Among the things Kansas seemingly misses by being taken as a sure thing for the GOP every four years is the potential to host a presidential debate. Announced Monday, the sites chosen for next fall’s debates between the major party nominees are the University of Mississippi in Oxford (Sept. 26), Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. (Oct. 7), and Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. (Oct. 15). Washington University in St. Louis landed the vice presidential debate (Oct. 2). Fine choices all, but how could the Commission on Presidential Debates overlook the bid by New Orleans? The excuse that the city hadn’t recovered enough from Hurricane Katrina to handle the event makes no sense, given that the Big Easy is booked for the Sugar Bowl in January and the NBA All-Star game in February.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
87 Comments
Rhonda,
Probably for the same reason they will not have a debate in Idaho anytime soon.
It is common sense to maximize your time to most benefit your total votes or ability to win.
Oh I can see Fred Phelps and family now. What a circus. Add the dwindling but remaining drones of Rev. Terry and the all the rightwing cast of characters clogging up our court system and street corners – whew! Any guess why the presidential debates won’t be coming to Kansas anytime soon? Rhonda, you are so funny.
2 reasons- Kansas is a “taken for granted” red state and the Wichita media market is not big enough. It is not just the debate that the candidates come for. The after debate media when local and regional TV stations line up interviews are just as important as the debate itself
I don’t think it has anything to do with the out-dated idea that Kansas is taken for granted as a “red state.” After all, half our Congressional delegation (except for the Senate though Sammie has been AWOL most of the time), and the Governor and Attorney General, are Democrats. I agree with Kev that it has more to do with Wichita’s small media market. Why not Kansas City, though?
The flavor of our local politicans doen’t matter. When it comes to a presidential vote, Kansas is red,red,red. No debate about that, either.
One of the sites chosen was NY – which is taken for granted in presidential elections as blue, blue, blue – didn’t work against NY being selected, did it? The size of the media market is large, larger, largest, though, right?
Wichita’s transportation accessiblity hurts it. The candidates will show up anywhere the cameras are running. But the media has to send reporters, producers, crew, technicians… and Wichita simply doesn’t have the airline connections, the technical support, the late-night restaurants, the first-class hotel rooms, and other infrastructure to support a massive influx of the media machine that would cover a presidential debate.
Further, the audience couldn’t possible be expected to be balanced. Kansas is a red state, turning purple perhaps, but until there’s a critical mass of expected audience members who won’t express bias for one party or another, Wichita is out of the running.
As far as the rest of America is concerned, Wichita is a piss-ant town in a piss-ant state. Probably nothing can be done to change that attitude until Wichita stops being a piss-ant town in a piss-ant state.
Dear MonkeyHawk,
Damn! It really has to suck to be you!
A far left, America hating, genius trapped in a red state surrounded byby bunch of red state hicks.
Loser.
Yeah, Monkey not only hates America, he hates Kansas too.
He must not be able to find a better place to live.
Sorry to say but Nobody cares about Kansas when they travel across Kansas the idea is to get out of the state as fast as possible. When you get out of state and they find out you are from Kansas they want to read the restaurant menu to you. When you have a couple of Governors like our past one and the current one, what can we do.
It is probably because there is no casino in Wichita.
Why do you hate the truth?
“As far as the rest of America is concerned, Wichita is a piss-ant town in a piss-ant state. Probably nothing can be done to change that attitude until Wichita stops being a piss-ant town in a piss-ant state.”
Love it or leave it? Or is Wichita so perfect that it has no room for improvement?
Piss-ant.
Yesterday I watched a little of the National Dog Show on TV. The National Dog Show is one of the top ten dog shows in the nation.
I choose to live in Kansas. I could live anywhere in the United States. Actually, I could live almost anywhere in the world that I want.
I choose to live in Kansas because of the quality of life. The opportunities here fit in with my priorities. God, family and country. I am surronded by people that pretty much match my values and aspirations.
Every April the Wichita Kennel Club in association with the Wichita Dog Training Club, Salina Kennel Club and the Hutchenson Kennel Club puts on a three day dog show.
The dog show that we put on every April is consistantly ranked as one of the top ten dog shows in the nation. Out of approximately 3000 dog shows in this country every year, we are ranked in the top ten.
The past two years we have been in the running for being the number one dog show in the nation. We’ve been one of the top three finalists the past three years. We’re better overall than Westminster in NYC. We’re better overall than the National Dog Show that was televised yesterday. Better than the dog shows in Dallas/Fort Worth. Better than the big shows in Houston.
