Proposed Bully XL ban

[Sweet11-87]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

 

Pit dogs were bred to fight other animals and generally not people, there are many breeds of dog not currently banned that I would suggest have higher bite drive and yet they're not in the papers, I wonder why?

correct but the statistics show that these dogs have repeatadly attacked people and other dogs to devestating effect. 

i apreciate that some good owners will think it unfair but frankly these dogs are very new in the uk, very few and far between and have built a reputation faster than any ive seen becasue of  actual events, deaths and frequent attacks. im not really bothered if other dogs are more bite prone, its not pound for pound you could catch your thumb with a pin hammer 2000 times and with a chainsaw once  the pin hammer is not the more dangerous tool.

i personally dont get it. if you like the american pit bull breed fair enough  but why not have a standard, pocket or a classic one? they are robust enough dogs at that size they look the same have the same traites and are managible. why do people need a pit breed that size other than to intimidate? they certainly arnt using them to work.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

correct but the statistics show that these dogs have repeatadly attacked people and other dogs to devestating effect. 

i apreciate that some good owners will think it unfair but frankly these dogs are very new in the uk, very few and far between and have built a reputation faster than any ive seen becasue of  actual events, deaths and frequent attacks. im not really bothered if other dogs are more bite prone, its not pound for pound you could catch your thumb with a pin hammer 2000 times and with a chainsaw once  the pin hammer is not the more dangerous tool.

i personally dont get it. if you like the american pit bull breed fair enough  but why not have a standard, pocket or a classic one? they are robust enough dogs at that size they look the same have the same traites and are managible. why do people need a pit breed that size other than to intimidate? they certainly arnt using them to work.

The question is why are they attacking people, I will guarantee it's because of the image associated with that dog attracting a certain type of owner, not because Bully XLs or any other breed of dog is inherently dangerous.

Do you honestly think the people owning these bully XL dogs, if banned will not simply buy a different breed and cause just as much carnage. I'll answer that for you, they will, because they've already done it with all the other breeds I've already listed and I can assure you there are plenty more breeds, even more powerful that can take there place.

Your argument of why have a bully XL and not a "standard" one is the same as anti shooters saying why do you need (insert calibre here). Without banning all dogs over about 20kg your going to have a dog capable of inflicting serious harm, particularly to the young, vulnerable or elderly. Which is why I believe the solution lies with owners and not breeds of dog.

[DannyS]

A lot more experienced dog men than me would say it's a disaster waiting to happen due to their genetic makeup with pit and mastiff blood in them. Then getting peddled to family homes and inexperienced owners who have no idea of the dog or it's capabilities. 

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, DannyS said:

A lot more experienced dog men than me would say it's a disaster waiting to happen due to their genetic makeup with pit and mastiff blood in them. Then getting peddled to family homes and inexperienced owners who have no idea of the dog or it's capabilities. 

I'll agree that a bull breed is not ideal for a first time owner, but then there are also other breeds which are far more difficult. These bull breeds are being painted as some sort of demons, in reality theyre just a dog. 

As for these experienced dog men, I would question how experienced they actually are.

[Sweet11-87]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your argument of why have a bully XL and not a "standard" one is the same as anti shooters saying why do you need (insert calibre here).

and that argument is valid. it infact supports my point  we are asked why we need any calibre firearm and the reason needs to be valid and justified. massive dogs for protection and "becasue i think theyre cool" should be an instant decline. just like it is for section 1

i dont want guns or dogs in the hands of idiots for the sake of the everyone else

Edited September 13, 2023 by Sweet11-87

[Yellow Bear]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your argument of why have a bully XL and not a "standard" one is the same as anti shooters saying why do you need (insert calibre here)

To slightly paraphrase more as I see it    -- Your argument of why have a bully XL and not a "standard" one is the same as someone saying why do you need a sawn off shotgun not a "standard" one

[12gauge82]

57 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

and that argument is valid. it infact supports my point  we are asked why we need any calibre firearm and the reason needs to be valid and justified. massive dogs for protection and "becasue i think theyre cool" should be an instant decline. just like it is for section 1

i dont want guns or dogs in the hands of idiots for the sake of the everyone else

Agreed, but we don't have calibers banned, instead we run a licencing system. That to my mind is the only effective solution. Banning lets say a .308 because criminals keep shooting people with one won't stop them using another caliber, or obtain .308 illegally, it's exactly the same with dogs.

[12gauge82]

39 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

To slightly paraphrase more as I see it    -- Your argument of why have a bully XL and not a "standard" one is the same as someone saying why do you need a sawn off shotgun not a "standard" one

The thing is, bully XLs generally have less drive than many other bull breeds, the spate of dog bites is clearly more linked to the type of people who buy them, as appose the dogs themselves. 

