Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Should Dogs Should Be Outlawed?

Not really. But the following is an example of the absurdity we see when it comes to gun regulations.

An 11-year old boy and a friend were riding bicycles when they were set upon by three unchained dogs. The one boy would have almost certainly been killed if not for the quick action of a nearby resident who shot one of the dogs. Police heard the shots and rushed to assist, shooting the other two dogs dead as well.

But rather than being given a medal, a certificate of appreciation, or even a pat on the back from the police, the hero was charged with unlawful gun ownership. In some jurisdictions such as New York State, this can mean a mandatory prison sentence of five years. This particular drama unfolded in Washington DC though. Despite being one of the most notoriously strict cities in the US when it comes to gun regulations, the judge appears to have been surprisingly lenient.

As long as the hero stays out of trouble from now on, he will only be forced to pay a $1,000 fine.

There is no word on what the dog owners might have to pay, or what charges, if any, that they might face. The family of the victims are looking into what insurance coverage the dog owners have to cover the hospital bills for their boy.

The question here today though, is why should a hero be forced to pay a fine for saving a boy's life? This is an excellent example of why Americans should not be restricted from gun ownership, and how owning a gun can mean the difference between life and death, for yourself, or even for an anonymous victim.

Then of course we have the consideration of the responsibility for dog owners. If they can show that their vicious dogs were set loos by the criminal act of another person, then they should be exempt. If not, however, if it was negligence on their part in keeping the dogs secure, they should be forced to pay. Forced to pay for the hospital bills, and forced to pay for the mental trauma this boy will suffer for years to come.

Why should a dog owner not be considered to be every much a threat, if not more so, than a gun owner? Please don't misunderstand, this is not a rail against dogs, breeds of dogs, or their owners. But it's important that we keep things in perspective. A gun is an inanimate object. Dogs on the other hand, can be just as deadly, but take far more skill and wherewithal to safely maintain. So should not owning a dog be even more restrictive than owning a gun, so long as we are in the habit of the government regulating what is or what is not good for us?

Read more details at: The Washington Times

No comments:

Post a Comment