People from all over the nation come to our dog show every April. We attract more people and dogs than Westminster. More than the National Dog Show. They come to Wichita, Kansas.If you think Wichita is a piss-ant place to live, get off your ass and do something about it or leave.
A lot of the posters on this BLOG work very hard in their spare time to make Wichita, Kansas and our nation a better place to live. They have a passion for life. Wichita and Kansas are as good as we make it. I’m proud to be a resident of Kansas and I love the people in this state that worship, work and raise their children here.
If you think this place is piss-ant, you are a loser. There’s no where you can go to fix that. No matter where you go you will still be a loser.
Because Kansas does not matter and no one cares about the maroons who live in Kansas.
The occasional kept man leading the hobby life being an exception.
Hank,
I have a question, Why hasn’t the local media given this dog show the press it obviously deserves???
Well, actually we do get quite a bit of positive press. The Eagle usually does two or three articles prior to the show and we generally make the news on one or more of the local TV stations.
We get a lot of coverage in the national ‘dog show’ magazines.
Our kennel club has a lot of credibility on local issues that are ‘dog’ orientated. We almost single handedly helped defeat the breed specific legislation thei year.
Do I think we should get more attention? Well, of course! The point I was making is that this area has a lot to offer. Many people on this BLOG work to make Wichita and Kansas a better place.
If you think Wichita is piss-ant, you are a loser.
Well this isn’t a dog show thread but…
I’ve been to dog shows in other places. I’ve competed a dog in shows in Kansas city and Oklahoma city.
I have to say, the Wichita show is very poorly organized. This may or may not be due to the facility it is held in. Either way, I found the experience inferior to Kansas city and OKC.
THOSE places might get a Presidential debate some time.
Doodah or anywhere else in Kansas? Nope. Gotta get into the 19th century before we get considered a part of the 21st.
You have to admit the small market airline service we get in Wichita makes it difficult for us to interact with bigger markets.
I flew out of Wichita headed to D.C. in Sept. I was to connect to flight to D.C. in Memphis. Missed that flight and I am pretty sure the folks who sent us out of Wichita, knew we’d miss it. Spent the night in Memphis, missed half of the meeting I was to attend in D.C. On the way back, had to catch a connecting flight to Wichita in Minneapolis. They had a tornado there, nearly missed my connecting flight.
If you fly in or out of Wichita, you often have bad airline karma. I understand that airline service is not so great anywhere, but I believe it is worse in small markets.
Hank: In the way of “breed specific” news, did you see in the paper today that another pit bull attack has a one year old kid in critical condition?
Pit bulls are too unpredictable, too dangerous, too strong to be kept in the city.
As far as the rest of America is concerned, Wichita is a piss-ant town in a piss-ant state. Probably nothing can be done to change that attitude until Wichita stops being a piss-ant town in a piss-ant state.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 23, 2007 at 07:17 AM
Isn’t MonkeyHawk some failed former Liberal Talk Show host that couldn’t make it in a very small Kansas City Radio Market?
I think someone is bitter and likes to blame others for his failures in life.
I was born here in 1965.
How DID we end up so…out of it?
Did Kansas and Wichita have a big dome over it from 1945 forward cutting it off from the world?
I remember a bit the kvetching over the Ark valley flood control (big ditch) and the endless rants about the Tripodal. So I KNOW the locals don’t like change or anything new.
We are only at the nexus of the whole damned country. How DID folks manage to screw up the opportunity that presented?
Interesting Steven,
You have a problem in Memphis and Minneapolis and the “airline karma” is bad in Wichita?
What’s your definition of a ‘pit bull’, outlander?
Evidently Hank, Steven Davis thinks that Airports like Atlanta, Dallas, O’hare, Kennedy never have any scheduling problems and “run perfect” 100 percent of the time.
You know those giant Airports never lose your luggage, right Hank? :)
I could send you a picture of the pit bull that attacked my Mom and her small dog Hank.
Good on you and your clique though keeping those monsters on the loose. More great press for doodah.
Sorry for my inadvertant typo above.
What I meant to post was “As far as the rest of America is concerned, Wichita is the cultural, intlectual, academic, spiritual, culinary, philosophical, spiritual, architectural, and literary center of the universe.”
Sorry for the error.
I personnaly like the Wichita air terminal. I’ve flown in and out of airports all over the country and the world. I like Wichita.
My wife has seen me lose my temper only a couple of times. Once was in Memphis. Never thought to blame it on Wichita’s bad “airline karma”.
I’ll be making connections in Minneapolis in a couple of weeks, I’ll report back on their ‘karma’.
Hi PAT!
Glad I can give you a reason to post! Not.
Gee, I musta missed the news about an infant being mauled yesterday by any of the other 140 some breeds of dog. You can get me a link for that maybe?
