Gun Control

What If We Talked About Dogs the Way We Talk About Firearms?

How mangled terminology impairs America's gun debates


"It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't," Ken White writes at Popehat. "So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers":

Maybe we should just focus on regulating dog food.
Shelter Island Police

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.

You: So what do you propose?

Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.

You: Wait. What's an "attack dog"?

Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.

You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?

Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.

You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.

Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.

You: What the fuck.

Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.

You: Can we?

That comes in the middle of a longer discussion of the ways this country's gun debates go off the rails. You can read the rest here.

NEXT: Finland Wants to Replace Welfare Programs With a Minimum Income for All Residents

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This was a great post on Popehat and amusingly apropos, since I saw a tweet last week encouraging people who felt they needed tools for self-defense to get a dog, not a gun.

    Of course, dogs believed to actually defend you (as opposed to alerting you that you might need to defend yourself) are…frequently banned.

    1. They had cyborg dogs of self-defense in Snowcrash. So maybe rational hound control is a sign of a civilized society. Only America allows unfettered breeding of assault hounds.

      1. “Can’t you imagine how liberating it is for a pit bull-terrier to be capable of running seven hundred miles an hour?”

        1. “I haven’t in?stalled any tes?ti?cle-lick?ing sim?u?la?tions yet, but now that you have brought it up, I shall con?sider it.”

        1. Precisely like that. In fact, that was a mindshot the NSA scanned from my brain.

          1. You’re Dario Russo?!?

      2. Cyborg with the brains of dogs known colloquially, for some reason, as “Rat Things.”

        1. Because they look like giant rats, and until Ng mentions it to YT, nobody outside Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong even knows that they contain the brains of dogs.

        2. No one knew they were based on dogs until Ng tells Y.T.

          1. Shut up, CX. Shut your damn whore mouth.

            1. I’ll not apologize for being faster, prettier, and smarter than you, Sweet’n’Low.

              1. Faster, yes. Smarter, maybe. Prettier? In your dreams, motherfucker.

                1. I will be the judge of who is prettiest!

                  The answer, of course, is me.

                  (gazes into mirror)

                  1. [mirror gazes back]


                    2. Not everyone can afford to spend as much money on plastic surgery as you can, Epi.

          2. Fair point.

            I spent the weekend rereading the book. Really enjoyable, if a little bleak about the prospects of capitalism. In Diamond Age, which I always assumed is set in the same universe, Stephenson makes some remark about cryptocurrencies leading to the dissolution of nation states. Governments could no longer levy taxes, hence corporate-state anarchy. So it’s it really the excesses of capitalism or the failure of government to manage society?

            1. Diamond Age is set in the future of the Snow Crash universe. In fact, Miss Matheson is an elderly Y.T.

              1. Snow Crash depicts society in a transitional state between the obsolete nation-state model of the present day and the panarchist phyles of The Diamond Age.

                The beginning of the cryptocurrency revolution that leads to both is detailed in The Great Simoleon Caper.

    2. get a dog

      So I’m supposed to just take my dog with me everywhere?

        1. and only where a licensed dog is allowed

    3. And you can’t bring them to work most places…

      1. At least not until you are disabled with fear.

      2. “It’s a service dog, asshole!”

        1. Diabetic alert dog. My future corgi can come to work with me every day…

        2. There’s already such a thing as, say, a service revolver. So just treat those the same as service animals.

    4. Some ‘pit bulls’ mauled a 4-year-old to death last Friday here in Detroit (today the owner was charged today with Murder II, FWIW). Since then there have been calls for outlawing ‘pit bulls’. And they are the classic example of an undefined ‘scary’ category. Rochelle Riley, who writes for the Free Press had a strongly worded column last week arguing that pit bulls should be banned. I briefly considered sending her a copy of her column with ‘pit bull’ replaced by ‘African American’, but decided that would get me into trouble. But the parallelism between reactions to pit bulls and members of certain races is quite striking.

      1. Do it with “shiftless Irish” instead.

        1. Or “inscrutable Chinaman.”

        2. Look, if an Irishman wants to drive a CVT that’s his own personal decision.

      2. This seems appropriate: Journalist guide to dog identification.

        1. Thanks for that link. I was planning to find it myself, only the version I was thinking of was called ‘Police Officer’s Guide to Dog Identification’

      3. It’s funnier if you substitute the word “Negro.”

      4. Having just rescued a pit bull I’ve found it quite liberating to drop the “what, are you some kind of dog racist?” line on people who pick up their chihuahuas and walk to the other side of the street.

      5. I rescued two pits and fostered for a few years. ‘Pit Bull’ is right up there with ‘assault weapon’ as far as I’m concerned. Whenever someone talks about banning pit bulls, they seem to mean medium to large short haired dogs with shortish muzzles. Which pretty much covers 1/3 of all dogs.

        And besides, as anyone who has actually lived with pits can tell you, of my two cats and my two dogs the hierarchy goes something like: 1. Smaller cat, 2. Bigger cat, 3. APBT/Rhodie mix, 4. AmStaff. One of my cats routinely ambushes Jack, who is about as close to a textbook American Staffordshire as you’ll get and weighs in at 80 pounds, and wrecks him. I frequently have to chase the cats out of the kitchen when I feed the dogs just so they can get close enough to eat.

      6. pit bull = assault dog

    5. The last thing I’m going to do is get a dog to defend myself against people invading my home. We all know what happens to your dog when that happens.

