What name would you recommend instead?
Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?
We used to have a large front garden and a tiny back garden so as kids we would play in the front garden and obv play with the dog. I remember atleast 4 times the authorities of one form or another were sent out to pay us a visit simply because we were playing with such a vicious animal.
As kids we were more of a threat to that dog than it was to us as we sit on the dogs back and get rides up and down the garden.
He was an awesome dog :-)
But in the UK we do have a few banned dog breeds - https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs - but personally I believe it’s down to the treatment of the animal from a puppy that matters, a well cared for and socialised pit bull terriers can be a loving family dog. Though I can not say I’ve had any interaction with any of the other dogs on the banned breed list.
Though that is just one story from one person on-line. Take it as you will. Esp compared to the horror stories you see in the news. I just personally believe that Rottweilers got a bad rap because a few people abused them because they were big dogs.
EDIT: What I mean is as a kid I just treated him as my dog, just like anyone would treat their Labrador or Golders retriever. I didn’t think I needed to worry about warning friends or anything when they came over unexpected. So we never worried about the “aunt from out of state with her 3 year old pulling the tail” as kids as unknown kids would be over all the time anyway.
If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
Tacti-cool
>It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics
No, not really. A lot of arguments against gun rights uses phrasing like “assault” or “assault style” to imply the difference between the scary gun they want to ban and a hunters gun are much bigger than cosmetics.