The rest of your post?….yawn.
You’re a riot JR. Big trend you outlined there, with one example.
Let’s see those national stats you have showing how pit bull attacks are more frequent then the attack rates for any other dogs.
The point Hank makes is that there are several breeds that fall under the pit bull description, along with cross-breeds. Still, we have these ill defined, dangerous dogs in our midst, dogs that are too strong for a lot of people to handle or fend off. A problem? I happen to think so. But I am a little prejudice in that I had an experience with two of them this summer.
The statistics are overwhelming as far as the number of deaths and severe injuries occurring from this type of dog, “pit bulls”.
I’m sure the huge majority are good noble dogs. Those aren’t the ones I am concerned about. I would think that dog breeding organizations would help in identifying the dangerous dogs rather than stick their head in the sand. Kids like that one year old would appreciate it, I’m sure.
Actually, I’m more afraid of Rottweilers than Pit Bulls.
Those big black and tan dogs can get up around 100 pounds and are very fast (could out run me on my bike when I was a kid) heh
JR,
Just because the “pit-bull” is the latest news sensation this past year and the new will report on any and every attack doesn’t mean that when they do it is proof of some horrible “pit-bull” problem.
There are many pit-bull owners who love and cherish their dogs and they never do anything violent.
Why don’t you work on finding the “cause” behind this alleged “pit-bull” problem instead of simply trying to pass a law outlawing them?
Isn’t that what you told me was the simple and lazy thing to do the other day and now you are preaching for it here?
What happened to finding the cause to the problem?
Hey if you like put bulls have one Pat. Sleep with one even.
Probably the only male animal would sleep with you.
But have it as away from other people as you are. And keep it in an enclosure you would trust to hold BTK on steroids.
The statistics are overwhelming as far as the number of deaths and severe injuries occurring from this type of dog, “pit bulls”.
Usually I agree with you Outlander. But where are the stats to support this?
Two weeks ago the WIchita Kennel Club held a micro-chip clinic. As a public service we micro-chipped 220 dogs for $20.00 each (below cost).
My little job was to pre-scan all of the dogs. We had almost 20 pit bulls show up. All in all very sweet dogs. I was threatened by three dogs. One was a short-haired German Pointer. One was a little mutt that was terrified to be there. A little Chihuahua was the one that got me.
Wichita doesn’t have a ‘pit bull’ problem. We have a people problem. We have a failure to enforce the laws currently on the books. The proposed ‘breed specific’ legislation was emotionally driven and no solution to the problem.
Now, if you know enough about the propose legislation that we defeated to carry on an intelligent conversation, let’s debate. If you know enough about the AKC and WKC position on dangerous dog legislation, let’s talk. If all you know is what you read in the paper, get a little smarter and we’ll talk.
We want good ‘dangerous dog’ legislation. Then, we want that legislation to be enforced. I know that actually enforcing laws is a foriegn concept for knee jerk liberals but our pit bull problem is a direct result of not enforcing the laws currently on the books.
Outlander,
Please describe the scientific data on a “pit-bull” being a dangerous dog.
The people who own them could simply be more prone to stupidity and irresponsbile dog handling.
Which is often the case in these incidents.
Of course blaming the dog is the simple thing to do instead of making the people who own them take responsibility for their dog.
JR, only YOU would think about having sex with a dog.
You are disgusting.
WE, I hope you pull the posts from JR, the sick human freek.
Well gosh Nathan.
My son wasn’t nearly attacked by an Airedale. It was a pit bull.
My mother’s small dog wasn’t viciously mauled by a beagle. Again, pit bull.
As to the problem? Right there she is. Pat and folks like her who get off on owning a dangerous animal.
Hey J R,
What’s your definition of a pit bull?
JR,
How is it dangerous?
Do you have some study which shows the percentage of owned pit-bulls which are “dangerous” to those which are not?
How many people safely own pit-bulls vs those who don’t and what caused it?
Your anecdotal evidence isn’t proof of anything.
Probably the reason there will be no presidential debate held in Wichita is they’re aware, when the audience is invited to ask questions of the candidates, they’ll ask about pit bulls.
Wichitans have their priorities, after all.
I think I’ll just let those who stand for dangerous dogs have their say. My personal experience is enough to convince me. I don’t have to actually experience a tragedy to have sense to work to avoid one.
Pit bull owners stand warned. On my block, a loose pit bull is a dead pit bull. You get one call. Then anything goes.
JR,
What are you going to do JR? Poke it with a spear?
You don’t support gun ownership so have fun with that.
I don’t stand for dangerous dogs either.