      1. They draw fire while you get your gun?

      2. They are in addition to, not instead of, firearms.

      3. They unholster their Glock and shoot the intruder?

        The obvious solution is to allow dogs to CC. Mass shooting will only happen when daddy forgets the chewy toy – and he had it coming.

      4. The cops shoot it?

      5. They jump up on the intruder and look for treats?

    6. As a Doberman owner, I agree with not only the article above, but this comment. As an active duty guy I can’t even move on base with my dog…a dog that once upon a time was *the* dog of the USMC.

    7. Sturmkampfhund ist Verbotten

    8. Town where I lived, they was talking about banning pit bulls. So my wife went down to the meeting with a collection of photographs of dogs and arsked them to tell her which one was the pit bull. None of the councillors was able to correctly identify it.

  2. I understand that you can now 3D print assault hounds.

    1. Nobody needs a 137 millimeter weiner dog.

      1. I support a ban on auto-barking weiners as well. Nobody needs that shit.

  3. Is coonhound still an acceptable name?

    1. Only if you actually hunt raccoons.

  4. How mangled terminology impairs America’s gun debates

    Too bad all terminology can’t be as unmangled as that of the 2A.

    1. I do wish the first clause of the 2A was worded differently (although at the time it was perfectly clear) but the 2nd clause, which is the operational clause anyway is crystal clear: “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
      There is no way an HONEST legal scholar discussing the Constitution could decide that the 2A was not specifically protecting an individual right.

      The words: right, people, keep AND bear arms, and not be infringed are absolutely clear.

      1. A lotta guys might say that subordinate clause is not essential.

        1. Actually I would agree with that statement. The subordinate clause could say something ridiculous like “A well organized circus of pink elephants being necessary to the happiness of a group of chimpanzees,” and it wouldn’t have any effect on the independent clause.

          And if any of these so-called “Constitutional scholars” had any integrity at all, they would admit that. They can not like it, and can call for its repeal etc. But most of them aren’t honest about it at all.

          1. It doesn’t matter how it was phrased, there will always be people who want to disarm others and who will argue it doesn’t mean what it says. The 1st Amendment is pretty crystal clear and tons of people are still constantly trying to suppress speech.

            This is why writing down shit on a piece of paper doesn’t mean anything in the long run. It’s about people, not about “laws”, which are just farcical rules in the first place.

            1. It does make me wonder why the 2A got “… shall not be infringed” while all the others got “Congress shall make no law …”, as if they meant the 2A to apply to all levels of government, not just Congress.

              1. That’s what I’ve long thought, Scarecrow. I get that the 1st Amendment gets incorporated by the 14th, but the 2nd doesn’t really need incorporation. It reads like it bars all levels of government from infringing on the right to bear arms.

                1. The only other possible interpretation I can think of is regulation vs law, as if the President or some middle manager could violate the 1st and others, but not the 2nd. But that’s plain silly.

                  1. Is there any significance to the fact the first amendment specifically addresses a branch of government, and the second does not bother to identify agents of infringement on the right, nor the agents of its defense? It’s almost as if they were implying an active policing of this particular right by citizens in general…like with the first it’s “government don’t talk about this shit, government don’t address this shit” and with the second, it’s “you better make sure this shit here don’t happen.” The fact there’s no name for the “you” is significant, imho…It’s as if it implies more directly a civic duty to police this right. It makes no mention of a method or source of infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, it makes no admonishment against action, it says “shall not be” as if it were a command from some place on high, and that the existence of infringement should not be tolerated…by anyone, I would gather.

      2. I’ve often thought the the idea of a free people willingly giving up the tools that guaranteed their right to self-defense was so inconceivable to the Founders that they never thought they would have to enshrine it.

        1. Of course. Back then, they’d shoot you for trying to impose a 2% income tax. We’re more tolerant of abuse, these days.

          1. With great prosperity comes great parasitism. With great parasitism comes great suppression of rights.

            1. Parasites aren’t going to get very far respecting the rights of their hosts, are they? Why do you hate parasites? They have as much right to live off of your body as you do.

              1. That’s funny, that’s what your mom always says.

                1. Of course. Children are parasites until they pay you back for the considerable expenses of raising them. Room and board, healthcare, education, training, transportation, etc., etc.–easily six to seven figures on average.

                  1. I’m told that the production of grandchildren goes a long way in the debt forgiveness program, ProL

                    1. Well, I suppose if they’re bonded into indentured servitude, yes.

        2. Considering the Revolutionary War started over the attempted confiscation of guns by the Brits, I think the need to protect against gun confiscation was pretty much on their minds.

          1. Yeah, that’s why it’s keep as well as bear.

            “No, seriously, you can’t disarm the people. Ever. No.”

      3. There are a lot of places where the constitution could be a bit clearer. Seems like the people writing it sometimes preferred an elegant and parsimonious style to clearly saying what they mean. If a well regulated militia is necessary, then it’s necessary. You don’t need to say it. Just say the last part. Putting the militia part in there opens the possibility that people might interpret it as a conditional statement.

        The 14th is another amendment that could be clearer. If it was meant to make the BOR apply to the states, why didn’t they just write that?

        1. I don’t think the founders anticipated Americans becoming so much more stupider as we have did.

          1. I don’t think “stupid” is quite the word for it. And it’s not as if the 14th was vigorously applied to incorporate the BOR when it was first passed either.

            Stupid people tend to get the plain meaning of simple statements. I hate to say it, but people being smarter is more likely the problem. That and people deciding that democracy was a virtue unto itself rather than a means of keeping a republican government in check.

