“Public Safety Minister Martin Coiteux announced the government’s intention after tabling legislation Thursday to better control dogs in the province, particularly dangerous canines that have bit or attacked other people or animals or those that have been deemed to be “potentially dangerous” based on their actions or by reputation.It is the common refrain of pit bull activists and defenders that pit bull attacks can be directly attributed to bad owners and not bad dogs, the same argument that the NRA makes in saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
He said that the number and severity of the attacks involving pit bulls, as well as an incident last summer in which a woman, Christiane Vadnais, was killed by such a dog, convinced him of the need to take the disputed step.
“In case there were still doubts about it, now there are none,” he told reporters in Quebec City.
“People have fears about pit bulls, and with good reason.”
The official order to enact the ban will come once the bill is passed into law, likely in the coming months.”
If you believe one of those premises than I assume you believe the other.
Blaming dog owners for pit bull attacks is a convenient excuse and at any rate, until they have a test for responsible dog ownership as a prerequisite to acquiring a pit bull, it is entirely beside the point.
Unfortunately, there will always be bad dog owners as well as irresponsible gun owners and a prudent societal constraint is to take these potential deadly weapons out of circulation... period.
Pit bulls are sweet, wonderful animals and make a great family pet. There are enough YouTube videos to attest to that.
I would venture to guess that as a breed, pit bulls attack less than most others dogs, especially those little yappy laps dogs who have a propensity towards nipping anything or anybody that approaches.
But pit bulls are powerful and on the rare occasion that they attack, they are deadly, therein lies the problem.
I'd rather suffer 50 Chihuahua attacks than be set upon by one enraged Pitbull.
Last Monday a 64-year-old woman in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, was attacked by her own dogs, a Boston terrier and a Pit bull. She was badly mauled and even had her two ears bitten off.
Now I can't say that the pit bull initiated the attack, it is more likely that the Boston terrier was the culprit. But dogs attack in packs and even if the pit bull did nothing more than join in the mayhem, it certainly was the dog that inflicted the dangerous injuries, trauma that the terrier just couldn't produce. The police shot and killed the pit bull and sent the terrier to a shelter, so it's obvious which dog did the damage. Link
Despite the obvious prima facie case that pit bulls represent an unacceptable threat to society, there is a concerted effort by pit bull owners, activists and apologists to portray pit bulls as lovingly harmless. The internet is rife with images like these below.
So let me offer up some rebuttal with these images of the impact of real pit bull attacks. I dedicate the following picture to the idiots at the Montreal SPCA and their dangerously fanatical director Alana Devine, who battles relentlessly against any pit bull ban.
I've heard her spout her idiocy on the radio and television and just like a dedicated anti-vaxxer, her spiel sounds convincing, but is dangerous nonsense.
I wonder how Ms. Devine woulld feel if if a family member suffered one of these injuries.
In the 12-year period of 2005 through 2016, canines killed 392 Americans. Pit bulls (who represent 5% of the population) contributed to 65% (254) of these deaths. Link
Living in a city means making allowances for other people as they make allowances for you.
Keeping a pit bull is cruel and selfish, because aside from being potentially dangerous, they also scare the crap out of your neighbours.
The reality is that any of the 700 dog breeds can provide love and companionship, almost all of which pose little risk to humans.
It's a no-brainer, but sadly those advocating for pit bulls have no brains.
Pit bull activists make idiotic claims, employ selective facts and spout nonsense that can best be described as alternative facts. Whenever you hear a pit bull activist get on their high horse, ignore them, they are as dangerous as those arguing against childhood vaccinations.
One of the lies propagated by them is that it's impossible to determine if a dog is truly a pit bull.
It is utter nonsense. I can spot one a block away and I'm sure you can too. But repeating this bullshit is just another fake fact that pit bull advocates use.
Read:Pit Bulls Are Identifiable
Here is more deception;
“The thing that disturbs me the most,” Bruce said over the phone from Calgary, “is that in every city I’ve looked at (that has introduced a breed ban), they have not reduced the overall number of bites in the community.” - Bill Bruce, the former director of animal services for the city of CalgaryWell, I'll tell you what Mr. Bruce, the bans do reduce the number of PIT BULL bites.
All dogs bite and when owners replace pit bulls with other dogs, it doesn't change the number of bites. What changes is the severity of the injuries caused by the bites.
These are the type of deceptive arguments made by those against breed specific bans.
 |
| Fan website pedals alternate 'truth' |
In one of the very few studies that compared dangerous dog owners with regular dog owners found;
A total of 166 owners of high risk dogs were compared with 189 owners of low risk dogs. The high risk dog owners had nearly 10 times more criminal convictions than other dog owners. Breaking the data down by categories of criminal behavior they found that high risk dog owners were 6.8 times more likely to be convicted of an aggressive crime, 2.8 times more likely to have carried out a crime involving children, 2.4 times more likely to have perpetrated domestic violence, and 5.4 times more likely to have an alcohol related conviction when compared to low risk dog owners.. -Psychology TodayStill unconvinced? Read Barbara Kay's excellent takedown in the National Post
