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!