The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  fshnski on Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:46 pm

The same week that the White House opened its doors to a new first family addition, a Portuguese water dog named Sunny, President Obama gave his thumbs-up to a petition to prevent local bodies from banning certain breeds deemed dangerous.

The local laws, called Breed Specific Legislation, are aimed at keeping community residents safe from overly aggressive animals. Mr. Obama made known his objections to the laws in a response posting to a petition by We The People, the online channel for Americans to make known certain policy positions and solicit response from the White House, Time reported.

The White House wrote: “We don’t support breed-specific legislation. Research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bits and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds.”

Mr. Obama’s view is that “a community-based approach” to ensuring citizens’ safety from animals is the better way to go.

“Ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners,” his statement said.

We The People’s terms only call for the White House to respond to a petition when 100,000 have signed. The petition calling for a federal ban on breed-specific legislation only had 30,000 signatures at the time of the administration’s response, Time reported.

The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments across the nation — as well as the U.S. military — that have enacted the laws.

The Marine Corps has bans on “large dog breeds with a predisposition toward aggressive or dangerous behavior” — including but not limited to pit bulls — from on-base housing, the text of the rule reads. Many bases for the Air Force, Army and Navy have enacted similar bans.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/23/obama-local-laws-banning-aggressive-dog-breeds-are/#ixzz2cocjf3p3

avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  fshnski on Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:15 pm

I wonder what type of person thinks owning a dangerous animal is a good idea? Who the heck would stick up for them?

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  fshnski on Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:20 pm

2012 statistics

38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012.2 Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities,3 pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.4
Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).
The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.
Annual data from 2012 shows that 50% (19) of the victims were adults, 21-years and older, and the other half were children, ages 8-years and younger. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2012, 79% (15) were ages 2-years and younger.
Annual data also shows that males were more often victims, 61% (23), than females. The majority of male victims, 61% (14), were ages 8-years and younger. Of the total female victims, only 33% (5) fell into this same age group.
In 2012, roughly one-third, 32% (12), of all dog bite fatality victims were either visiting or living temporarily with the dog's owner when the fatal attack occurred. Children 8-years and younger accounted for 75% (9) of these deaths.
34% (13) of all fatalities in 2012 involved more than one dog; 13% (5) involved breeding on the dog owner's property either actively or in the recent past, and 5% (2) involved tethered dogs, down from 6% in 2011, 9% in 2010 and 19% in 2009.
In 2012, dogs referred to as a "rescue" accounted for at least 13% (5) attacks that resulted in death. Children suffered the brunt of these attacks with 3 deaths. The adults afflicted, 2 adult females, were killed by their own pack of "rescued" dogs.5
Dog ownership information for 2012 shows that family dogs comprised 58% (22) of all fatal occurrences; 82% (31) of all incidents occurred on the dog owner's property and 18% (7) resulted in criminal charges, down from 29% in 2011.6
California and North Carolina led fatalities in 2012, each with 4 deaths. 75% of the California deaths occurred in San Diego County. Pit bull-type dogs accounted for 88% (7) of the 8 deaths. New Mexico, Ohio and Texas followed, each with 3 deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  WHL on Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:25 pm

At least my three pounder doesn't have a very big bite!
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  fshnski on Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:33 pm

Why would anyone support dangerous dogs?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2012

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  Anti Federalist on Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:54 pm

38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012.

America's average number of yearly lightning deaths is 54.

Cops killed 587 people in 2012.

This is a "solution" going out looking for problem.

I am never in favor of government bans of anything, particularly things that some people consider "unsafe".

Obama is only opposed to these bans because they target pit bulls, owned in large numbers by black folks.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  News Hawk on Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:08 am

fshnski wrote:"...The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments across the nation — as well as the U.S. military — that have enacted the laws..."
...and Canada...

pirat 

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7959
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  WHL on Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:32 am

Guess we need to ban cops, huh Anti? But I agree with you, gov. doesn't need to ban anything.
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  Anti Federalist on Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:33 am

WHL wrote:Guess we need to ban cops, huh Anti?  But I agree with you, gov. doesn't need to ban anything.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  News Hawk on Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:17 am

fshnski wrote:Why would anyone support dangerous dogs?
One guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoDnrPH5XXI
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7959
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: The White House’s stance is at odds with hundreds of local governments and the U.S. military

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum