DrDNA

One side of me says good idea. Another side of me knows that involving regulatory blessing and approving agencies and the like is a nightmare. Would this only apply to Pit Bulls? If so, why only Pit Bulls and not other breeds with higher than average rates of dangerous behaviours...for example Rottwielers, Wolfs and Wolf Hybrids, Dobermans, etc? Competence would be difficult to define and nearly impossible to prove. Someone might demonstrate some level of competence in certain parameters, but proving competence....oh boy. In the US, you would have to make sure it is all done in 20 or so different languages so as not to discriminate against anybody.

An example of banning or legislating "personal preference" related to pets would be banning all brown dogs or the banning harmless baby kittens because you just so happen to dislike cats. See the difference? So, this certainly isn't about legislating "personal preference" and I really can't see how anyone would confuse the two. It would appear to be a smoke screen to deflect attention from the real issue. I might agree with you except...define "could be dangerous", "control" and "prove" how?

yeah. I thought about teflon, but it machines terribly. PEEK has similar properties but machines MUCH better. looks like a job for google

Well. You really got me there. But please indicate exactly which points are unwise, and/or unimaginative, without a foundation in knowledge and why so.

Here we go. Drop your pants and poop right on my data but not bring any of your own to the party.... This is to both the Gun Control Advocates AND the Pit Bull lovers, This is supposed to be a fact driven forum. If you really believe what you say, why don't you pull your pants up and support your statements and back up your opinions with some hard data? PS: I need at least 3 or 4 easily concealed semi automatic handguns to protect myself from the Pit Bulls. No it isn't. The data shows that Pit Bull Terriers attack, maim and kill a rates greater than other breeds. Some people refuse to accept the data and call it a subjective issue? The fact of the matter is, that the pro pit bull crowd has been basing their claims on mostly subjective criteria, while the con pit bull crowd has been comparatively objective. Uh. No they couldn't. This is relevant to the debate how? What is relevant is that some people stated that pit bulls are great for this and that vocation, but did not support the statements. I have not seen any evidence of anyone trying to legislate any personal preferences what so ever on anyone else or force decisions on them. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are in essence projecting a victim status where none exists in order to win an upper hand; turning what is basically a lively, but still mostly rational debate of pro vs con completely irrational. Your guns are protected by the constitution a right which I'll die fighting to protect and preserve......conversely, Pit Bulls are not protected by the constitution....so they are fair game.

What, no friction?

I think you should start a new thread if you want to do that, but besides protecting innocent people from Pit Bulls consider this: Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year.This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. The most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year. But the number could be as high as 3,609,000 times a year! “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. "TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, http://www.nra.org/ Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred: Florida / United States homicide rate -36% / -0.4% firearm homicide rate -37% / +15% handgun homicide rate -41% / +24% "1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, http://www.nra.org/

No I won't. You'll need it for the Pit Bull. Actually, now that I think about it, this might not even be an issue if more citizens were armed. I think it is a good point. I can absolutely guarantee you what will happen if I am attacked by any dog.......(except of course if I just so happen to be passing through an area that violates my second amendment rights....)

It's starting to look more and more like the infamous battle between Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian.... "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

I'm not completely convinced that an outright ban is the answer, but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It definitely would not be anything on the scale of losing the White Rhino. The fact of the matter is, it is not an irreplacable native species. Because it is not native, is not a species and it not irreplacable ; other breeds would quickly fill the void and take its place re: companionship AND it could easily be retrieved again by selective breeding even if it were eleminated. Furthermore, particular dog breed ownership definitely isn't a God given right supported by the first or second amendment or any other amendment. REALLY SEVERE penalties against ALL out of control dog owners/handlers might be an answer. Perhaps sterilization is an answer. It would definitely eventually put a stop to the debate, without penalizing existing dogs that have not done anything wrong, and the madness that seems to sometimesgo along with "Pit Bull" ownership. To be perfectly honest, the image of teary eyed "Pit Bull" owners, gnawing and gnashing their teeth, traumatized, aimlessly marching through suburbia, wailing, with drool running down their chins, and snot running out of their noses, with handfuls of their own hair in their hands because Spot can't have puppies doesn't have much of an impact on me. We need to remember that, other than the fact that they "love" us and we love them, dog breeds are kind of like the selectively bred or imported fish that live behind the man-made dams that have overtaken the natural fauna of the small streams and rivers that used to be there. So, how many different types of grass feeding carp (or selectively bred types of dogs) behind that massive dam that is killing the native trout and salmon does the world need...10, 100, 1000, 10000? They are both creations of man or man's influence over (ie, screwing up) the natural scheme of things. But if I might flip your statement over, what societal woes would actually result from a complete ban on this man-made creation? Would society fall apart if all the "Pit Bull Terrier" owners suddenly became turtle neck sweater-wearing Poodle owners; outfitting their little darlings with cute bows and pink colored toe nails? I seriously doubt it. PS: I am waiting in anticipation to read the evidence and data to support that the "Pit Bull Terrier" is better for a particular task or trade than any of the working breeds that generally do the tasks commonly associated with their breed......eg, better than the blood hound for tracking, the German shepard for police work, the pointer for hunting, the husky for pulling a sled in Alaska, etc.... I'll take anything.

Are we discussing conspiracy theories involving the Humane Society now??? From the other link..... LawDogsUSA is a 501©3 (pending) nonprofit organization whose sole purpose is to provide law enforcement agencies with high quality narcotics, explosives and arson detection dogs - free of charge. In our first years of operation, LawDogsUSA has successfully donated dogs now serving as narcotics and explosives detection dogs at U.S. ports of entry, on the Washington State ferry system, with the Washington State Patrol, and city and county K9 units. Our detection dog prospects are extensively screened and only happy, extremely friendly, hard working, physically sound and highly talented dogs are placed. All dogs are purebred American pit bulls. All dogs are altered, vaccinated, microchipped; we x-ray hips and offer a veterinarian health certificate on each dog we place. We have found the American pit bull to be superior as a narcotics and explosives detection dog. Please note: due to their inherent "people friendly" nature, we do NOT offer American pit bulls as "biting" (patrol) dogs. LawDogsUSA offers sweet natured, friendly detection dogs only. You can assess how professional a law enforcement agency is by how they approach "racial profiling"; do they talk the talk, or walk the walk? Do they say they are against "profiling" but practice it in their K9 kennels? Many trainers who have only worked with European sheepdog breeds haven't a clue about the best kept secret in modern detection work... Is this data or evidence to support the use of Pit Bulls in law enforcement over other breeds that are generally chosen for law enforcement (eg, German Shepards)? NO THANK YOU! To the members of the Working Pit Bull Terrier Club of America for donating half of the proceeds from their 2007 National Event to LawDogsUSA! Is this a strongly biased site promoting Pit Bulls? YES Are you attacking my intellect, horses, or other humans?

It depends on the field and whom you are trying to impress (eg, average Joe/Jane or a Nobel Prize winner in Physics?)

Excellent! But the link is broken. I was hoping to find out more about your University and your crazy club. Do you know if they have belly dancing?

You are not really advocating that. But if all dog owners behaved in a similar manner as the "stereotypical" pit bull owner, you would probably see a loud and clear call to ban all dogs. Right. An overwhelming sense of need to please their owners. Which has at least added tothe problem we are discussing here today. Do you have ANY evidence or data that would support the use of pit bulls over the other breeds that are generally used for these tasks or other tasks associated with working breeds? Eg, sled dog ability over a husky or malimute; drug detection or tracking ability over a blood hound; indicate and/or flush game birds better than setter/pointer or a spaniel, ability to herd sheep...etc? Anything? I could not have stated it better. What we have here is, compared to other dog breeds, a focused, tenacious, exceedingly strong killing machine. Stronger pound per pound than any other dog breed in existance and with a don't give up attitude that refuses to quit until it has achieved its objective. Which has resulted in the maining and death of other dogs and even helpless human beings. Is that about right?

What no bare feet, sleet and snow? Wimp!

Like Psych said, it's not just to break them down so they can be built up again. There is also the part about transport...making the molecules small enough and of proper nature so that they can be taken up by the gut and transported to various locations. Where they can be converted into BTUs, transformed into other macromolecules, neurotransmitters, hormones, membrane components, etc or pee pee'd. The ones that are not digested stay behind and are poo poo'd. PS: I've been wanting to say poo poo and pee pee for a long time. Thanks for the opportunity.

It's actually greater than the statistical significance of the New Hampshire primary.

No.

Yep. It's sort of like arguing whether one should have Milwaukee's Best or Old Milwaukee Light with veal.

OK. Since you have clarified your question, I believe I understand it now. No. The mass of the earth is not a scientific notation.

If you mean can the mass of the earth be written using sci notation and some unit of mass ?, the answer is yes.

As will I.

I don't believe you did state it. I copied that from the link you provided. Zeolites are often used to absorb solvents much like a sponge. Organic solvents are often packed with zeolites to reduce the risk of spillage during transport and or storage. Likewise in spill clean up. I didn't know that zeolites and other minerals were used in jet fuel. However, minerals generally do not dissolve in nonpolar, aprotic solvents such as kerosene or jet fuel. And zeolite particulates in jet fuel might be expected to clog fuel injectors and drop planes out of the sky. Why would your best guess be that these are related to US gov MEMS GEMS weather projects from the 1990s? The technology appears to be newer and does not appear to be from a weather project. It looks more like something that you would find from a more current defense-related black op.

And just when I was gettin comfortable with my self worth being torn down until I descended into a state of mental grid lock curled up in a corner lost for eternity, ashamed of every thing I have done wrong in my life, my embarrassments the head of his hammer until the nail was flush down the toilet with all my pride with it. Dog gone it!

Oh. Look. It's a troll. Where did he come from?