulls, work up.

    Otherwise, I think nothing will ever get done for years. Lots of people will continue dying from attacks.

    Most horrific maulings and killing remains pit bulls. Why not put the blame where it stands? Having faced down pit bulls twice and almost been dragged down by them, I understand what those dogs are about. I'm not willing to carry a gun. I'm a mother, not a Navy Seal. I want to live in society without a gun and be safe. I do carry a knife, but I have not spent the thousands of hours necessary to become proficient with it. I am doing other things with my life. I do carry pepper spray. It feels ridiculous to even bother, given what I've experienced during these two attacks.

    I'm for anything, really anything that can become a viable law. I think BSL is our current best shot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said they were not different. Different or not they are still dogs (I'll address that later).

      I don't think you get the gist of what I'm saying - when you focus entirely on the means people find you very suspicious.

      Delete
    2. I think that I do understand:) Of course, there is always room for missed points in every conversation.

      I find when I read it that I have many questions about how this is going to become a series of laws. Up to 47% of households own a dog in the US. I find those 'responsible dog owners' to be a bit rare. Most don't bother to leash their animals in on leash areas or pick up dog excrement. It must be a cultural thing. People feel that its not an issue perhaps. In many other areas of their lives, they are law abiding. You are asking for all dog owners to take more responsibility here. The rest of us, will we bother to pass a law?

      Dog excrement and leashes...its going to feel like you are picking on dog owners. Is that going to work?

      I suppose when I read it, I don't see it happening. Its more of a clear vision that your set of points. Laws are passed for emotional reasons. I have several friends who are lawyers and work hard to pass laws that are of interest to them. We discuss these things. I'm still a beginner at this, certainly a novice with passing laws. This is simply my initial impressions.

      And, as I've said, I'm flexible as to BSL, or any other set of laws. And yeah, pit bulls are dangerous. Not really suspicious or paranoid. It is reality.

      This is good though, keep going with it. Its fine with me, as long as something happens. And my worry is that the dog lobby is strong enough that nothing will happen for a long time. And more people, particularly children, will die in the jaws of pit bulls.

      Delete
    3. The # of households with a dog is closer to 37%.

      Delete
    4. 37%, that is good news :)

      Things might go even more smoothly in states with a lower percentage. "Pet" owners are only dog and cat owners in this article:

      http://dogtime.com/trending/17160-us-states-with-most-and-fewest-pet-owners-named

      Delete
    5. Yes, and as far as I can tell, the number of dog owning households is trending downwards. The number of dogs in circulation is increasing, but the human demographic is in decline.

      Consider that a dog hoarder with 20 dogs adopting another five dogs does not change the demographic.

      I've been meaning to write an article on this for a while.

      Delete
    6. If you listen to dog owners talking about the problems they're having with Fido, you'll often hear this word mentioned:

      B-A-R-K-I-N-G

      It's annoying to them too.

      Delete
    7. The 47% number is bogus: They get there by dividing the number of dogs in circulation by the number of households. They neglect to realize that many dog owning households have more than one dog.

      I believe the percentage of PET owning households is slightly over 50% and that includes cats, dogs, rodents, reptiles, exotic pets and miscellaneous. Obviously, there is some overlap between those demographics: Some folks will have a cat and a dog, but the dog owning demographic is below 40%.

      Delete
  2. I'm in favor of BSL. Oh, am I ever.

    But it's not the BSL that just got shredded in this post. Uh-uh.

    In my world, BSL = Breed-Specific Litigation

    Once the plaintiffs' bar gets focused on the pit bull problem, watch things change in a hurry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that is starting to happen. Money does talk.

      Delete
  3. Nothing would make me happier than to wake up and find the National Guard going door to door confiscating the known human killer breeds, dispatching them on the spot and hauling them to the nearest dump. Not going to happen. Those breeds are now crossed into any breed that the nutters can manage.
    On the other hand we live in a free country where individuals can make bad choices. If you get drunk or just drive recklessly the law doesn't care what model car you're driving. Not only that people demand that reckless homicide be prosecuted. You run a child down there is going to be a witch hunt.
    As like the law needs to go after the owners of dogs that cause bodily harm or death with the same vigor.
    The other big issue we have with dog owners are the judgment proof idiots. No matter what happens to you or a loved one they don't face charges on the lame idea that their dog had never shown aggression before. As I've said before that implies we all get one free homicide right ? If you drive with out insurance you can get your car towed. Even auctioned off in some places. Dog owners should be on the same playing field. A requirement to own liability insurance for their dogs. And to be fair all dogs should be thrown into the same pool. Thus the excuse making rat dog owner is now faced with the reality of helping to pay for the massive payouts inevitable with pit bull owners. But but but all dogs are the same right ? If you can't afford car insurance you aren't supposed to drive. If you can't afford liability for your mutts you shouldn't be allowed to own them. Slackers that let their policy lapse should find a nastygram in the mail the way the slackers in my state do when they drop their auto coverage after registration.
    Barking should be treated as disturbing the peace and handled by the police instead of Animal Welfare Agents posing as Animal Control. Which is a whole other crap sandwich that dog owners dish out on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just had a cage fight with a pit nutter that is still claiming that pit bulls (NOTICE THE NAME- PIT BULLS) that they were bred as nanny dogs. Total meltdown when I asked if they were nanny dogs why do they keep killing the baby ??? Answer- Because you never leave a child alone with a dog...Really I though nanny implied they could take care of the baby while the parents were elsewhere.
    And yes your original point really hits home. You cannot make it about the breed. There is so much ingrained ignorance it's pointless. A dog is a dog and all dogs are equal and no dog is more equal than any other dog. The Chi-wa-wa that bites should face the same execution order as the majority of ptis and other large breeds get. The online contingent fighting for them is really very small.
    The sane public including dog owners are starting to ask for protection so they can walk their dogs without being assaulted by loose roaming mutts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Nanny dog myth gained traction with the hard-core dog worship crowd: In their world, dogs are as, or more, capable than humans at most tasks.

    The nanny dog meme is absurd to anyone with a functioning brain. That ANY dog could be a Nanny is just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And here I thought the human population was being dumbed down to steal our freedom and make us slaves of the corporate elite. Who knew the real purpose was to make someone dumb enough to own a pit bull.
      And yes I singled out a breed. If you can prove it's a breed. I didn't do a DNA test. It was probably an American Bull Dog. Actually I hate any animal that has a bark box in it.

      Delete