Ban The Pit Bulls, The Boxer Have Menaced!

The Daily Repbublic: Ban The Pit Bulls, The Boxers Have Menaced!

From the For The Pit Bulls Blog

Posted by Rinalia / Tuesday, April 6, 2010



Last Thursday, three Boxers got loose. They menaced a woman walking her dogs. No dog or person was hurt.

The article called the dogs Pit Bulls. Talk of banning Pit Bulls is discussed. As you know, three dogs not attacking someone is reason enough to ban a breed of dog not actually involved in the incident.

Well, even when evidence emerged that the dogs were Boxers, not Pit Bulls, Mitchell's newspaper, The Daily Republic, published this piece, "Time for the city to enact pit bulls".

And some people claim there is no media bias?

However authorities shake this out — i.e., determining the breed of the dogs and their potential for danger — it puts Mitchell in exactly the same spot it has been in several times in the past. Another dangerous dog — possibly a pit bull — has stricken fear in another Mitchell resident. ​

Possibly a Pit Bull. Um, Daily Republic editor, have you seen the photo? Those dogs are not possibly Pit Bulls, they are Boxers. If Mitchell had a Pit Bull ban, these dogs would probably be included due to the fact that the Daily Republic editorial board thinks they are and so does the city. Logic and pedigrees saying otherwise be damned!

Other towns have done so for the sake of citizen safety. Denver, for instance, is a metropolitan city that by law doesn’t allow pit bulls.​

Ah, a shining beacon for anti-dog zealots. Denver. The city that has killed thousands of family pets. The city that spends thousands on court cases. The city that kills puppies who look a certain way. The city that criminalizes residents and forces them out of town if they want to keep their dogs. The city that still has Pit Bulls and still has dog bites and still has Pit Bull bites.

SOLD!

It’s true that the dogs in the most recent case may not actually be part pit bull. The owner says they’re not; the city says they are.

That doesn’t matter to us. What matters is that without a city ordinance banning certain breeds, there will be a pit bull attack in Mitchell. Perhaps not this week or this year, but eventually.
​

Read that. Read it again. The editors of this paper are saying they don't care if those dogs aren't actually Pit Bulls, but because they got loose, Mitchell needs to ban Pit Bulls. If not now, eventually, there will be another Pit Bull attack, and don't say we didn't tell you. As you know, banning Pit Bulls ends Pit Bull attacks and improves public safety. This is true in Ontario and in Denver and most true in the United Kingdom. Banning a breed is the 100% most successful way to end dog and Pit Bull attacks. Since it has worked for Denver and the United Kingdom, it will surely would work for Mitchell. Oh. Wait.

No matter what their owners say, pit bulls cannot be trusted. They are dangerous and temperamental. It’s in their DNA to attack. ​

Well, Daily Republic editors, here is a DNA-model. Please educate me. Tell me where the dangerous and temperamental markers are!

I eagerly await your expert response on the magical "dangerous" and "temperamental" alleles. If you can show them to me, and show they are unique to Pit Bulls, then hells yeah, I'll jump on the ban 'em all bandwagon!! Until then, put me down as skeptical. But thanks for your irrational fear mongering!

For the Pit Bulls: The Daily Republic: Ban Pit Bulls, The Boxers Have Menaced