I simply see a difference between a dog which was raised with love and one which was not.
Oh geez, here we go again…
What is your definition of “Is” all over again!!
Anybody notice that Hank and Nathan are defending pit bulls, with the same kind of rhetoric they use to defend concealed carry?
:.,
Because you liberals are using the same rhetoric to attack the dogs as you would concealed carry.
So, Nathan, are you saying it isnt pit bulls that kill people, but people that kill people??
Just wondering here. Your defense language is so much “NRA style” it is almost homorous!
Nathan is so funny. The first to complain if anyone says terrorists were just raised without love.
So let me make sure I understand. There are no bad dogs, just dogs raised without love. But there are bad humans born that way with no hope of change.
How very Christian of you.
JR,
What are you going to do JR? Poke it with a spear?
You don’t support gun ownership so have fun with that.
You know better than that Nathan. I support responsible and reasonable gun ownership.
A shotgun is just as good or better with a pit bull than a handgun. And there are subtler means as well.
homorous…
The stats shown here are consistent with what I have read elsewhere.
“According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:
If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed–and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.”
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.htmlhttp://www.dogsbite.org/bite-study-deaths-maimings.htm
I still say the local dog show won’t get national attention until there is a casino in Wichita.
The media won’t come here. They fear that Terry Fox will meet them at the airport. Along with Fred.
And we all know the national media stars are gay, and so are most show dog owners. Their fears are justified.
Outlander,
Probably true. Now how many of those cases involved dogs which were raised to be mean, aggresive, attack, and fight?
Most of those breeds are trained as fighting dogs illegally.
The mere fact that “pit-bulls” are responsible for many attacks isn’t neccisarily because they are simply pit-bulls rather that they are a dog used for nothing but illegal dog fighting.
The terrorists should have just been raised with love. Instead, they are just used for fighting.
Well, it’s obvious that we won’t be able to have an intelligent conversation on pit bulls. No one here seems to be familiar with the recent legislation nor do they seem to be able to even understand my position.
The AKC and the WKC are agianst breed specific legislation. In the case of the proposed legislation that was defeated here in Wichita we wanted ‘dangerous dog’ legislation. We wanted the legislation to be stronger and more effective in dealing with dangerous dogs.
Why? Because, although ‘pit bulls’ are involved in many attacks, it’s only a very small percentage of that breed. Furthermore, when you concentrate on a specific breed you weaken your ability to enforce laws on dangerous dogs in general.
I am not for pit bulls. I’m against dangerous dogs.
Who’s responsible for the attack on J R’s mom? The dog or the person that owned it? Why pass punitive, ineffective legislation on every pit bull owner when it only addresses a small part of the problem by penalizing everyone that owns a pit bull?
We don’t have our ‘head in the sand’ on this legislation. The AKC has helped many communities write effective, enforcable ‘dangerous dog’ legislation.
I have no love for pit bulls. If one threatens me or mine, I will kill it. I have no love for dangerous dogs. If one of mine ever attacks or bites another person, I will put it down.
Why concentrate on pit bulls? Why not have legislation that describes ‘dangerous dogs’ and enforce it?
Why not a debate in kansas? The same reason that none of the cantidates have to plug for support, kansas will go to the most conservative, pro life, anti tax, pro war republican in the field. It’s like wondering out loud why the democrats dont go to berkley california. Mabey if you build an arena they will come.
Monster Myths
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm
Aren’t Pit Bulls MEAN and VICIOUS?
No more vicious than golden retrievers, beagles or other popular dogs! In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That’s as good or better than beagles … 78.2%, and golden retrievers … 83.2%. How did your favorite breed do? See for yourself: ATTS.org
In the ATTS test, a dog is put through a series of confrontational situations. Any sign of panic or aggression leads to failure of the test. The achievement of pit bulls in this study disproves once and for all the old tired belief that pit bulls are inherently aggressive to people.
Like any breed of dog, a healthy pit bull that is properly raised will remain loving and friendly. In the past 20 years, we’ve seen some sad examples of poorly bred and badly treated dogs that are the byproducts of irresponsible ‘backyard breeders’ and cruel and abusive homes. These improperly raised, unsocialized creatures can show temperaments far removed from the traditional authentic pit bull. Don’t confuse these unfortunate misbreds with the huge majority of well-loved dogs in this country that remain solid in temperament, affectionate, trustworthy and friendly to their dying day.