            1. That too.

              Maybe the better word would be “complacent”? As in, willing to take intellectual shortcuts, to avoid examining the underpinning assumptions of things. Like the man said, most Americans carry in their pockets a device that can near-instantaneously access the totality of human knowledge, which they use to get into arguments with strangers and look at pictures of cats.

      4. The words: right, people, keep AND bear arms, and not be infringed are absolutely clear.

        Progslation: The government promises not to seize your arms via amputation. But you might have to register them.

        1. “not to be infringed” isn’t so absolutely clear.

          I mean, what counts as infringement?

          (Disclosure: I say this as someone who thinks the National Firearms Act is probably unconstitutional because it makes it too hard for people to own machine guns and grenade launchers.)

          Example: At the time the Second Amendment was written, nobody seems to have thought that prisoners had a right to bear arms – but they’re certainly part of “the people”.

          Thus their right to keep and bear arms was not considered infringed by an outright ban, no? Or at very least nobody seems to have thought it was even non-laughable enough to discuss; I don’t recall any mention of “but this mad language will make us give people in prison guns!” in, for example, the Federalist Papers.

          Sure, it’s “perfectly clear” that nothing that infringes the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally tolerable.

          But it’s clear as mud what that set of things is; plainly it was never so absolute as to mean you can’t disarm people in prison, but what are the intended limits?

          That’s the problem, innit?

          1. Prisoners give up their rights, I’m not sure if that is even in the constitution? The rest of us who have committed no crimes shall not have any infringements.

  5. We can definitely agree that nobody needs one of those small-caliber concealed-carry purse dogs.

    1. Or a retriever.

    2. Anybody know where I can get a full-auto conversion kit for my single-shot beagle mix?

      1. If you want a high-capacity beagle, you need to get one unmodified version of both major variants (male and female). Within a few months, you will have a fully-loaded high-capacity beagle.

        1. You can buy auto-beagles cheap from China, but they jam a lot and fit together not so good.

          The Romanian ones are better.

      2. You can use a Labrador lower and a modified Husky upper.

    3. Everyone with a “service poodle” should be on a no-fly list.

    1. Even as a kid, that thing made me uncomfortable. How the fuck does it go to the bathroom? Do i want to know?

      1. It just comes out in the middle of it’s belly. Then the dog runs away while the cat is still trying to bury it.

  6. So is my Boston Terrier single or double action?

  7. You can read the rest here.

    I strongly recommend you read the article in Popehat. It is that good.

    1. Hear ye! Ken White is, as usual, a voice for reason.

      Now if we could just get people to read, and think…

  8. All we need to do is ban pitbulls.

    1. Last year I did a survey of dog attacks over the last 25 years. Primarily because I love bully breeds. Although this is highly unscientific, the thing that jumped out at me more than anything else was that the most attacks were by dogs who were generally chained up outside. So it is quite easy to see the correlation between idiot owners who either want a guard dog (but not a pet) or just want a dog to look tough (like gang bangers and wannabees) and attacks compared to people who raise a dog as a family pet.
      Bottom line, if you socialize your dog and treat them humanely and with love, it doesn’t matter if it is a pit bull or a chihuahua.

      1. Chihuahuas are fucking mean. There is no amount of socialization that makes them safe around non-family visitors.

          1. Perhaps my neighbors two consecutive little bags of shit are anomalies.

            1. This exact topic came up when I was talking to the breeder of my last dog (German Shepherd).

              His theory was that people in general tend to be worse at training small dogs than big dogs. Paraphrased:

              Bigger dogs can get themselves (and the owner) into much more trouble than a little dog can when they jump/bite/misbehave, so owners tend to treat them with a firm hand (as all owners should) and train out those behaviors ASAP.

              It seems far less serious (or even cute?) when a small dog does the exact same behavior, so owners are more lenient with small dogs, and therefore fail to eliminate the behavior.

          2. Right!

            I’m with Kinnath on this one. Nervous, yappy little vibrating things.

            1. It’s like they possess some awareness that, genetically, they ought to be wolves, and they’re completely furious at the shambling apes that have turned them into what they are.

            2. They shaking like that, it’s because of rage, barely suppressed rage.

        1. We’ve got a Chihuahua. The other day I invited the small engine repair guy inside for a homebrew while I wrote him a check for fixing my snowblowers, and the dog didn’t yap or snap once. It just nervously begged for attention like it always does.


            The most aggressive breed, the study found, was the Dachshund. The researchers discovered that that one in five have bit or attempted to bite a stranger, and one in twelve have lashed out at their owners. Chihuahuas were in second place, and Jack Russells were the third most aggressive breed. Up to 30 percent of these smaller breeds have bit or attempted to bite unfamiliar dogs.


            Chihuahuas are most likely to bite veterinarians, Lhaso Apsos deliver one of the most severe bites, and about 40 percent of all dog bites are delivered by mixed breeds.

      2. Yeah, the thing about pits is that they’ve historically been both working and companion dogs, and one of the most popular types of dogs in America for years, so much so that when a lot of people imagine the archetypical “dog” they’re thinking of an APBT. Because they’re so common, they’re easier and cheaper to come by than dobies, rotts, or certainly German Shepherds, and so when gangsta rap decided that pit bull type dogs were the new ghetto pony every small-dick idiot who couldn’t afford a Glock accessorized with a dog instead. So now you’ve got idiots who get these dogs to look tough and then abuse and neglect the shit out of them, with predictably tragic results. And even then, the overwhelming majority of abused and neglected dogs just live short, miserable lives without hurting anyone, assuming they aren’t killed as a result of dog fighting.

