Yeah, this is the same point that went over your head twice in a row just earlier today... why bother with laws for anything in that case if they're not 100% effective?
Not what I said.
Your approach targets only the people who wouldn't need it. It does nothing to stop the ones who actually are responsible. You might as well dish out gold-plated ASBOs...
Are you some full on crazy libertarian/no government type?
Actually the opposite, hence the username. I'm generally quite harsh on law-breakers and heavy on enforcement.
However, laws do have to be sensible and workable with a high degree of effectiveness - Without widespread enforcement, any law you come up with is just pointless political posturing.
Target them how? If it's not illegal to breed XL Bullies then on what grounds are they being targeted and for what purpose?
You do realise it already has
been illegal to breed them since 1991, right...?
What is the perception-altering campaign supposed to do?
With no demand, you reduce the profitability and eliminate the incentive for supply. Bottom-up approach to complement the top-down one, rather than the ****-up results of this government organising their proverbial **** up in a brewery.
You want to dissuade people from owning this particular breed but you're simultaneously opposed to banning it and issuing exemption certificates? Why?
Nope - I want to stop people from misbreeding, mishandling and mistreating all breeds of dogs, in order to prevent the vast majority of incidents, regardless of breed.
As for the ban specifically, you'll know from reading the earlier parts of this thread in which I even quoted the opinions of several professionals, and the findings of studies on and around this very matter:
1/. If you'd paid attention to the genetics discussions in the thread, you'd know how and why otherwise innocent dogs can be destroyed purely on the basis of appearing similar to a banned breed.
2/. The banning of anything based on the misbehaviour of comparatively few people is just ineffectively burying your head in the sand, while appearing to voters to have tackled the problem.
3/. Banning something like this just makes it more attractive - If you were to run a perception-altering campaign to reduce demand, this is how you go about getting the exact opposite result!
4/. The 1991 ban is what gave rise to the surging interest in alternative breeds and resulted in the XLB variant of the American Bully rising in popularity.
5/. The limitations in the ban are not enough to effectively prevent either ownership or incidents, as evidenced by the continuing rates of attack involving Pit Bulls and Pit Bull Types.
And then we could play real god and stop them from breeding themselves too? Why do you want to play god?
So you'd be in favour of scrapping driving licences and the Highway Code, presumably?
Why hold people to a high standard, right?
I'm not really a fan of Doctor Who, but there's one quote that says it all - "Good men don't need rules".
Well the dogs are then registered and destroyed if truly out of control, quite simple really.
No, they're generally only destroyed if they're a banned breed, and even then are more often given the chance to go through the Exemption process.
See earlier remarks about effective enforcement.
The others have not been killing people on a regular basis for us all to be up in arms.
...until they do. But whatever leads to their discovery, it's too late to
prevent the incidents, which is the primary concern of this thread.
If you're OK with that, then feel free to carry on policing after the event... but don't come crying about anyone dying or being seriously injured, untill you're willing to address actually preventative methods.
I dont know if
@dowie would pay my day rate to be honest.
Based on your delivery here, I don't think anyone would... !
The circle begins again, thanks
@ttaskmaster for bringing us back to this same point. Last time we saw it was November I believe.
Again, see remarks regarding effective enforcement of both existing laws and new ones.
