Breed Specific Legislation
EDIT: Necessary changes for those too simple minded to realise the obvious...
[SATIRE*]
*A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant"
I wanted to use this thread to bring up something that I’m sure most would agree is a common sense idea, namely, Race Specific Legislation. Or in other words: the enacting of legal measures to take action against problem minorities, in the aim of safeguarding the majority. Controversial perhaps, but needed – I'm sure most (if only secretly) overwhelmingly agree.
Let’s take a look at the statistics (courtesy of the FBI).
Of the 17,399 murder offenders in the USA in 2006 (the latest year for which extensive data is available) the black race committed 6,843 of the homicides. That’s more than the white population of America managed to clock up. Its also a whopping 39% of the total!
It must be remembered that blacks only comprise 13.1% of the total US population, so that 39% black offender rate for murder presents a substantially disproportionate offending rate amongst blacks. Some might say that the year was probably a statistical anomaly, and dismiss the figures. For the sake of argument, let’s look at the preceding years as well:
So the pattern is clear: Blacks are more violent that other races if terms of committing murder…they’ve gone from spear throwing historically to gun slinging now with deadly results. But hold on – blacks may very well kill more people than whites, but more murder victims are black than are white, right? Wrong. In both 2004 and 2005, while Blacks managed to out-kill the numerically dominant white race, there were less black murder victims than there were white victims. Only in 2006 were more blacks murdered than whites.
- 2005: 6,379 Black offenders out of a total of 17,029 (37.4%)
- 2004:(table 2.5) 5,608 Black offenders out of a total of 15, 935 (35.1%)
“Poverty! Poverty! Poverty!” This, the liberals cry, is what causes a higher incidence of crime among the black population, not the fact they happen to be black. Okay…that could explain some things, home invasion, thefts, even murder. A formidable argument…until we get to rape. Feeling poor or downtrodden by society does not make one want to go out and start raping.
And in rape, blacks are more violent than whites as well.
(figures represent arrest rates per 100,000 inhabitants of specified population)
Surprise, surprise: non-whites are more than twice as likely to commit rape than are whites. Hold on...“All other races”? That won’t do – that’s racist. We need the figure for blacks…
It seems rather apparent that you can take the Blackman out of Africa…but you can’t take the violent savage out of the Black. Obviously these ‘people’ have a genetic tendency to be predisposed towards violence and crime.
But what can be done? This is where Race Specific Legislation can come in. I’ve thought of five main ways of tackling the problem of this problem race:
Such schemes taken together or alone would work wonders in limiting crime amongst this trouble race….
- Registration and Tagging: Make all blacks register with local police authority, force them to wear tags so they can be located if (when) they commit a crime.
- Warning Signs: On black dominated neighbourhoods signs should be erected that warns outsiders they are in danger
- Muzzling and Leashing: Prevention is better than cure – by ‘muzzling’ I mean physical checks on their movements; shackles on their hands to allow day to day activity but to prevent utilisation of weapon, ball and chain to slow them down. By ‘leashing’, the idea is to have Blacks escorted by officers of the law in population centres where (statistically proven) less-violent whites reside
- Compulsory castration for males: Males commit a disproportionate amount of crime in all races, so a simple measure would be to remove the testosterone and hormones that may lead to violence.
- Outlawing: It certain sensitive areas the decision should be made available to outlaw the presence of blacks full stop – schools, white residential areas, public parks etc.
[/SATIRE]
***************
…except of course, that it would be illogical, extremely unfair, persecute the innocent and largely unworkable.
To blame the higher incidence of crime amongst blacks upon such a shady definition as race is –of course- absurd. Poverty does lead to crime, and where poverty doesn’t explain gang culture makes up the difference; and gang culture of course can (and does) occur amongst all population groups. To suggest that special measures should be taken by authorities against a singled out racial group would not, should not, and –thankfully- is not, accepted by the general public. Demeaning labels such as dangerous, genetically violent, and sub human (“people”) is of course to be shouted down.
But this leads me to the main purpose of the thread. Breed Specific Legislation. Perhaps the most irrational extension of government intrusion into the lives of the individual that is widely accepted by the public at large. The same arguments and patterns as used in the first half of the post is seen in those arguments against specific breeds:
Basically, take the opening post and replace the word Black with the targeted breed, murder and rape with dog attacks and fatalities, and language such as ‘violent race’ and ‘genetically violent’ with ‘dangerous dog’ and ‘bred to be violent’. You have yourself a pro-BSL argument.
- Target group focused on for special attention
- Statistics used in an attempt to justify action against all membersof the target group
- Argument complimented by unsubstantiated and inflammatory language
- Actions advised/taken would/has little bearing on the root causes of the problems and often fails to prevent the actions that were being targeted.
The banning of specific breeds of dogs for a perceived tendency towards violence is devoid of logic. It’s not the breed – it’s the owner. Yes, Pit bulls and Rottweilers are responsible for the most dog attacks, but this does not reflect on the breed. Quite simply, it reflects upon the demographic of owners that is attracted to said breed. To put it mildly – scum. People purchasing ‘hard’ breeds thinking it makes them look big and bad, they want it to make them look big and bad. Walking to heel without a lead, regular exercise, strict discipline and animal socialisation are hardly the top priority of these people. And they get a character of dog that reflects their upbringing.
All this leaves responsible owners looking bad. Of course, the media couldn’t care less when it jumps on isolated incidents to tar whole breeds with the same brush, and by default all owners are painted as irresponsible.
And so the authorities act on this misinformation. Outright bans. Compulsory muzzling. Compulsory leashing in all public areas. Forced chipping. Forced castration. Compulsory signs on property. It doesn’t matter if you and your dog haven’t done anything. Tough. But in the same way gun regulations in the US and the relatively recent tightening of handgun laws in the UK, it is not the criminals, not those who are at fault, that are the ones who obey, who are penalised the most. It’s the innocent, the average gun holder, the average pistol sport shooter, and in this case; the average Pit bull, Rottweiler *insert “dangerous” dog* owner that suffers.
In the UK we have the dangerous dog act which outlaws my favourite breed in terms of temperament and looks - the American Pit Bull. Not to worry I thought, after University is over I'd been aiming to move the US, specifically Texas, so looked forward to getting my own pair of dogs. But recently there seems to be ominous signs considering BSL and Pit Bulls…Google news has four recent stories in Texas alone concerning Pit Bulls, including this laughable opinion peace. Dammit Texas! “The beauty of the hills of Carolina or the sweetness of the grass in Tennessee” are looking more and more tempting.
As elsewhere, the supporters of BSL in Texas repeat the same nonsense…that these animals are genetically prone to attack, are inherently dangerous, have come from a historically violent background, and the public laps it up. Some non-effective BSL is introduced that gets people and the media off the governments back, and event though it doesn’t deal with the problem, and targets the wrong end of the lead – its widely praised and accepted. People move on to their new cheap cause to make themselves feel good.
In 2007 there were just 32 fatal dog attacks in the USA. Needless to say, guns, tobacco, and cars 'cause' far more than 32 deaths a year. More children die at the hands of their parents than of their dogs. Breed Specific Legislation is an uncessary attempt at a problem that is overblown. Its the irresponsible owners that need to be targeted.
'Punish the deed, not the breed.'
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Heinz Guderian
