Why do people have a problem with guns but not pitbulls?

I'm kind of tired of people hating animals due to their own trauma in life. If you would just seek some help you'd probably stop being weird about it. Saying you hate dogs is unhinged. Humans have proven to be far worse creatures. Look in the mirror, buddy.

@Zarutaku They have a natural killing instinct...if they were bred to fight. Specifically dog fight. If they're aggressive towards humans, it's probably because their human was a shit owner.

@Tawaney To quote you: ~they are capable of being trained and being part of a loving home with no issues when handled properly~ . That goes for Humans, guns, dogs.

Being cautious around something/someone that caused someone trauma is a perfectly reasonable reaction/response.

Oh lol, the "get help" argument.

Humans are sapient creatures capable of:

• Intellect
  
• Speech
  
• Creating complex social structures
  
• Having an interesting past/experiences
  
• ... And most notably, creating civilizations (ex. getting us out the rut known as Mother Nature)
  

A dog is a permanent toddler.

@NS2D God, it's like none of you ever watched Dog Daddy!

@The-Demiurge Your response was I quote, "I fucking hate dogs"..and you continued to agree with OP and now you're trying to make it seem all you said was that you were being overly cautious.

It was an example, I don't have any trauma, I just hate them.

@FanofAction There is no point to pointing these things out to these humans. They are unable to understand this. We domesticated these animals on our very own. We hold the responsibility now to ensure the right care and training for them. If your son ends up killing another human that's on you. Same with animals, nurture them and you won't have that problem. If they're training their pitbulls to be lethal weapons that is already illegal. We have the right to be defended but not cause unlawful harm.

They're messing up gang-like people who own dogs that use them as body guards compared to loving owners who give them what they need in order to be fully domesticated. If she has such a problem with pitbulls she should eradicate gangs and thugs off the street. Not just demonize pitbulls and say theyre all monsters.

Because pitbulls are dogs, and dog people are insane. I am not even kidding, if you are dog owner, there is a 50/50 percent chance you our lowkey a misanthropist with issues. Honestly? There are a ton of dog owners who own dogs as an extension of themselves, and many pitbull owners do fall into this area due to the hypermasculinity associated with these types of dogs, which is not dissimilar to gun fetishism in the the states and abroad.

Having met a ton of crazy dog owners, so many of them have their entire identity be "owner of a dog"; you see a ton of gun nuts like this, but at the former is much more socially acceptable than the latter. You see this frequently on social media.

Just because it is more socially acceptable does not mean it is less annoying. People who make their dogs their entire personality are among the most insufferable fucking assholes on the fucking planet. It is in some ways worst to make a living animal your personality than a non-sentient entity like firearms.

My hopes of you being a fellow liberty lover have quickly gone out the window. XD

The things you mentioned are relatively rare. Pit bulls are usually peaceful. They are more likely to lash out if they had a bad owner. People only get toxoplasmosis from cats by being in direct contact with their feces.


That's one of many good reasons to keep a pet cat indoors.


There's a big difference between directly murdering someone and being negligent to the point that a pet ends up killing someone. I'm sure they were still punished for negligence.


Those are two separate things. You did not explain what is "uniquely wrong" with American gun culture; you only touched upon the differences between prison cells in two nations.


No. Self-defense is an inalienable right and we shouldn't have to ask the government for fucking permission.

The entire purpose of the second amendment is to put deadly weapons into the hands of the common man to keep the government in check as a deterrent against tyranny, and to enable every person to defend themselves from any personal threat. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Every gun law is unconstitutional. (There are provisions for stripping criminals of certain legal rights, but that isn't just about gun laws.) And to anyone reading this, don't give me that crap about the prefatory clause about a militia, as if that somehow means it doesn't apply to regular people. The militia is every able-bodied American and well-regulated means well-trained and supplied. It's essentially saying that in order to have a free nation, the general populace must be armed. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court and corroborated by the letters of the founding fathers.

As for responsibility, not quite. If someone steals a gun, the owner is not responsible for the thief's actions.


I'll do it for $10,000. :] I'm not constantly bickering about politics for free, especially in a club that infuriates me at a mere glance. I only do it on CD every once in awhile.


That board was taken down years ago, but replaced by a club.


Refusing to address the information presented while resorting to logical fallacies like ad hominem are the sign of someone unable to make a solid argument. I responded to all of your points. You, on the other hand, can't refute anything I said, going as far as ignoring most of it, even after I proved you wrong numerous times. The things I mentioned are very basic and not imaginary at all. I am under no obligation to spoon-feed you established knowledge. If you don't know that 2+2=4, it is not my responsibility to educate you. And if you don't know that a high percentage of criminals obtain weapons illegally, you have no business being in a discussion about crime. Don't get haughty when you can't even handle some of the simplest facts that can be found in seconds with a Google search.

Well, there are already certain dog breeds banned in the US. It's true that pit bulls attack humans more often than other breeds, so I understand your line of reasoning. It's just that this discriminates against individual dogs and owners, punishing them for things they didn't even do. Plus if you were to take this argumentation to its logical conclusion, you would also be banning all other dog breeds that have attacked people. (Even if it was less frequently than pit bulls.) There are also various dog breeds that look similar to pit bulls.


That's silly. Dogs can act on their own. They're nothing like a regular weapon.

Dog owners are still legally responsible for the actions of their dogs, but not to that extent, because there is far more to murder than owning a dog that killed someone without you even knowing about it until after the fact. Intent and execution are crucial elements lacking in that case.

I also covered that "things weapons do" is not sufficient either. If someone steals my weapon, I am not responsible for the thief's actions.

Dogs are not weaponized robots...they're unpredictable animals. Even more aggressive breeds like pit bulls are usually peaceful.

