1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents than
any other model, would you:
(a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one
(b) arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would inconvenience the fewest number of people, be the more
efficient use of taxpayer dollars and be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk,
drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say,Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not,
why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban
on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much bred for
the same purpose? If not, why not? If
so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a,"such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand (a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed"
cannot be defined in a meaningful way; (b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds,Rottweilers, Dobermans,
Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal tools of terrorism; (c) that law enforcementauthorities
could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore,taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task
perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws; (d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that
is, those inconvenienced, harrassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of
utterly innocent dogs and people; and (e), most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real
problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your
responses. Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not:
Ban bicycles.
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should beresponsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws
already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce
those penalties against lawbreakers.
any other model, would you:
(a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one
(b) arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would inconvenience the fewest number of people, be the more
efficient use of taxpayer dollars and be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk,
drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say,Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not,
why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban
on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much bred for
the same purpose? If not, why not? If
so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a,"such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand (a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed"
cannot be defined in a meaningful way; (b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds,Rottweilers, Dobermans,
Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal tools of terrorism; (c) that law enforcementauthorities
could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore,taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task
perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws; (d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that
is, those inconvenienced, harrassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of
utterly innocent dogs and people; and (e), most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real
problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your
responses. Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not:
Ban bicycles.
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should beresponsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws
already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce
those penalties against lawbreakers.
| Samantha & Steven | Males | Females | Young Males | Young Females | Puppies | For Sale | TestimonialsVLHR News | Events | Links Web Rings | Rescue | Articles | Recommended Reading | Health Links | Clubs | BSL | Insurance | Contact Us |
| Please vote for our site! |
| Douglassville, PA (1 hour north of Philadelphia) 610-639-4066 (9 am - 9 pm ET) |
| copyright © 2000-present Vom Löwenherzig Rottweilers • All rights reserved • ANY reproduction of any text, graphics, photos or backgrounds on this site is strictly prohibited. Vom Löwenherzig Rottweilers name is registered with the USRC & ARV. |
| Exclusive Vom Löwenherzig Training Equipment Supplier |
| Vom Löwenherzig Exclusively Feeds Natura Pet Foods: |