        Don’t get me started about “blue pits” and some of these fucking backyard breeders, either.

    2. I was carrying Bambi to the vet in my F250 and I was shot by the police for felony possession of a harem of pit bulls.

    3. “ban pitbulls”

      At least turn it down

  9. “There was an Assault Dog attack just 6 miles from a Planned Parenthood this afternoon.”

  10. I got a dog, put a trigger lock on it, and put it away in my safe. An odd, unpleasant smell is drifting around the general area now.

    Dogs can be expensive and incredibly inconvenient pests.

    1. Dogs can be expensive and incredibly inconvenient pests.

      You are a monster.

        1. Never mind, then.

    2. I love dogs. Other people’s dogs.

      1. I like my neighbor’s dog. I especially like that he mostly stays at my neighbor’s house.

  11. Sometimes I really wish that demonstrating you knew the first damn thing about a subject could be a prerequisite for expressing an opinion on it. Pretty much all my leftist acquaintances seem to be operating under the impression that you can cruise into any gun store and walk out with a machine gun, and of course this impression that we have “no gun laws” leads them to support any proposal that comes down the pike. Oddly enough they never seem to remember that we do keep passing gun control laws – NFA ’34, GCA ’68, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, to say nothing of many state and local laws – continually believing that we have “no gun laws”, which makes you feel like you’re stuck in Groundhog Day.

    If you do try to pin them down on specifics, the best you’re likely to get is a statement like, “Well, whatever, I just don’t think we should let civilians own deadly weapons.” But at that point you’re dealing with a religious sentiment, not a rational one. I would actually have a great deal more patience with leftists if they admitted that it was a religious conviction and not a reasoned attempt to solve crime.

    1. “So, you’re telling me you don’t trust yourself to own a firearm, yet you trust yourself to make rules for other people?”

      1. “Guns are scary. Only government should have them because government is The People and can be trusted.”

    2. But that is the essence. They don’t believe anyone should be allowed to own a gun. Period.

      1. Only knights who have been taught by wizards at the Academy can be trusted with such powerful totems.

        1. +5 Holy Avenger!

          1. Wouldn’t life be cooler if there actually were such a thing as magical swords?

            1. Yeah, but then we’d just be hearing endless annoying discussions about common sense magical-sword-control.

            2. Well I know you are wishing for magcal swords John, but I have had plenty of ladies tell me I have a magical club…….

              1. Please practice Concealed Carry…

      2. I think there is also a significant number of people who think that guns for hunting are OK, but that handgun bans and severe restrictions on how guns must be kept and where and when they can be used are a good idea. Which is pretty much what you have in most of Europe, Australia, etc.

        1. Hunting like in “The Most Dangerous Game?” I’m not sure even gun advocates support that.

          1. But what if you’re hunting Ice-T? Is it ok then?

            1. You knew the answer to that all along.

    3. It’s not so much religious as animist. The gun is a supernatural totem and is inherently evil. It can make otherwise good people do evil things, even if all they do is touch it. It’s not a tool, it’s…alive. It’s malevolent. This is how animists view many objects. Because they’re retarded.

      But there are a lot of them.

      1. It’s not so much religious as animist.

        Well animism is a religion.

        1. I view it more as proto-religion; it’s a core building block for religion, but they are not the same.

    4. I had an old friend post the following on DerpBook the other day: “What is the one thing that every one of these shooters has in common?”

      I answered: “They broke existing laws?”

      His response was typical (and depressing): “Fair enough. But that just underscores the need for more laws, doesn’t it?”

      1. Yeah. Totally. I mean, someone intent on committing multiple murders is certainly going to think twice about committing a bunch of misdemeanors in the process. Do they really want six months added to their life sentence? I think not.

  12. Ken White is just the best, even when he is offering to punch every single Hit’n’Run commenter in the genitals.

  13. Yes, indeed. Let’s ban these dogs. Confiscate and kill them all:


    1. There’s several pictures where the pitbulls appear to be killing cats. By, uh, snuggling them to death.

      The cats don’t seem to mind.

      1. Anyone who has ever had a bully breed, and treated them with kindness and love knows that they are nothing but cuddlebugs.

        1. They do tend to be big cuddly babies.

        2. “Don’t worry about my pitbulls, he’s very friendly”

          “Thanks for telling me that.”

  14. I can’t have sex with my gun, but….

    1. You can’t? Wrong caliber, maybe?

      1. The old battleships had 16-inch bores…

        1. Playa is enormously endowed.

          1. It’s a blessing and a curse.

            1. Like a big tuna can.

              1. Playa has a choad?!? I should have guessed.

                1. It’s not a choad- it had length as well as girth. The dude is carrying around a veritable telephone pole in his trousers. We should all remove our hats out of respect and admiration.

                  Playa is the Milton Berle of Reason commenters.

              2. “He may not bottom out, but he’ll wreck the hell out of the sides!”

                1. “He might not make it to the back of the building, but he’ll wreck the entrance!”

            1. Diane,

              A .22 will knock you dead just as easily as a .380 or so I am told.

              1. As they say, I wouldn’t want to be standing in front of one when it went off.

                1. Double entendre Diane.

                2. Really? I drink a lot of pineapple juice.

    2. She’s not a girl who misses much..…..a+Warm+Gun

    3. So everyone here is thinking about Playa’s dick and not the fact that he just pretty much admitted to being a dog fucker? Fags.

