Jump to content

Menu

Do you think wild primates should be allowed as pets?


Recommended Posts

Ria,

 

If you live in pqr's neighborhood you better lock up that cat-it's got earmuffs written all over it. :)

 

 

LOL. Lily begs to differ. She believes she's a living fur stole. Might I add that it's very difficult to brush one's teeth with a Bengal around your neck?

 

Ria

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I find myself agreeing with some things on both sides of this argument. I am for freedom and I am also for common sense and safety. If people would have common sense and not keep a chimp in their home, then we would not have to limit their freedom.

 

I had to deal with large exotics from the Minnesota Zoo when I worked at the University, they always came in already anesthetized by the zoo vets with good reason. I've also worked around plenty of "domesticated" animals who saw absolutely no reason to be well-behaved in my presence, including 3000# bulls.

 

The bottom line is any animal is capable of violence. I have seen dogs who were wonderful companions, child-safe, etc. do something "out of character" time and time again. They are animals. They cannot reason. If someone owns an animal they should do everything to make contact with that animal as safe as possible through training or proper restraint (in the case of cattle, etc.) If they cannot do that, they should not have the animal. With "property rights" come "property responsibility".

Link to post
Share on other sites
For myself, when it comes to personal "ownership" of exotic animals I think the principle individual liberty (which I strongly ascribe to) needs to be balanced with threats to public safety. Ones neighbors need the liberty of feeling free of animal attack, as much or more than one desires to keep a potentially dangerous pet.

 

But I'll admit balancing those interests can become difficult (if not unduly burdensome) when municipalities start banning things like "dog-breeds" out of knee-jerk response. So it's a difficult balancing act.

 

 

 

Spy Car and I rarely agree, even tangentially, but here he has a point.

 

Nobody is arguing that owners should not be responsible for their animals, but this thread is about banning them and that is wrong. All who oppose property rights have been unable to give any real justification beyond emotion and some touchy feely argument about wild animals and their place in the world order.

 

One can mitigate any threat through requirements that animals be secured (inside the home or on the property).

 

As Spy Car stated there are "knee jerk" reactions and while he was primarily referring to dog breeds this is what we are seeing here. We have a knee jerk reaction not based on any discernable fact, but rather based on simple emotion. If someone is going to violate my rights I would want it to be based on much more than this.

Edited by pqr
Link to post
Share on other sites
Spy Car and I rarely agree, even tangentially, but here he has a point.

 

Nobody is arguing that owners should not be responsible for their animals, but this thread is about banning them and that is wrong. All who oppose property rights have been unable to give any real justification beyond emotion and some touchy feely argument about wild animals and their place in the world order.

 

One can mitigate any threat through requirements that animals be secured (inside the home or on the property).

 

As Spy Car stated there are "knee jerk" reactions and while he was primarily referring to dog breeds. This is what we are seeing here, a knee jerk reaction not based on any discernable fact rather based on simple emotion. If someone is going to violate my rights I would want it to be based on much more than this.

 

But when do the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the group? If a neighborhood of young families was joined by a homeowner with a chimp, who is this right? The chimp could escape and harm people outside the home.

 

I don't agree that primates should be pets, but I do see your point in terms of rights. But might it be advisable that the rights come with certain parameters...in the case of the chimp, perhaps a huge barricade, electrified, with razor wire, etc. Just in case the chimp makes it outside into the yard? Where do your rights end and my rights begin?

 

Good discussion...

 

Ria

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad that I do not have neighbors that own any wild chimps and I would not want to have neighbors that did. It wouldn't be a safe environment for my children or anyone else.

How about a neigborhood where large bears roam in the yard and cayotes walk down the street at dawn? probably you wouldn't want to live in my neighborhood then....but i still let my kids play outside!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ria,

 

My rights end when they trample on yours. If I have an ape, keep it controlled and on my property and take due diligence in ensuring that it cannot escape then I should be able to own it.

