Yep, we're thugs.

As you may have heard, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is in support of local laws banning pit bulls like the one in Denver, which required the immediate destruction of any dog deemed to be a pit bull in the City, regardless of its individual temperament. And you can probably guess that I'm not in favor of such an approach.

To use some vocabulary that I learned in law school (but haven't had much of a chance to show off since), such laws are both "overinclusive" (because they implicate pit bulls who represent no danger to society) and "underinclusive" (because they fail to account for dangerous dogs that don't happen to be pit bulls). That is to say, pit bull bans are neither fair nor effective.

According to PETA:

But we must consider that nice families rarely come to a shelter to adopt pit bulls; almost without exception, those who want pit bulls are attracted to the "macho" image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression, and leaving them outside in all weather extremes in order to "toughen" them. There is no denying that pit bulls are at a higher risk of suffering a horrible fate. - Jeff Haines PETA Spokesman (emphasis mine)

He has a point. I mean, look at our suffering "living weapon":


Before Omie came my way, I never considered myself to be a "pit bull person." Okay, I admit it, I wasn't even a dog person. But I saw this little brown dog in need, and she saw a face to slurp and a potential source of pillows and blankets. The rest is history.