      1. Not male dogs. That’s fucking disgusting.

  15. Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don’t need to own.

    You: Can we? Release the hounds!


    1. Here’s how we identify the assault dogs: put a prog-tard in a pen with all the dogs. Whichever dogs don’t bite the prog-tard are the ones that are legal to own. Repeat ad infinitum until either all dogs are banned or all prog-tards are extinct.

  16. “No one needs a dog* that weighs more than 7 lbs…”

    *A dog that small shouldn’t even count as a real dog.

    1. If a respectable cat can kick its ass, its not a dog. its some form of rat.

      1. I don’t know. I’ve seen a big Malamute get it’s ass whupped by a cat. Seems like dogs are often just confused by cat attacks.

        1. Allowing it doesn’t count. I mean actually kick its ass.

          1. I used to have a cat that took craps bigger than some dogs. Huge alpha-male tabby.

            1. Only because the dogs didn’t want to kill it. Cats are naturally skittish for good reason.

          2. Yeah, OK. Except for some of the little terriers bred to kill rats, little dogs are pretty ridiculous. Someone I know used to have one of those little teacup poodles. It really was more like a pet rodent than a dog in a lot of ways.

            1. See my point below. Terriers are very tough little bastards and real dogs. But no cat is taking on a real terrier.

              1. No house cat. I wouldn’t be so sure about a good sized feral cat. It would at least be a decent fight.

                1. I had a feral cat that I tamed when I was younger. He was fucking huge. Pig Boy I called him. He’d jump on horseback with me when I was out in the field, lay draped across while I went about my business. Most of the time he behaved in a rather catly fashion, more likely to run away at any sign of danger. But once in a while, he’d switch into killer mode and vigorously pursue other animals. Out of nowhere, he turned on me a couple times. It left bruises. I remember he went nuts one time when I was doing some papers in the war room, and I stepped out and shut the door, and he was pounding on it like he meant to break it down. Luckily, it was a solid, home-made monstrosity. All he could do was rip some gashes in the surface. I remember the feral cat that I assume to be his sire, and it was even bigger and more monstrous. In the same area, there was also a pack of feral cats that were no more than half the size of a normal housecat. I was able to observe feral cats fishing a number of times as well.

            2. I had pet rats in high school. They were honestly smarter and friendlier than a lot of small dogs i’ve met.

              1. Smarter and friendlier, maybe, but also tastier.

            3. I put the cutoff at 100 pounds. Smaller than that, it’s useless.

              1. I would put the cutoff a lot lower than that Old Man.

                1. Yes, you would. That speaks volumes.

                  This is a dog.

                  This is Nikki and her puppy.

                  1. Yeah because 80 or 100 pound German Shepherd or Malinois is not a “real dog”.

                    Some of us don’t have to compensate for things Old man.

                    1. 100 pounds gets it into the Real Dog Club. Below that, it’s fine for sitting on the laps of nancy boys.

                    2. Sure old man.

                    3. ‘Yeah because 80 or 100 pound German Shepherd or Malinois is not a “real dog”.’

                      It’s a fact. Just like dwarfs aren’t real people. Get over it.

                  2. Damn, i would love to get a Caucasian Shepherd, if i had the acreage for it to roam.

                    1. We have a Great Pyrenees. Our land is well-fenced and the coyotes and neighborhood kids stay well out. One of the kids had his friend grab his skateboard and toss it over the fence. The kid whose skateboard was taken bashfully called over the fence to my wife (who looks like a caricature of Mrs. Santa Claus), “Excuse me, ma’am, my friend threw my skateboard over the fence into your yard and I’m afraid to come get it.”

                      “That’s wise, you wouldn’t get halfway over the fence before being eaten,” She got the skateboard, and asked, “OK, before I give this back to you, have you learned anything?”

                      The kid looked rather puzzled and querulously answered, “Ummm, don’t go in people’s yards?”

                      “No, the lesson is that your friends can be real dicks.”

                      The look on his face was priceless. She handed the board back to him, and he took off, never to be seen near our yard again.

                    2. We have a Great Pyrenees.

                      Well there is your problem right there. Pyrenees are wonderful dogs but they are basically big fluff balls. They are hardly guard dogs or of much use beyond licking your to death or maybe as a beast of burden.

                    3. You have no idea what an LGD is.

                    4. The Japanese series Ginga Densetsu Weed features a Great Pyrenees named Hiro, who is nicknamed the “The Castrator”, due to his signature attack of neutering his opponents.

                      Come on John, pet my doggie!

                    5. No thanks old man. If I lose my dick, I will be like you and have to buy really big dogs. You know how much those things cost to feed?

                    6. My fiancee’s mother used to show Pyrs. They snore. As the joke goes, they’re like living with a large drunk man who likes to shit in the back yard. And they eat large amounts of dog food, though not that much more than the Weims and Labs I used to have.

                      You’d laugh and cry, getting an estimate from a groomer for one. OTOH, when they blow their coat out twice (?) a year, it looks like it’s snowing.

                    7. I’ve got a preference for beagles.

                      I just need something that lets me know there’s a stranger. I’ll take care of the rest myself.

                    8. Aussie shepherd size or true APBT size is where I start drawing the line between dog and overgrown cat, not where the Mollosers begin. But to each their own.

                      Pyrenees are wonderful dogs but they are basically big fluff balls. They are hardly guard dogs or of much use beyond licking your to death or maybe as a beast of burden.