 

Let’s take the case of a woman who has a deep seated fear of dogs, should I be deprived of the right to keep a bull terrier simply because she is afraid? Of course not. Now if my dog runs free and threatens others then my rights have trampled the rights of others and I may lose the dog. This discussion is no different, as long as the owner keeps the animal under control then he should be allowed to have it.

 

The debate here is not about where an ape belongs, it is much more simple. It is about my right vs others prejudices and fears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spy Car and I rarely agree, even tangentially, but here he has a point.

 

I'll take this as a compliment, if a somewhat back-handed one :lol:

 

Nobody is arguing that owners should not be responsible for their animals, but this thread is about banning them and that is wrong. All who oppose property rights have been unable to give any real justification beyond emotion and some touchy feely argument about wild animals and their place in the world order.

 

One can mitigate any threat through requirements that animals be secured (inside the home or on the property).

 

As Spy Car stated there are "knee jerk" reactions and while he was primarily referring to dog breeds this is what we are seeing here. We have a knee jerk reaction not based on any discernable fact, but rather based on simple emotion. If someone is going to violate my rights I would want it to be based on much more than this.

 

There remains an additional problem, beyond security, to my way of thinking when it comes to "keeping" primates. I believe these are creatures of great intelligence who are due special consideration. And the imperative of keeping them locked up and secure, is potentially at conflict with them having maximum freedom to do what Apes will do.

 

Simply locking a chimp, or other Great Ape, up in a cage to rot would be an unacceptable situation as far as I'm concerned. And the number of individuals who could provide adequate habitat that is at the same time secure I would imagine is quite small.

 

Both the conditions of security and appropriate habitat would need to be met before I'd begin to consider chimp-keeping appropriate.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course people should to have the right to own them. I get very tired of the constant knee jerk reactions every time a tragedy occurs. If the argument were that primates are being taken from the wild and this endangers the survival of the species than I might be in agreement, but that is not the argument that many are making. Rather people are arguing that they are dangerous, which is true but it is not a valid argument.

 

Swimming pools, fast cars, baseball bats, large dogs, guns, skateboards the list goes on all these things can be dangerous but they should not be banned. Simply because someone has an exotic pet should not and does not abrogate the basic rights of property. We can not run around passing laws that will eliminate every danger and we should not assault the basic rights of those minorities who may have a pet that most of us would not want.

 

If bans such as this go ahead how about those who own dangerous dogs German Shepherds, Rotts, Labs (poodles can and do bite and I still bear a scar from a Peek)? Will we all and up only being able to own declawed and toothless corgis?

 

If you wish to hold the owner responsible for damage done by the pet through demonstrable neglect or wanton disregard for public safety then so be it, I agree. However politicians and their sudden clamor for banning these animals demonstrate a lack of thought and inability to look beyond the moment. This, alas, seems to be endemic in the US.

 

For the record I do not have an exotic animal, but grew up in a place where people did. At least one person that my family knew was killed by a "pet" lion, but that has absolutely no bearing on his right to have owned said animal.

 

Freedom and independence mean the freedom and independence to be stupid and to act in a manner that may result in injury. As far as the injury to the woman's friend, I can only say that it is tragic but I suppose that the friend did know of the existence of the animal and made the decision to enter the home. If a lawsuit is bending, I agree, but banning…..No.

 

Let us remember the words of Prime Minister William Pitt in 1783 who demonstrated a greater understanding than many today possess.

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.

It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

 

This is a bigger issue than apes, it is a slippery slope and looks to the changing perspective that we seem to be adopting between individual rights and the necessity to provide the community with the false sense of security. This false security, they demand even at the cost of their freedoms. I for one will take the “animating contest of freedom†rather than the “tranquility of servitude.â€

 

 

:iagree:

 

Our legislators can't even get DUIs, illegal immigrants, or this stupid lead-in-children's products controlled and enforced. They haven't earned the right to enforce this area.

 

the gvt also has a sorry record for determining what is "safe" --they are certainly NOT the organization to make such a determination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is that much of this discussion addresses rights and legislation, knee-jerk or otherwise. That does little to prevent injury. In a perfect world, no legislation would be needed because people would be smart enough to know whether it was acceptable to own wild animals, or acceptable for THEM to own wild animals. Unfortunately that is not the case. Many total idiots own exotics (I know this for a fact, I have met many of them:glare:). Regardless of legislation requiring proper protective enclosures, adequate sized housing, appropriate food, handler training, etc., these folks remain completely ignorant. The only way I know of to keep the public safe from dangerous animals is to ban them from private ownership entirely. Because we have seen time and time again that we cannot depend on their owners to keep others safe.

 

And let's be honest here, we are not talking about chihuahuas with attitudes. We are talking about wild animals that are known to do serious harm to humans: medium and large primates, large cats, bears, large reptiles, large pinnipeds. In the zoos ask any handler and they will tell you which species are known to be dangerous. Anything CAN cause harm, but most are not likely to do so. These animals have a proven track record of causing injuries and deaths.

 

Most of the professional facilities I used to inspect had multiple layers of security to keep their animals in (and trespassers out). So therefore, if a handler or trainer made an error and an animal escaped, then it was still actually contained on facility property and could not threaten the safety of the public. Many even had a triple security system. I have never seen a private individual with anything even close to adequate back up systems to keep their animals under control. Many have only the most minimal. A neighbor of mine had a sun bear. It was always getting out of the cage and climbing the telephone pole on the corner. At least once a month he had to come home from work and lure it down with a popsicle. I was so relieved when he finally got rid of that bear. What if it had spied a child in their own backyard eating a popsicle and decided to go for that one? My neighbor was a nice man. And he has plenty of rights. But the right to endanger the rest of us is not one of them.

Edited by hillfarm
Link to post
Share on other sites

the gvt also has a sorry record for determining what is "safe" --they are certainly NOT the organization to make such a determination.

 

Are you the same Peek a Boo who's involved in drafting the new plans for her community's pet-ownership rules, or do I have you confused with another Cat-woman? :D

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
My concern is that much of this discussion addresses rights and legislation, knee-jerk or otherwise. That does little to prevent injury. In a perfect world, no legislation would be needed because people would be smart enough to know whether it was acceptable to own wild animals, or acceptable for THEM to own wild animals. Unfortunately that is not the case. Many total idiots own exotics (I know this for a fact, I have met many of them:glare:). Regardless of legislation requiring proper protective enclosures, adequate sized housing, appropriate food, handler training, etc., these folks remain completely ignorant. The only way I know of to keep the public safe from dangerous animals is to ban them from private ownership entirely. Because we have seen time and time again that we cannot depend on their owners to keep others safe.

 

And let's be honest here, we are not talking about chihuahuas with attitudes. We are talking about wild animals that are known to do serious harm to humans: medium and large primates, large cats, bears, large reptiles, large pinnipeds. In the zoos ask any handler and they will tell you which species are known to be dangerous. Anything CAN cause harm, but most are not likely to do so. These animals have a proven track record of causing injuries and deaths.

 

Most of the professional facilities I used to inspect had multiple layers of security to keep their animals in (and trespassers out). So therefore, if a handler or trainer made an error and an animal escaped, then it was still actually contained on facility property and could not threated the safety of the public. Many even had a triple security system. I have never seen a private individual with anything even close to adequate back up systems to keep their animals under control. Many have only the most minimal. A neighbor of mine had a sun bear. It was always getting out of the cage and climbing the telephone pole on the corner. At least once a month he had to come home from work and lure it down with a popsicle. I was so relieved when he finally got rid of that bear. What if it had spied a child in their own backyard eating a popsicle and decided to go for that one? My neighbor was a nice man. And he has plenty of rights. But the right to endanger the rest of us is not one of them.

