Originally Posted by BALLISTIK
Question for the unthinking majority, how come we didn't have rampant pitbull maulings 30 years ago, 40 years ago, 50 years ago....100 years ago? What has changed since then?

Originally Posted by Cariboujack
Postmen Citizens need to be allowed to Carry on their route, especially if it's a walking route.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


One of the things we didn't have 40 years ago was dumb fuggs asking stupid questions. 40 years ago we had at best 1% of the pit bulls we have now.. We didn't have 1% of the pit bulls back then because even in urban/semi urban areas people shot dogs that bit people pronto even in areas with ordinances prohibiting firearms discharge because it was a matter of imminent public safety and not prosecuted. That was how biting dogs were dealt with.

We have tolerated something we should never have tolerated. It is that simple. The dogs have always been unreasonably dangerous, we have just allowed idiots like TRH to argue that it's the owners and not the dogs. If it was the fugging owners attacking a person (or child) like that, They might get shot in the process of stopping the attack with no charges for th shooter. That is still more or less universal in this country contrary to stopping a dog attack with a gun.