I should find it somewhat strange that the general mindset regarding dangerous animals is almost diametrically opposed to the mindset regarding firearms. I should, but I don’t.
Pit bull dogs mauled a 63-year old woman jogger to death, yet her husband states, “I do not blame the dogs. I don’t blame pit bulls. I blame people who don’t take responsibility for their animals.” I agree with that statement and I believe most folks probably would as well.
A representative from the National Canine Research Council stated, “If a dog has seriously hurt or killed someone, you have to look to the owner and the owner should be held accountable on some level. There’s no reason we have to tolerate that kind of behavior.”
Fundamentally, the gist of the article is that the owner bears responsibility for the death of the jogger, and the owner in fact, has been charged with murder as well as “negligence of an animal causing death.” This is not the first time pit bull dogs and other “dangerous” dogs have caused the death of a person. In response, a lot of states and communities have passed laws designed to control dangerous dogs and hold owners responsible where applicable.
Let’s compare the response to dangerous dogs to guns.
First, where is the Congressional outrage and demand for dangerous dog control? Where is the demand for federal level laws limiting the number of dangerous dogs a person may possess, or the size of said animals, etc? Where, indeed! For some strange reason, people are able to accept the fact that responsibility cannot be affixed to the dogs. The dogs are incapable of making cognizant moral decisions, such as it is wrong to attack and kill a person. Sound logic, right?
Although pit bull dogs are not inanimate objects, they cannot reason cognitively; so they are not treated the same under law as are people. The owner of dangerous dogs that attack and kill are the ones lawfully held responsible. (I acknowledge the dogs in the article will most likely be destroyed, but not as judicial punishment.)
The telling comment is rendered by the NCRC representative… “There’s no reason we have to tolerate that kind of behavior.” The referenced “behavior” is that of the owner, not the dogs. Yet in the subject of ‘gun control,’ it is the inanimate gun that is the object of disdain and must be controlled – at the federal level, in violation of our constitution – not the behavior of the gun wielding killer. Someone please use Logic 101 and ‘splain that to me…