 

 

But even professional facilities are known for having their fair share of escapees, and there ARE private owners who DO maintain a suitable security system for the animals in their care. This is akin to limiting teaching to only certified teachers: even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??

 

So even w/ all that..... no. Feel free to send in the police to kill an animal at large, but until then, I can't side w/ a complete ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ayup --and you remember my posts in that thread?? That i would eliminate a "limit" altogether if I could? :D

 

"Could" is only a matter of will and perseverance.

 

And I remember a lot of clap-trap about square footage ratios and what not :D

 

What happen with that anyway?

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

"even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??"

 

School children who have fallen through the cracks rarely eat the neighbors or maul their children to death.

 

This is my point--the consequences of an escaped, angry primate are very different from a those of a child who is not able to read. I am trying to deal with reality here, not theory. I love freedoms and rights, but I also am big on responsibilities and unfortunately, whether intentional or unintentional, not all exotic animal owners are able to meet theirs for keeping others safe. Until someone can show me an ironclad, no exceptions way that the public can be kept safe, I still think we have to err on the side of safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??"

 

School children who have fallen through the cracks rarely eat the neighbors or maul their children to death.

 

This is my point--the consequences of an escaped, angry primate are very different from a those of a child who is not able to read. I am trying to deal with reality here, not theory. I love freedoms and rights, but I also am big on responsibilities and unfortunately, whether intentional or unintentional, not all exotic animal owners are able to meet theirs for keeping others safe. Until someone can show me an ironclad, no exceptions way that the public can be kept safe, I still think we have to err on the side of safety.

Schools have allowed children to be shot to death and raped by other students (how quickly we forget).

Perhaps until there are "ironclad, no exceptions" ways to keep children safe, schools should be shut down. <Sounds awesome to me, and give me back my school taxes while you are at it!>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ria,

 

My rights end when they trample on yours. If I have an ape, keep it controlled and on my property and take due diligence in ensuring that it cannot escape then I should be able to own it.

 

Let’s take the case of a woman who has a deep seated fear of dogs, should I be deprived of the right to keep a bull terrier simply because she is afraid? Of course not. Now if my dog runs free and threatens others then my rights have trampled the rights of others and I may lose the dog. This discussion is no different, as long as the owner keeps the animal under control then he should be allowed to have it.

 

The debate here is not about where an ape belongs, it is much more simple. It is about my right vs others prejudices and fears.

 

I understand what you are saying and agree with it except for certain wild animals for whom I think captivity is ultimately detrimental. Thanks for clarifying. The rights argument makes sense and I thank you for clarifying.

 

And, I can't help but saying, i hope you liked my living fur pictured in a post somewhere above. :D

 

Ria

Link to post
Share on other sites
Schools have allowed children to be shot to death and raped by other students (how quickly we forget).

Perhaps until there are "ironclad, no exceptions" ways to keep children safe, schools should be shut down. <Sounds awesome to me, and give me back my school taxes while you are at it!>

 

Can you give some examples of a school that has knowingly allowed a child to be shot to death or raped? I'll bet I could find a few homeschoolers whose kids experienced the same fates...remember Beth Yates? She didn't just allow her kids to die, she killed them.

 

Gee, should we shut homeschooling down, too?

 

Ria

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give some examples of a school that has knowingly allowed a child to be shot to death or raped?

 

I do not see how that question applies. Do the exotic animal owners knowingly let their animals maul humans?

 

The intent doesn't matter. What happens and is allowed to happen (and if it weren't allowed it wouldn't happen) is what matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Could" is only a matter of will and perseverance.

 

And I remember a lot of clap-trap about square footage ratios and what not :D

 

What happen with that anyway?

 

Bill

 

yup --i agree square footage/ acreage limtations is clap trap.

it's out of my hands now :)

 

but you are right --if it gets too limiting, then my "could" will become a lot more persistent ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
yup --i agree square footage/ acreage limtations is clap trap.

it's out of my hands now :)

 

but you are right --if it gets too limiting, then my "could" will become a lot more persistent ;)

 

That's my girl :D

 

I'd hate to think you were losing your edge :lol:

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
"even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??"