                      I’m going to guess you’ve never seen working Pyrs. They are amazing to watch. The time I saw them working their sheep with some border collies, I was very glad there was a barbed wire fence between me and them. If I had to describe their personality, it was like watching a stereotypical Irish cop, swinging a baton by its strap as he walked up to me, saying “Boyo, we’re not going to have any trouble now, are we?” The sheep went apeshit, running away from the fence, which delighted the collies, who now had something to do. The Pyrs moved to interpose themselves between the receding flock and us. And we left before some irritated Basque sheepherder showed up wondering why his flock was in flight.

                      Highly recommend visiting Bridgeport, CA. Love the Eastern Sierra.

                    9. I’m going to guess you’ve never seen working Pyrs.

                      Being utterly ignorant has never slowed John down a bit.

                      Your irish cop analogy is spot on. A very, very large Irish cop.

                    10. It was really funny to watch. They don’t trust anyone not in their family group. Not the ojeriza you get in Fila Brasileros, where they hate everything not their person, but a skittish, wariness.

                      Even as puppies: the fiancee and I were headed to Petco for something or another for the gray kid, but didn’t have her with us. Outside Petco was an eight year old or so boy, with a big fluffy dirty-white fur ball, about a 16 week or so Pyrenees puppy. The puppy was skittish but direct, and wouldn’t approach us until the kid said it was O.k. Even then, the puppy was looking at us like, “The kid says you’re O.K., but I’m not sure. I’m keeping my eye on you.”

                    11. Caucasians and their liebensraum

        2. That’s because Malamutes are lazy dogs. When they bred wolves into huskies and malamutes, the huskies got all the energy and hte ‘mutes got all the lazy. I have literally seen mine lay in the same spot for a full working day.

      2. If it’s not even respectable as a cooked turkey, it’s not a dog.

        1. To me the breaking point between dog and rat is the midsized terrier. Terriers are noxious little bastards but they are real dogs that had maybe the toughest job in dogdom. Dogs are naturally pack animals not used to hunting alone and terriers were expected to go down holes alone and duke it out with raccoons, foxes and badgers. You have to respect the little bastards for that. Anything smaller than a terrier (and I mean the real ones not the bred down toys) is a rat not a dog.

          1. My pug is no rat!

            It’s a pig.

            1. You pug is a snack dog.

            2. Is it in an Ugg?

          2. “To me the breaking point between dog and rat is the midsized terrier.”

            Because you’re an idiot. The breaking point between a dog and a rat is dentition. Even a child knows this. It’s why dogs is called “canines” and rats “rodents”. You can have toothless dogs that get by on overcooked kale and whatnot, but a toothless rat is a dead rat. And, for what it’s worth, I been attacked by dogs and by rats on countless occasions. I even have a huge scar on my leg from a pitbull attack (I survived; it did not). And the jaws of a rat can do a huge amount of severe damage in a couple seconds, pound for pound magnitudes beyond anything a dog can do. (Rabbits, for what it’s worth, can do even worse.) I’ve had rat attacks where the teeth went in one side of a digit and come out the other, where lumps of flesh were ripped right out, that happened so fast I didn’t even feel it till it was over. I’ve seen them kill mice, quails, even full grown chickens, in lightning attacks where it was all over before the target even had a chance to know it was kilt. Two of them took a hen once such that they almost completely severed the leg before it had a chance to react. With quails, they come close to severing the neck in the first second or two. With mice, generally, the entire head is completely destroyed instantly. But you shouldn’t be able to fend off a rabid dog by deftly snagging it by the tail and flailing it against a wall.

      3. Growing up we had a big black tomcat named Spook, and it wasn’t afraid of anything. More than once it jumped onto the backs of dogs, biting their necks, sending the dogs into a terrified run before the cat jumped off and smugly strolled away.

        Those were domesticated dogs though. One Christmas Eve we awoke to no cat. We followed some tracks in the snow and found where the coyote got it. There was quite a bit of coyote fur, but more cat fur. Tracked the coyote tracks to a large round patch of trampled snow, blood, and black cat fur, with many sets of coyote tracks going in and out. So at least his final act was to fill several canine stomachs.

        1. Sounds to me like the cat should’ve been dosed with a couple hundred grains of lead before the coyotes started to harass the dogs.

        2. I keep bantam game cocks with my flock of full-size hens. Goosehawks invariably go for the game cocks first (I’m guessing because they are smaller they look easier). There was only ever one time that the hawk prevailed, and it was a huge fight that left a trail of blood and feathers all around the yard. More usually, the cocks beats the fuck out of the hawk and strolls away as the hawk flees. Hawks attack the birds usually once, maybe twice, and then they don’t come round the chicken yard any more for a few months. Last time it happened, the cock actually broke off one of his spurs in the hawk, and the spurs on these game cocks are three inch monstrosities with a needle sharp point and causes wounds which always turn into horrible festering infections. But even a tiny dog, and the most powerful cock is totally fucked, if the dog has any determination to do him in.

  17. Looks like the donation banner is.. er… 3/5ths…. of the way there. That’s quite a jump from yesterday.

    Whoever donated under the name “CHIPOTLE SUCKS” is a hero. Fact.

  18. “I told her to put her hands up. She raised her arms and dropped the leash. The unleashed weapon wagged its tail and made movement towards me. I discharged my firearm, striking her and her weapon.”

    “Good shot”


    Chicago DA on cop case “don’t believe your lying eyes, there is a gun there that only I can see”.

    1. I just hope if I ever shoot someone in self defense (or any circumstances), the prosecutor goes over the video very very carefully, looking for any detail possible which might result in no charges being filed.

