December 19, 2007
Best protection against a SWAT team?
I keep reading that pit bulls are the "number one dog of choice for drug dealers."
While the line sounds as if it had been scripted for Hollywood or MSM consumption, what really shocked me was to see it echoed by the Humane Society of the United States.
When inflammatory code language like that is voiced by a leading humane organization, everyone who loves these dogs (or just believes in preserving what freedom we've still got) ought to take notice, because it is not their fault if "drug dealers" want them. They are strong, loyal, canine athletes.
Linking them to drug dealers really raises my hackles, and I don't give a rat's ass whether they are the dog of choice for drug dealers -- any more than I care about the drug dealers' car or SUV of choice, cell phone of choice, mp3 player of choice, or underwear of choice.
What the drug dealers might "choose" is not the fault of anyone but themselves, and it should not reflect on other people, nor should it in any way be used as an argument against whatever damned product they like.
In the case of pit bulls, the drug dealer rhetoric has contributed to making the police (along with countless social worker busybody types) terrified of these dogs, and trigger-happy -- thus leading to a plethora of recent dog shooting incidents which have been termed "puppycide."
If you think about it, if you are a drug dealer, having any dog makes a lot of sense. In the event of one of the increasingly common SWAT raids, the dog will not only blow the element of surprise (they hear and smell threats better than we do) but they keep the cops occupied, and if they shoot the dog, that's even more of a distraction. The hassle and the delay buys time, which can be used to flee, or ditch the drugs. To a drug dealer, they're not pets, but simply part of the cost of doing business:
These dogs aren't pets. To a dealer, they are equipment, inventory and a cost of doing business.Unfortunately, I can see why a dog -- any dog -- would be important to a drug dealer. It is a misuse of the animal, but is it fair to blame the animal which is being misused? Why? Simply because they're braver and stronger than other dogs? Because they're better at taking abuse?
If pit bulls are being used by drug dealers, how is that the fault of the dogs? And how is it in any way the fault of people who aren't misusing these wonderful dogs as an anti-SWAT team firewall system?
If all pit bulls disappeared, does anyone think the drug dealers wouldn't simply use another breed?
It occurs to me that pit bulls would also make a great dog of choice for researchers who want hardy and sturdy lab animals. I am serious; I don't like the idea of animal research, but they'd be great for it.
So, let's just suppose some of these animal lab scientists were to discover that pit bulls adapt better to lab settings (check; they're known for adaptiveness), are more pain tolerant (check), less likely to bite during procedures (check), and just plain healthier overall (again, check). If they eventually became the leading research breed, I'm sure some animal rights groups would scream that pit bulls are "the number one dog of choice for cruel animal research."
But would anyone use that as a argument for banning the dogs?
It would make about as much sense as it would to ban Korean Noo-rung-yee dogs because they're "the gourmet dog of choice in Korean dogmeat markets."
(But who ever said inflammatory rhetorical phraseology was supposed to be logical or sensible?)
posted by Eric on 12.19.07 at 02:02 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood