Very good observation Jake. Good for the goose,........
Printable View
Very good observation Jake. Good for the goose,........
More like comparing hammers to cats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
How do you figure ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Guns aren't inherently dangerous...they're activated by the user.
MP. True except you said, ' best to be proactive, and remove a potential menace'. The same could apply to other things.
I was expecting this to come up. You're comparing fishing with a prostate exam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Firearms are inanimate objects, they do nothing without someone telling them to do it. Guns don't just magically jump the fence and eat someone. Guns don't tear up the garbage, dig up the yard or chew up other guns.
Dogs on the other hand, they do all of the above without human command, they literally have minds of their own. Unfortunately 90% of humans who have dogs are absolutely clueless about their animal and far too lazy to train the dog properly. There's huge amounts of people that sent their dog for someone else to train. Top that off with the fact that almost nobody knows how to handle a dog attack on themselves or others, it's a crap situation.
Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
in the need of public safety, it's best to be proactive and remove a potential menace 'before' it damage is done.
You have never heard this from the anti gun crowd?
Every time someone invokes "in the need of public safety" as an excuse for a ban they are stepping on someone else's freedom whether it be dogs, guns or switchblades. How many responsible owners and breeders where caught up in this ban? As a gun owner in Canada this all sounds very familiar.
So you're not in favour of speed limits as they inhibit your freedom to drive as fast as you want ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Your freedom is secondary to public safety...thats why, as a civilized society, we have laws etc.
The point I am trying to make is that we should be careful of the arguments we use to support any type of ban or restriction. Eventually these type of arguments might be used against one of your hobbies or something you enjoy as the amount of risk the public is willing to accept gets lower and lower over time.
I’m curious.
How much damage or potential risk can a muzzled dog be? About as much as an unlocked glock?
Personally, when it comes to dogs. I don’t know why certain elements haven’t pushed for liability insurance. Could be because a lot of them own dogs? Some think, that’s a solution for gun owners as well.
whether pit Bull or Basenji or lap dog. All have the potential and ability to scar a child physically and emotionally. For life.
"in the interest of public safety" is a catch all statement/argument used by special interest groups and politicians when whatever they are trying to pass or ban will not stand up to scrutiny. Whenever you hear that term being used, something is up, because if they had a better argument they would use it.