 

School children who have fallen through the cracks rarely eat the neighbors or maul their children to death.

 

This is my point--the consequences of an escaped, angry primate are very different from a those of a child who is not able to read. I am trying to deal with reality here, not theory. I love freedoms and rights, but I also am big on responsibilities and unfortunately, whether intentional or unintentional, not all exotic animal owners are able to meet theirs for keeping others safe. Until someone can show me an ironclad, no exceptions way that the public can be kept safe, I still think we have to err on the side of safety.

 

Would you like to take a look at the statistics of murder and rape and see how many of those crimes were committed during school hours on campus? pretty dam# near close to mauling children to death. And I'll bet there's more VIOLENCE in the schools themselves than ever occurred by wild animals kept in captivity that escaped. Wait! -- we might be talking about the same thing.....!

 

So maybe you ARE right!

 

whether intentional or unintentional, not all schools are able to meet their responsibilities to keep the children in their care safe.

until someone can show me an ironclad, no exceptions way that the CHILDREN in the schools can be kept safe, i think we have to err on the side of safety and shut down these schools.

 

Yup. makes sense to me. :glare:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give some examples of a school that has knowingly allowed a child to be shot to death or raped? I'll bet I could find a few homeschoolers whose kids experienced the same fates...remember Beth Yates? She didn't just allow her kids to die, she killed them.

 

Gee, should we shut homeschooling down, too?

 

Ria

 

 

I am trying to figure out what this has to do with keeping primates as pets. I was agreeing with pqr until Hillfarm made some very well-reasoned points that haven't been directly addressed.

 

But even professional facilities are known for having their fair share of escapees, and there ARE private owners who DO maintain a suitable security system for the animals in their care. This is akin to limiting teaching to only certified teachers: even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??

 

#1. If professionally trained animal handlers occasionally fail to contain an animal, how much more difficult can this be for an average citizen?

 

#2. This is a weak analogy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...except for certain wild animals for whom I think captivity is ultimately detrimental.

 

I like your cat :D

 

 

I think the "ultimately detrimental" is an important distinction to make: if keeping a wild animal in captivity is ultimately detrimental, should we shut down all zoos? I've lived in two communities [syracuse/ Dallas] that have had animal issues where an animal has either escaped or mauled a child, so we know that even professional zoos aren't immune from animal accidents. I'm sure there are way more instances that I'm unaware of.....

 

and how are we defining "ultimately detrimental"? detrimental for whom? the animal, or the people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But even professional facilities are known for having their fair share of escapees, and there ARE private owners who DO maintain a suitable security system for the animals in their care. This is akin to limiting teaching to only certified teachers: even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??

 

#1. If professionally trained animal handlers occasionally fail to contain an animal, how much more difficult can this be for an average citizen?

 

#2. This is a weak analogy.

 

#1: There are SEVERAL instances in many fields [including animal care] where amateurs are just as capable --if not more so --of handling the situation successfully. Your question is one the NEA uses against homeschoolers and doctors use against lay midwives and Unions use against non-licensed workers. And carries as much evidence and weight.

 

#2. It might be. So is the argument to err completely on the side of safety at all costs to private property rights. Erring COMPLETELY on the side of safety is impossible. Stripping away rights is VERY possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For myself, when it comes to personal "ownership" of exotic animals I think the principle individual liberty (which I strongly ascribe to) needs to be balanced with threats to public safety. Ones neighbors need the liberty of feeling free of animal attack, as much or more than one desires to keep a potentially dangerous pet.

 

But I'll admit balancing those interests can become difficult (if not unduly burdensome) when municipalities start banning things like "dog-breeds" out of knee-jerk response. So it's a difficult balancing act.