I find it frustrating that speaking with shooters who appear to agree with breed specific legislation, when I see such a similarity when the media trys to connect criminal shootings with lawful gun ownership calling for bans on ownership.

I was fully aware it would be the likely train of thought, but thought I'd get some opinions.

Thanks to everyone for the debate 👍

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

 

I was fully aware it would be the likely train of thought, but thought I'd get some opinions.

 

Ah but I think many have made the mistake in thinking that the Tory handgun ban (and the Tory self-loading rifle ban) was about stopping the use of such in crime and/or by criminals. It wasn't. Nor will any adding of the Bully XL to the Dangerous Dogs Act be about stopping ownership of these dogs contrary to any such adding of this breed to the banned list.

What it will be, just as were the two Tory gun bans, was in that it will enable the government to claim, nay to boast, that "nobody has now been injured or worse killed by a Bully XL since our Government passed this law banning them."

There will still be dog attacks, of course there will, but not with the Bully XL breed as by the very fact that such breed has been banned means that it cannot be that breed that has now harmed someone unless of course it was an illegally owned one!

Just the same as after the two gun bans they were able to boast "nobody has been able to use a lawfully owned pistol or self-loading rifle to commit a mass shooting since we banned them."

It all reminds me of one of my drivers once on the Dover to Calais ferry. He wanted ham and eggs yet when it came he sent it back telling the staff it wasn't ham it was gammon. To reply when challenged on the difference with those immortal words "Well for a start it isn't spelled the same....!"

So still we will have people injured or worse with such "types" of similar dogs but just not now by a Bully XL because it isn't called the same....it's all ham and gammon again...just that then now ever after the government can claim that they "did something."

But do I nevertheless think they should be banned? They may be no logic to thinking it but personally I do think they should be. Yes.

Edited September 13, 2023 by enfieldspares

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Ah but I think many have made the mistake in thinking that the Tory handgun ban (and the Tory self-loading rifle ban) was about stopping the use of such in crime and/or by criminals. It wasn't. Nor will any adding of the Bully XL to the Dangerous Dogs Act be about stopping ownership of these dogs contrary to any such adding of this breed to the banned list.

What it will be, just as were the two Tory gun bans, was in that it will enable the government to claim, nay to boast, that "nobody has now been injured or worse killed by a Bully XL since our Government passed this law banning them."

There will still be dog attacks, of course there will, but not with the Bully XL breed as by the very fact that such breed has been banned means that it cannot be that breed that has now harmed someone unless of course it was an illegally owned one!

Just the same as after the two gun bans they were able to boast "nobody has been able to use a lawfully owned pistol or self-loading rifle to commit a mass shooting since we banned them."

It all reminds me of one of my drivers once on the Dover to Calais ferry. He wanted ham and eggs yet when it came he sent it back telling the staff it wasn't ham it was gammon. To reply when challenged on the difference with those immortal words "Well for a start it isn't spelled the same....!"

So still we will have people injured or worse with such "types" of similar dogs but just not now by a Bully XL because it isn't called the same....it's all ham and gammon again...just that then now ever after the government can claim that they "did something."

But do I nevertheless think they should be banned? They may be no logic to thinking it but personally I do think they should be. Yes.

Excellent post

Your final paragraph is completely understandable, it's an emotional response to terrible tragedy. I rember after the horrendous Dunblane shooting and fellow shooters agreed with the handgun ban, one even said he'd be happy to see all firearms banned for civilian ownership.

[Centrepin]

7 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

 

But do I nevertheless think they should be banned? They may be no logic to thinking it but personally I do think they should be. Yes.

Unfortunately that's the view of a huge portion of the non shooting population when it comes to guns and I might add other types of field sport.

 

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Excellent post

Your final paragraph is completely understandable, it's an emotional response to terrible tragedy. I rember after the horrendous Dunblane shooting and fellow shooters agreed with the handgun ban, one even said he'd be happy to see all firearms banned for civilian ownership.

I remember two Army officers coming to blows over that very subject. One owned a revolver and semi the other was totally anti gun.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Centrepin said:

Unfortunately that's the view of a huge portion of the non shooting population when it comes to guns and I might add other types of field sport.

 

I remember two Army officers coming to blows over that very subject. One owned a revolver and semi the other was totally anti gun.

Awful events bring out the strongest emotions. I'll certainly never forget that event.

