Do Pitbull defenders and Pro Gun people have a lot in common...

They both always blame the human.....

And yes that is true in some cases...

I just find this an interesting juxtaposition..

in public cathouses.

1 is pro dog and pro gun

and

3 is pro dog and REALLY pro gun?

or did the sentence get cut off?

it is possibly a duplicate answer...

Shall we say "compensation" issues for "physical shortcomings"?

...but I really think it is distracting from the subject at hand....

It is like I'm really in the sixth grade again.

Communities that try to pass even the smallest anti-pit bull ordinance are enemies of liberty!

Insert various right-wing talking points!

correlation of demographics?

when something goes horribly wrong, never the gun and never the breeds fault.

I guess that's the point.... maybe...

then your OP is wrong. It should be "dog defenders" since ANY dog can be "used as a weapon" as can any car, hot cup of coffee, roll of quarters...I could go on.

just as many who have been shot were shot by a gun.

Both having a human element in the act, per pit bull defenders and pro gun people.

So I think the answer to your question is no.

can you answer me that?

I'll go get her to vote in the poll.

...there is the same split. So I would say no.

Obviously gun rights activists blame the human. Guns in general are very peaceful and only rarely head off on a lone killing spree. Almost always there is someone behind the scenes, human more often than not, helping them.

There is also that pesky constitution thing to consider. I kinda think rights are important. All of them.

Finally, there are all those annoying gun control facts that get in the way of all that righteous liberal outrage. As it happens, an armed citizenry deters crime so effectively that it is astonishing. It does so out of all proportion to the number of new firearms sold. It is simply a statistical truth that repealing gun control laws and even encoluraging concealed carry has a measurable effect in reducing violent crime. Obviously, this is not the narrative gun control advocates like to talk about.

As for Pit Bulls, well, that's another story. Pit Bull advocates blame the human as a defense: "It wasn't the dog that ripped that kids face off," they say "It was his owner!" But then, what else can they say?

In any case you basic premise is off a bit:

Gun CONTROL advocates blame guns, Pit CONTROL advocates blame the DOG.

We have a complete agreement between the two groups that are pro pit and pro gun.

Both believe it's the humans. That is the point.

there is a stupid google ad popup that covers up part of the voting screen. You can't get to read what is under it.

You can't move it. You can't close it. You can't make it go away. If you leave the page and come back they inflict a new steaming pile of crap ad in exactly the same spot that covers up all the same stuff you didn't get to see the first time.

You would think that with all the technogeeks they could figure out how to have the ads appear where there is no underlying text, or worse, interactive links, like votes on a poll, underneath the damned ad!

dc

yep.

but if you force me to choose, then sure..more gun regulation is ok. Hardcore background checks would not bother me at all...but it is very low priority for me.

Sweetest damn dog you'd ever want to meet.

Win for worst poll ever! Haha, geez.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Before this gets deep-six'd.

}(

also chosen to make the focus of their adoration an inanimate object. A deadly inanimate object, when used as intended by the manufacturer of them.

Pitbull defenders just love their dogs, so I cut them a little more slack when it comes their fervent defense of their favorite breed of canine. Besides, I think the vast majority of Pitbull owners/defenders who post here are actual liberals with progressive viewpoints.

But to answer your poll in my case: I oppose breed restrictions, support RKBA, am uncomfortable with smoking bans, and a bunch of other things because I'm the sort of liberal who believes that far-reaching top-down authoritarian intrusions into liberty and choice are worse for the country than the problems they're (often feebly) intended to solve...

Well said.

:toast:

but against irresponsible people owning either. That's what it boils down to.

I own two Boxers, have owned Rotties and Dobies. Many of my neighbors own pits and they are as sweet as my beasties. My daughter is looking to rescue a pit, and get a gun.

It's all about the owner...in my opinion.

Dogs do, regardless of breed. Dogs are not objects; guns are.

Teaching a dog to be a weapon or failing to safeguard a dog from dangerous situations is a fundamental betrayal of the relationship between animal companions and people.

This is foolishness.

for being unfairly maligned. Yes, it's sad when an animal injures or kills a person but the attitude toward pit bulls are the work of the media in the past hyping a string of unfortunate and unrelated incidents. Those who were victims or knew victims and those who want to be activists then took to becoming myth and fear spreaders which later became propaganda. Flawed studies and numbers then sealed their fate. So many pit bulls then were left to be neglected and or killed. Today, abused and abandoned pit bulls are killed as people aren't as willing to adopt them.

As for those asking about flawed studies. It's all in the numbers. The problem is the data is never broken out by specific breeds and we have very incomplete data. "Pit bull" usually multiple breeds, unlike other dog groups, that automatically skew the data. Also, for many incidents the breed is undocumented. If it's a pit bull it's more likely to be recorded. Likely due in part to their unfair recognizable as a supposedly dangerous breed. This again, makes pit bulls wrongly appear worse. Also, many pit bulls aren't registered, as others like labs are. This again skews the data in favor of other popular breeds.

But hey, keep shaming dogs just because they are born as a certain breed.