 

Further, in the case of Great Apes, I happen to believe that they are our closest non-human ancestors in evolutionary terms, and that primates deserve a special class of protection in terms of their welfare. Not that any animal shouldn't be raised with proper husbandry and under humane conditions, but that we have a "special duty" with Apes.

 

Bill

 

 

Oh. That was SO very well said. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add --

even tho I believe a complete ban is NOT the way to approach this, I do side w/ setting high consequences if an animal gets loose and mauls another person --back to trampling of another's rights. And ENFORCING said penalties. Unfortunately our gvt has a terrible track record for enforcing the laws it already has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe in evolution. But I do believe that apes (and some monkeys actually) are very intelligent. They have family structures, communication, and teach their young. Some have been able to type or use sign language. It is not a good idea to keep them drugged and use them in commercials, etc. They should be able to live how they choose.

 

That being said, there are many humans that are abused and cannot live as they choose. I am much more concerned about using our resources to benefit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovedtodeath, in my experience, the most difficult species to keep happy in captivity are the more intelligent ones. Dolphins, for example, often develop a wide variety of behavior issues and health problems if their captive environment is not designed to provide a high level of appropriate mental stimulation. I have seen situations where macaws and African Grey parrots have been taught to do simple math, and have also seen how they decline in a non-challenging environment. I expect the same would be true with primates. While I have seen many instances of primates that seemed to be doing well, those occurred without exception in facilities that provided much more than the standard "crate and gate" living arrangements, and who had the logistics and expertise to do so safely.

 

Regarding the op about the right to keep dangerous animals, I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. I feel very strongly that the right of citizens to personal safety in this situation supersedes the right of a private individual to keep an exotic animal as a pet, a hobby, or a show piece and subject others to the risk of injury should something go wrong. I just can't stop thinking about the enormity of the potential outcome. No amount of appologising, no "I learned from that experience...", no "I'm so sorry..." can make what has been destroyed right again. Some innocent victim's life has been forever changed and made incredibly tragic, painful, and difficult. All so that someone else could have a certain type of animal as a pet. My appreciation for property ownership rights stops hard right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
..... I feel very strongly that the right of citizens to personal safety in this situation supersedes the right of a private individual to keep an exotic animal as a pet, a hobby, or a show piece and subject others to the risk of injury should something go wrong. I just can't stop thinking about the enormity of the potential outcome. No amount of appologising, no "I learned from that experience...", no "I'm so sorry..." can make what has been destroyed right again. Some innocent victim's life has been forever changed and made incredibly tragic, painful, and difficult. All so that someone else could have a certain type of animal as a pet. My appreciation for property ownership rights stops hard right there.

 

I gotta agree w/ beansprouts on this one. Since it is unrealistic to ban all pets [and they ALL have the potential to destroy] especially since there are ALWAYS going to be people who WILL break the law, then it is only prudent that we support the right of the public to keep themselves armed :)

 

Do we have actual numbers of how many people [non-owners] are injured due to exotic animals being kept privately? Even this recent case was a lady going in willingly to help, not some kid in the warpath.

 

i often think about car accidents. The number of lives that have been tragically ended DAILY! just so people can go out and about as they please. We should do away w/ private automobiles and rely ONLY on professional drivers and well-maintained public transportation. I mean, think about it --if the money we spent on the private automobile industry were funneled to public transportation, it's actually a do-able idea.

 

The problem w/ freedom is that you are not guaranteed perpetual safety. If you want perpetual safety, then check yourself into a socialistic cage w/ wonderful amenities. But an important part of freedom is the freedom to Act. And sometimes that freedom to act DOES end up affecting other people: we realize that when we get in a vehicle, on a plane, or take our kids to the playground or enter them into a sport: someone might get hurt.

 

The fact that someone might get hurt is NOT enough of a reason to start trampling private rights. Potential is not actual. It is up to us as citizens to take reasonable steps so people DON't get hurt, so we CAN continue to act in freedom.