    2. FWIW, I’ve read the kid did have a gun—though you’d never be able to see that in that shitty video. A Browning HighPower. A gangbanger with taste; who knew?

      That video was one step behind trying to watch the Spice Channel as a little kid through the scrambled signal. “Was that a tit? Yeah! Yeah!.”

  20. Wasn’t Cujo a St Bernard? I always thought they were so lovable, then i saw that movie, and I decided that i’d prefer a starving huskey.

        1. Huh, you’re right. Wasn’t there an 80s movie with a rampaging rottie in it?

          1. I believe you’re thinking of early 90s.

    1. Yes Cujo was. And any dog can be mean if some asshole makes it that way.

      1. Cujo goes on the attack because he gets rabies. Though if I recall correctly, like basically every King plot, there is a supernatural element to the rabies (I think the bat that bites Cujo came out of some cave that was used for Indian burials or something like that).

        1. Its always an indian burial site, isn’t it? Damn indians. You’d think whitey would have developed its own supernatural cemetery-protection protocols, but noooooo. Indians. Hopeless in life, unstoppable in death.

          1. When we stole their land they took the “don’t build here” signs with them as revenge.

          2. “Sometimes, dead is better.”

            1. “Ayuh.”

    2. Yes, in both the novel and the film. They seem to be very friendly dogs, but both they and Newfies are fucking slobber machines. Kind of like your mom.

      1. There is a newfie that lives down the street from me. Apparently they use them as water rescue dogs. They are great swimmers and are so big a drowning person can just grab onto them and let them swim you to safety. The owner takes the Newfie to this dog park on a beach out on the Chesapeake and the Newfie spends the whole day patrolling the beach barking at dogs that get to far out away from the shore. He really is a life guard.

        1. Neat. It’s pretty incredible how innate some of the behaviors of certain breeds are.

          1. It is a neat dog. His name is Buffalo, which is perfect because that is what he looks like. He has this enormous friendly woof that he gives to anyone who walks by, like he is saying please come over and say hi.

        2. My first dog was a Newfie. Great dogs, if you don’t mind the tsunami of shedding and slobber that they generate. Smart as can be.

          We got him a pit for a little brother, and its been all pits since. Currently rocking a pair of Staffordshire Bull Terriers, (the short, thick, Brit pit).

  21. I have a cousin who has a pair of these monsters.

    Her male dog is the scariest dog I have ever seen. He is well trained and not a threat and a pretty cool dog but my God he could tear you to shreds if he decided to.

  22. The biggest problem isn’t confusion about what constitutes an “assault weapon”. The biggest problem is confusion about what rights are. A right is a person making a choice. You cannot talk about rights without it meaning a choice, and you cannot talk about rights without also talking about people.

    Progressives imagine that rights are some abstract construction, an idea that exists independent of and separate from people. They are wrong. They make the same mistake with markets–imagining that market forces are some abstract force separate from people like gravity. Market forces are not separate from people. Market forces are people making choices. The government cannot infringe on markets without stepping on people because market forces are people.

    Rights are the same thing. Our Second Amendment right is the right to choose to own a gun. Our First Amendment right is a person’s right to choose what to say, a person’s right to choose his or her own religion, etc. People can choose a jury trial, to remain silent, to be represented by counsel, etc., and the government cannot violate those rights without violating the rights of people. Our rights are not a theoretical idea that was invented in law and can be reinvented at will. Our rights are choices, but they’re also people.

  23. To treat our rights as if they’re something abstract is to treat people in the abstract and deny the tangible obligations we have to other people. Is there any ethical system that ignores our obligations to other people? Isn’t that what ethics is–considering how we should treat other people in the real world? Imagining that we have no obligation to consider other people’s choices is unethical in every ethical system I can think of. Even the Nazis tried to justify the horrible things they did in ethical terms (albeit sick and twisted utilitarian terms).

    The progressives stand alone in insisting that our obligations to respect our rights other people’s choices don’t exist at all.

  24. From the Ken White article:

    “We’ve lost the plot. We don’t know where rights come from, we don’t know or care from whom they protect us, we don’t know how to analyze proposed restrictions to them, and brick by brick we’ve built a culture that scorns rights in the face of real or imagined risks. It is therefore inevitable that talk about Second Amendment rights will be met with scorn or shrugs, and that discussions of what restrictions on rights are permissible will be mushy and unprincipled.”

    “If a prominent gun control opponent said, “I’ve made some mistakes since 9/11. Here they are. Here’s how I’m going to avoid them in the future. And here’s why I don’t want to make them again on guns,” I would listen very carefully to that person’s arguments. If a prominent gun control advocate said “here’s how we’ve fallen down on respecting rights since 9/11. Here’s how we can approach this problem in a way that respects rights that can be a model for governing in the face of danger and fear in general,” I would listen.”

    I would listen…for the flaws in the argument.

    The leopard doesn’t change his spots.

    And the sincere “moderates” who try to research the details of all these guns and suggest “reasonable proposals which both sides will like” – the gun controllers will use these people right up until their useful idiocy is no longer…useful.

    1. Wait, I left out this comment:

      “We’ve lost the plot. We don’t know where rights come from, we don’t know or care from whom they protect us, we don’t know how to analyze proposed restrictions to them, and brick by brick we’ve built a culture that scorns rights in the face of real or imagined risks. It is therefore inevitable that talk about Second Amendment rights will be met with scorn or shrugs, and that discussions of what restrictions on rights are permissible will be mushy and unprincipled.”

