Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette
Keg (all due respect) when I start riding a pitbull to work I will go along with your analogy.
A vehicle is necessary. Let's call it a necessary evil to fit your rationale.
A pitbull is a non necessity. Absolute the least of what is required in life.
When someone else's non necessity tears the face off my loved one because they look at it I will let loose on the non-necessity and then very likely the owner.
As for vehicles that is why we have insurance and cages around us, I am willing to take that risk.
I say ban the breed. Better yet eradicate it.
Also, I have never heard of a pitbull killing a man. They go for nice soft babies and women.
|
You completely miss my point.
I'm not arguing for or against. I'm saying there are a lot more imminent dangers that very few seem to acknowledge.
And BTW motor vehicles are not a necissity for life. For our chosen way of life they may be, but this country was explored and settled without the benefit of roads or motor vehicles. Millions of people in other countries live without the use of motor vehicles.
We choose to accept the risks of motor vehicle use because to us, there is a net benefit in our opinion.
Every choice people make is based on a cost benefit balance. If there is net benefit we chose for, if not we choose against.
What I find amazing here is we are talking about something that most likely will not happen to anyone here.
As opposed to something many of us will encounter in our life time.
Tell me how this argument against pit bulls is any different then the arguments against gun ownership. Aside from one being an about an animal doing the damage as opposed to an animal (Humans are mammals) with a tool doing the damage.
You may not agree but I think this argument is a very slippery slope for gun owners to get involved in.
And I think it amounts to tilting at windmills. I thought hunters were braver souls then that.