 

so yeah, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. At least, as long as we have a shred of the Constitution left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lovedtodeath, in my experience, the most difficult species to keep happy in captivity are the more intelligent ones.

 

That is what I meant. The intelligent animals should live how they choose, not in captivity. I am not sure how I miscommunicated. :confused: I even agreed with you earlier in the thread #38

 

I also believe that animals were created as domesticated or wild, (it is in Genesis) and they should remain as domesticated or wild, not be treated as pets if they are wild and not made to live feral if they are domesticated. The natural order of things should not be messed with.

Edited by Lovedtodeath
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got it!

 

#1. My neighbors can own any pet they please.

 

#2. I have a gun.

 

I knew there was a conservative solution ;)

 

Good night all!

 

You got it, Beans. I live in cougar country. I would not hesitate to use lethal force on a cougar (or any other living thing that threatened my family).

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it, Beans. I live in cougar country. I would not hesitate to use lethal force on a cougar (or any other living thing that threatened my family).

 

 

I actually wonder if to some extent we have abdicated our responsibility for protecting our own families. I guess that is a topic for another thread, though.

 

...and yes I am still up... it is 12:30 here *sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will add --

even tho I believe a complete ban is NOT the way to approach this, I do side w/ setting high consequences if an animal gets loose and mauls another person --back to trampling of another's rights. And ENFORCING said penalties. Unfortunately our gvt has a terrible track record for enforcing the laws it already has.

 

 

 

I've got it!

 

#1. My neighbors can own any pet they please.

 

#2. I have a gun.

 

I knew there was a conservative solution ;).

 

I fully agree with Peek and Beans. As always, Beans through Point # 2, demonstrates that sometimes we actually have to rely upon ourselves. I understand that this is a novel concept and does not resonate with those who "like big gov't" and would have us suborn all our rights at the altar of the State, but she demonstrates the beliefs that made this nation great; independence, freedom and a willingness to rely upon her own faculties and capabilities. Heady stuff and an anethema to those who "like big gov't."

 

Of course if one had to use the tool in Point #2 then the snotty comment, politically charged avatar and obnoxious PM I received that "Fur is Dead" would be true.

Edited by pqr
Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually wonder if to some extent we have abdicated our responsibility for protecting our own families. I guess that is a topic for another thread, though.

 

...and yes I am still up... it is 12:30 here *sigh*

 

 

From threads like this I gather that not only are American citizens happy to abdicate their responsibility for protecting their families. They also wish to abdicate a wide variety of rights in order to sleep better at night feeling they have, through this abdication, expressed kindness to others or other lifeforms. Having the impression that they are safe and cared for by someone else and that someone else will always be responsible for providing for their quality of life.

 

Of course they seem to do this with a blatant disregard for the Constitution, in full trust that the government will ALWAYS behave in a manner they see fit, and without the realization or understanding that not everyone agrees on how to define this high quality, threat free life; this Brave New World.

 

History teaches that this sort of arrangement typically fails. Hence the brilliance in creating a broad constitutional government where the rights of the people are both general and primary and it is the responsibilities (not the rights) of the government that are expressed. That the rights of the individual are paramount over the desires of the masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
I support everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until and unless they infringe on my right to the same. At that point, well... smiley-violent071.gif

 

Here we go again. What began as a reasonable discussion (thank you, Ria), devolving into "shoot 'em up!" bandwagon.

Link to post

What I actually find the most interesting is the appeals to the US Constitution in people's arguments.

 

After all, everyone on the board is not in the USA so the Constitution does not apply, and yet it is used as a sort of shorthand for 'this is the ultimate authority and it says "this", ergo "this" is truth' ....

 

This isn't a criticism, just a comment as I think it's interesting, what 'authorities' we call on in support of our arguments.

 

cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here we go again. What began as a reasonable discussion (thank you, Ria), devolving into "shoot 'em up!" bandwagon.