Any lawyer worth their salt can tell you there are crucial elements of murder that are missing in these cases involving dog attacks, especially when the owner wasn't close by. Your lazy accusations wouldn't hold up in court.

Murder requires intent and malice. What you are describing has nothing to do with murder. At most, it would be involuntary manslaughter.

Following this logic we shouldn't drive cars or fly planes, cause with them we could kill a loooooooooooooot of children xD

@Merve2Love Dogs are useless though. You could ban them and it wouldn't affect society much.

@fleurbleue

I don't think a living creature can be cast aside as "useless" xD
They're animals. I can't imagin just getting rid of everything that has no value to society, so to speak....

But even if your less "romantic", I guess and everything HAS to be only good for us, as humans...
-> Of the top of my head Im thinking Therapy Dogs, Guide Dogs, Rescue Dogs, K9's

Pitbull is just a breed. I get that they're like the stereotypical agressive dog, but I think any dog has the potential ability to hurt somebody. So Im talking dogs in general.

@Merve2Love Fine then, mostly useless with rare cases of extreme usefulness. It just seems funny to compare them to cars and planes as if their usefulness are totally equivalent in modern society.

@Merve2Love Dogs are useless though. You could ban them and it wouldn't affect society much.

@fleurbleue

Wait...that is funny, but comparing them with guns is fine and legit? xD
I guess is misread the Thread then, because I was using OP's logic^^

@fleurbleue Even though I'm more on the anti-dog side in this thread, I have to disagree with that. For the owners their dogs are like friends or family that help them against loneliness and possibly with other things as well, so they are pretty useful.

@Zarutaku I meant it as being an actual useful cog of society. Sure people would be real sad for a while if all dogs disappeared but it wouldn't create that much of crisis, compared to all cars and planes disappearing overnight which could possibly throw us into societal collapse.

@fleurbleue It could lead to a massive increase of depression and suicide, which would have considerably harmful effects on the economy and society.

@Merve2Love Pitbull are statistically the most dangerous dog (in the U.S), and OP compared them to the other most obvious thing known to kill people (in the U.S). Then you enter the room with cars and plane. Even if you want to make the comparison, ownership of vehicles is way less lenient than with dogs or guns (so long as you stay in the U.S) so it doesn't make much sense.

@fleurbleue

Little bit of research:

- In 2021, 51 Americans killed by dogs, 37 were killed by one or more pit bulls and their mixes.

- Same year 43,230 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes


I don't see your point. I understand it. But to me this kinda proves that cars are mor deadly than dogs xD
We can compare Dogs to guns, in this Thread? Well I can do the same with cars. Every idiot out there can get a license. And every idiot does^^

Get rid of them. They're far too deadly! :P

@Merve2Love If we keep going with the comparison with dogs and guns, cars are usually not used as weapons and aren't going to chew someone face if you leave them without supervision. And casualties are usually from accidents and not murder or manslaughter. Are they deadly? Sure. The sheer amount of car on the roads (almost 300 millions in the U.S alone) are bound to make up for such statistics. But I do wonder what kind of statistics you would get with that high an amount of Pitbull around. But it's pretty simple to see that all attacks done by them would be totally avoidable if they were downright banned. From a problem to not a problem in one single decision. That's not something you can do with cars and planes since it'd create a thousand other problems.

@fleurbleue

I get that.

What im saying is that it doesn't matter what cars are usually used for or if dogs can attack people. Knives are usually used to butter our bread in the morning. We all have them in our drawers. It doesn't matter. People in the US are 50x more likely to die because of a knife than they are walking down the street, getting attacked by a dog.


From a statistical point of view:
Dogs, in the current capacity, aren't particularly dangerous. Stats don't lie. That's a fact. 51 deaths a year, highest number. Pitbulls specifically even less.


I get it. If pittbulls weren't around some deaths would've beein avoided. True.
If the drunk husband didn't have access to alcohol he wouldn't have beaten his wife to death.
If we weren't building skyscrapers, nobody would die jumping down from one.
If Daddy didn't smoke lung-cancer would've been avoided.

It's just people.
Make it illegal if it's deadly. Im for it. Ban it. In principal I can agree with that. But we can't pick and choose then. Let guns go, bring in a million more pitbulls, if it's actually all about -"avoidable deaths"-

They would go down.

@Merve2Love Stories about children getting mauled by Pitbulls aren't that rare. We're not talking about casualties here, but dog attacks. From a quick search, more than 4 million people are bitten by dogs every year in the U.S, with 800'000 of these cases requiring medical attention. And the most common victims are children. Pitbulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds being the main culprits. Sure, there is danger everywhere but I've yet to constantly see stories about young children getting stabbed in the face with kitchen knives. In reality, I don't straight-out want to ban them but regulations and licenses are the least we should require.

@fleurbleue


Yes. Yes, they are rare. Deaths are. There are stories about children getting mauled, Im sure. They're rare. Statistics don't lie^^
Bitten might be a different thing. Then again we might aswell start counting how often some child gets stung by bees or getting scratched by a moody cat.

How can you "constantly see" something that is statistically not happening as often as the things I just told you? You're not. Numbers don't work like this.

You're not beeing objective. You don't like pitbulls. That's is fine. But that is all that is. You want to be just careful when it comes to all the dangerous stuff I mentioned or say that you don't see them, but when it comes to pitbulls it's different?
That's not logical. Especially because, as a fact and prooven by stats, pitbull attacks aren't a big threat.

I do agree....some supervision/education wouldn't hurt, tho.

Here is my new "client" I was blessed with recently. She is a pitbull/beagle mix. Sweetest dog I walked in on thus far. Barely barked at me let me give her tons of pets.