      And the fact is that, despite White’s attempt at moral equivalence between lefties and righties, the idea that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights” (in the words of the fundamentalist extremist Thomas Jefferson) is found more on the Right than on the Left.

      And it’s not a coincidence that there are more supporters of the right to bear arms among the Sky-Daddy unalienable rights crowd than among the “I f___ing love science and want to make out with it right now” crowd.

      It seems ungenerous for libertarians to take such an arms-length approach to the natural-rights crowd, which makes up a large bloc of potential allies.

      But many of them don’t like libertarians for some reason.

      Do you guys know anything about this?

      1. There are quite a few sky-daddy lovers on the left as well. And plenty of religious libertarians.

        I thought libertarians were the natural rights crowd.

        1. “plenty of religious libertarians.”

          Fair enough, but there’s certainly a goodly number of atheists who are aware of the existence of natural rights but aren’t quite aware where they come from. This leads to a certain difficulty in articulating the basis of their convictions.

          1. Meh. I don’t see how “God said so” is any more of a fundamental basis for something than “human nature” or “fuck you, I’ll do what I want”.

      2. I’ve got a lot of respect for White and what he does. I don’t think he’s an expert on libertarian orthodoxies, and I’ve seen him write other things about libertarians that aren’t exactly so.

        To me, it seems to me that libertarians are generally more hostile to social contract than natural rights. I also think it’s wrong to suggest that natural rights is all about God.

        The important aspect of natural rights, in regards to their origin, is that they don’t come from the government. They may have evolved like language and religion as social adaptations that give societies that respect our rights certain advantages–and not have those rights come from God at all. The key point is that our natural rights did not originate from the state or the Constitution.

        One of the reasons I think libertarians tend to be more hostile to social contract is that it suggests our rights may originate from government. I reject that suggestion and maintain that the social contract, if it exists at all, is a contract in the sense that it can be broken by the government. That we are not obligated to obey oppressive laws and may revolt against governments that violate our rights.

        I don’t care whether someone believes that our rights came from the flying rigatoni monster. It’s just important that they understand our rights were not created by the government, they cannot be altered or taken away by the government, and that there are real world consequences for violating people’s rights.

        1. I’ll put it this way…even atheists know that human rights exist…but then they have to explain how these rights came to exist without God, and this involves some convoluted or unpersuasive explanations.

          Natural selection doesn’t generically weed out societies which ignore human rights…but it does weed out societies which don’t deal fairly with the business and entrepreneurial classes. But if a country is run as a dictatorship with stiff penalties for dissent, so long as they don’t kill the entrepreneurial goose which lays the golden prosperity egg, it can still have some economic success.

          So you haven’t fully proven the fundamental nature of human rights.

          1. “Natural selection doesn’t generically weed out societies which ignore human rights…but it does weed out societies which don’t deal fairly with the business and entrepreneurial classes.”

            Revolts against those governments that break the social contract may be the means by which natural selection weeds out societies that ignore human rights.

            The entrepreneurial side is especially true looking at the former Soviet Union. The story of the 20th Century is about societies that rejected individual rights coming into conflict with societies that featured them more prominently. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany both ended up on the ash heap of history, and it wasn’t for the same reasons as the Soviet Union. The resistance of the people whose rights they were violating played a crucial role in destroying them both.

            We’ll see whether China can survive as is with its disregard of the individual’s civil rights–even though they’ve gone capitalist. I wouldn’t bet on the survival of their current political system.

          2. As an aside, …

            Cultural anthropology sees government as a function of evolutionary adaptation, like language and religion, and I find that idea persuasive. We didn’t stop evolving after our opposable thumbs. I believe rights evolved that way, as well, or rather our legal recognition of our natural rights evolved that way. It isn’t a linear progression, but societies that respect individual rights thrive and those that don’t have a harder go of it.

            To some extent, it works that way with animals, too. There is plenty of evidence of altruism in the natural world outside of homo sapiens, and species that form groups for evolutionary reasons, from pods of whales to groups of chimpanzees, tend to thrive when those in the group take care of each other rather than abuse each other. If such behaviors (altruism, respect for others) didn’t exist in nature, only in man, that would probably be excellent evidence for the existence of God.

          3. My objection to natural rights proceeding from God or otherwise endowed by a Creator, FWIW, isn’t an atheism issue: it’s the exact same problem I have with rights which proceed from the social contract, or whatever, which is to say, they’re _not rights_. They’re privileges in someone else’s gift, who can give, withhold, or rescind them at any time, and even if that someone else is the creator of the universe, a gift still ain’t a right.

            Now, natural rights as an inevitable (and thus unalienable) implication of the nature of volitional beings, that I can buy into.

  25. What do you mean “what if” they already talk about pit bulls like that. “Nobody needs to own a pit bull.” Well, tey can have my pit bull when they, aw hell, he’d prolly go with you if you had food.

    1. ^ This. “Muscle dogs” are illegal in Denmark. If you owned one when the ban rolled around, you had to have your dog put down.


        Translated from the Danish science blog linked above:

        “The law against muscle dogs has been justified, among other things, by a police report from Ish?j [an area near Copenhagen]. A new dissertation [by some random person at Roskilde University] paints a picture of politicians, who legislate on a thin foundation based solely on the way the media covers a story and the consequent fear of the citizenry – and without any consideration of facts.”

        Sounds familiar.

  26. We absolutely should ban dogs, especially little yappy dogs. Ship them all to North Korea to be used as food for hungry children there!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.