 

I thought we weren't supposed to tell others how to post or how a thread evolved. Oh, silly me, that only applies to certain people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I actually find the most interesting is the appeals to the US Constitution in people's arguments.

 

After all, everyone on the board is not in the USA so the Constitution does not apply, and yet it is used as a sort of shorthand for 'this is the ultimate authority and it says "this", ergo "this" is truth' ....

 

This isn't a criticism, just a comment as I think it's interesting, what 'authorities' we call on in support of our arguments.

 

cheers,

 

I find it amazing that you think big government is okay and that you're fine with it as long as they don't touch abortion, your sex life, and same sex relationships. If big government takes over everything there won't be abortion, as people won't be able to have children without the government's say so. What makes you think big government won't keep their rulings out of your sex life???

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I actually find the most interesting is the appeals to the US Constitution in people's arguments.

 

After all, everyone on the board is not in the USA so the Constitution does not apply, and yet it is used as a sort of shorthand for 'this is the ultimate authority and it says "this", ergo "this" is truth' ....

 

This isn't a criticism, just a comment as I think it's interesting, what 'authorities' we call on in support of our arguments.

 

cheers,

 

#1. My understanding was we were discussing a tragic event that took place in the U.S. and whether the U.S. should respond with legislation to prevent it from happening in the future. Was I mistaken about this?

 

#2. What do you propose should be the authority?

 

#3. Just because three is such a nice number. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
"even in schools where children are surrounded by professionals there are still kids that fall completely through the cracks. Do you condemn the entire system??"

 

School children who have fallen through the cracks rarely eat the neighbors or maul their children to death.

 

This is my point--the consequences of an escaped, angry primate are very different from a those of a child who is not able to read. I am trying to deal with reality here, not theory. I love freedoms and rights, but I also am big on responsibilities and unfortunately, whether intentional or unintentional, not all exotic animal owners are able to meet theirs for keeping others safe. Until someone can show me an ironclad, no exceptions way that the public can be kept safe, I still think we have to err on the side of safety.

 

Actually, the consequences of an escaped angry primate are not so different than of a percentage of children who do not learn to read. Hear me out: there are several states who do their long-term planning for prison bed space based on the reading scores of the current 2nd grade class. You can draw a line that straight between the numbers of kids who can't read and using a percentage, predict the number of needed prison beds pretty accurately.

 

Please note: I'm not saying that every child who can't read is a danger to society. But a certain percentage of those who never make it in the system, opt out of the system, often violently. It's fact. We would, in actuality, protect a whole lot more people if we concentrated on those kids instead of the rare escaped primate who does violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not familiar with the details of the primate story. However, I gleaned from thread-browsing that a friend was attacked inside primate owner's home. Some people have suggested a gun as the solution. Seems reasonable but who would habitually carry their gun when they go visit a friend in the friend's home?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not familiar with the details of the primate story. However, I gleaned from thread-browsing that a friend was attacked inside primate owner's home. Some people have suggested a gun as the solution. Seems reasonable but who would habitually carry their gun when they go visit a friend in the friend's home?

 

For many people carrying a handgun is as natural as putting on pants in the morning.

 

I was referring more to the "wild animal roaming the neighborhood" scenario. The specifics of this case are certainly different. My understanding is the friend was called in to help the owner lure her agitated chimp back into her home. I think ideally the owner would have been trained and equipped to deal with her animal if she did lose control of him. (dart gun etc.,) Barring this, she could have called animal control. It is a completely tragic story, and I wish like anything it hadn't happened. I think the story itself will make an impression on many to choose wisely which pets they are qualified to handle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a gun would protect my children who are playing outside with other children.

 

It seems like taking protection into our own hands would entail a barbed wire electric fence to keep the children inside of. It makes much more sense for the one who owns the animal to utilize such equipment, rather than every other home in the neighborhood.

 

And yeah... why didn't they sedate that animal ASAP?

Edited by Lovedtodeath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...