[Sweet11-87]

my final comment on the matter is altough i dont like them, want them, or understand why anyone else does, i do recognise that for whatever reason people do.   and as a gun owner ive been on the reciving end of being a minority that the majority dont truly understand and want rid off somthing that i enjoy. So im very very hesitant and reluctant to throw my vote into the "complete ban" on anything thats legal really.

what i do heavily support and will always vote for is not necessarily stricter laws but better enforced laws and better funded governing bodies.  if these breeds and ownership of them had been better managed early doors instead of a complete free fest then not only would half of these deaths and attacks probably not have happened  the responsible owners and breed wouldnt now be in the spotlight and firing line becasue lets face it theyre gona ban them after the fact  and we all agree its not gona real do anything bar hit the good owners hard.

same thing with guns i think if the licencing structure was more robust and funded perhaps  the perpetrators of the events that have triggered knee jerk bans might have been stopped beforehand.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Sweet11-87

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

my final comment on the matter is altough i dont like them, want them, or understand why anyone else does, i do recognise that for whatever reason people do.   and as a gun owner ive been on the reciving end of being a minority that the majority dont truly understand and want rid off somthing that i enjoy. So im very very hesitant and reluctant to throw my vote into the "complete ban" on anything thats legal really.

what i do heavily support and will always vote for is not necessarily stricter laws but better enforced laws and better funded governing bodies.  if these breeds and ownership of them had been better managed early doors instead of a complete free fest then not only would half of these deaths and attacks probably not have happened  the responsible owners and breed wouldnt now be in the spotlight and firing line becasue lets face it theyre gona ban them after the fact  and we all agree its not gona real do anything bar hit the good owners hard.

same thing with guns i think if the licencing structure was more robust and funded perhaps  the perpetrators of the events that have triggered knee jerk bans might have been stopped beforehand.

Thank you for your contributions, I've found it informative to get a range of views.

I can't disagree with anything you've written above.

[Duckandswing]

The government as just confirmed the XL bully breed will be banned. Info is on the BBC news website.

[Duckandswing]

[12gauge82]

39 minutes ago, Duckandswing said:

Thanks for posting.

Like I said, no skin off my nose as I don't own one, but mark my words, this isn't going to stop attacks by dogs and I await the next 'status' breed to come along.

[Duckandswing]

32 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Thanks for posting.

Like I said, no skin off my nose as I don't own one, but mark my words, this isn't going to stop attacks by dogs and I await the next 'status' breed to come along.

I imagine you’ll be right.

[Docleo]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Thanks for posting.

Like I said, no skin off my nose as I don't own one, but mark my words, this isn't going to stop attacks by dogs and I await the next 'status' breed to come along.

You are probably right - however, in my view, one child/person dying for a dog attack is already too much. So any attempt to reduce this risk is good news to me. 

[12gauge82]

31 minutes ago, Docleo said:

You are probably right - however, in my view, one child/person dying for a dog attack is already too much. So any attempt to reduce this risk is good news to me. 

As would say any anti gun person.

I don't believe this legislation will protect anyone in the long run. The idiots that own them will continue to own them illegally and idiots who want one but now can't get hold of one will get a different breed, possibly others even more powerfully built and even more drive.

I obviously feel very sorry for the victims of the idiots owning these powerful out of control dogs, I also feel very sorry for the responsible owners who own one and the dogs themselves, who have been demonised and will now have to register, neuter/spay them and muzzle and keep on a lead perfectly safe dogs, plus pay the crazy insurance premiums they will be forced to buy, all through no fault of their own

[12gauge82]

Docleo, on reading my above reply to yourself, it doesn't read very well so appoliges if that post comes across wrong, I'm not comparing you to an anti, just highlighting that I believe this ban is an emotional decision as appose a logical one, at best it's a sticking plaster rather than a well designed plan to safeguard people from dog attacks 

[Docleo]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Docleo, on reading my above reply to yourself, it doesn't read very well so appoliges if that post comes across wrong, I'm not comparing you to an anti, just highlighting that I believe this ban is an emotional decision as appose a logical one, at best it's a sticking plaster rather than a well designed plan to safeguard people from dog attacks 

No need to apologies. I don' t even believe guns and dogs can be compared.

I agree, this is an emotional one - and probably the ban is not the best solution but in my view, it's better than nothing. 

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, Docleo said:

No need to apologies. I don' t even believe guns and dogs can be compared.

I agree, this is an emotional one - and probably the ban is not the best solution but in my view, it's better than nothing. 

👍

[FOXHUNTER1]

19 hours ago, Docleo said:

You are probably right - however, in my view, one child/person dying for a dog attack is already too much. So any attempt to reduce this risk is good news to me. 

I agree with this too 👍

[12gauge82]

This is the reality of many of the owners of dogs that end up killing.

Its got far more to do with the owner than what breed of dog it is.