Don’t Pit Bulls have LOCKING JAWS?No. A pit bull’s ability to “lock on” with it’s jaws is one WHOPPER of a myth that refuses to let go! The jaws of a pit bull are built just as any other dog’s jaw. There’s no ‘enzyme’, no special mechanism that would make a pitbull’s jaws ‘lock’. They’re DOGS, not alligators! What a pit bull does have is strength, tenacity, and determination. When he grasps something he wants to hang onto, his willpower is the glue.
Don’t pit bulls have to be TRAINED TO FIGHT?NO! Pit bulls are terriers, and terriers tend to be scrappy with other animals if unsocialized, poorly managed or otherwise left to their own devices. Just as farmers have used Jack Russell Terriers to do battle with badgers, foxes and other animals, unscrupulous people have exploited the terrier drive in pit bulls against other dogs for ‘entertainment’ purposes. Like many breeds, pit bulls can run the gamut from very dog aggressive to exceptionally dog friendly, but each dog shares some potential to fight other dogs if mismanaged. Avoiding dog fights involves understanding terrier traits and basic canine behavior in general.
But Dad,
It is so much easier for them to mischaracterize our stance and then argue against that rather than attempt to engage in an honest and intelligent discussion.
But, “Nathan” –
The *breed* has been developed for many generations for aggressiveness, teritorial qualities, strength of bite… all sorts of genetic qualities that make an attack much more dangerous than a nip from a peekapoo.
The parallel with gun ownership is an obvious topic to consider. People who want to own handguns are highly more likely to shoot people than those who choose to not own guns. People who want to own dogs historically bred for aggressiveness and fighting temperment are more likely to condone or even encourage aggressive traits in their dogs.
One can choose to own a border collie even if the owner has no interest in sheep-herding. One can own a dauchund even if one has no interest in badger-hunting. But it’s hard to characterize an owner of an aggressive, hard-biting, territorial animal without considering the inbred characteristics of the dog.
You are either with us, or you are with the pit bull terrorists.
MonkeyHawk,
Talk about a bunch of platitiudes!
A man who buys a car is much more likey to use that car in a hit and run than someone who doesn’t buy a car…
A man who buys a baseball bat is much more likey to use that bat against someone than those who do not buy bats…
A man who want’s to own a knife is much more likely to use that knife against someone than someone who doesn’t…
What on earth any of that has to do with Pit-bulls?
I am not sure, please elaborate MonkeyHawk.
I think it was outlander who linked to some data about pit bulls being disproportionally responsible for injuries, etc. It was pretty convincing as I remember. Outlander, still have that link?
The above data do not refute the hypothesis that pit bull owners are especially irresponsible owners.
Steven,
That is my point.
Pit-bulls are trained and taught to do nothing but fight, by certain people.
That is illegal.
Then there are pit-bulls who are loved and taken care of like any other dog and do no harm.
Why should we ban them all?
That is why my father and I support legislation which targets dangerous dogs and not just pit-bulls.
I’m always glad to send you a dispatch from the reality-based community, “Nathan.”
Talk to a cop. If there’s an agressive, teritorial, hard-biting breed sitting on the porch of a home they visit, they have a different expectation of the human occupants of that house than if there is, say, a toy poodle with ribbons behind its ears.
Do you understand that concept, “Nathan?”
I’ll go slow with you on this issue, just to help you keep up.
Do you understand that concept, “Nathan?”
If not, I’ll try to explain it to you further. If so, we can continue.
Yes, Nathan, I know.
Definitions time >>>
Offered for learning purposes only!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
MonkeyHawk,
That is a stereotype, doesn’t prove anything.
A police officer is always going to assume the worst because they are in a life and death profession where you can’t afford to be complacent.
Do you think a Police Officer should also assume that a black person in a bad part of town is a suspect and treat them differently because 90% of the crime committed in that part of town is by black people too?
Oh, yeah, what is that called again?
Racial profiling.
Do you support that too?
It could also be that there is an “interaction effect” – i.e. the irresponsibility of pit bull owners is more likely to result in injury due to the strength of the dog. Whereas, this problem would be of less of a concern with less strong breeds.
Don’t know of data supporting this interaction effect, just pointing out its possibility.
Well MonkeyHawk,
Now we’re talking about the owners.
Statistically, the toy poodle is more likely to bite you than the pit bull.
Again I ask,
Why concentrate on pit bulls? Why not have legislation that describes ‘dangerous dogs’ and enforce it?
Not one national animal welfare organiztion is for breed specific dog legislation. Not one. The Humaine Society, the American Kennel Club, The United Kennel Club, the American Veterinarian Association, etc.,
“Why concentrate on pit bulls? Why not have legislation that describes ‘dangerous dogs’ and enforce it?”
Wouldn’t this take care of the problem? And what would the point be in arguing otherwise, I’m wondering.
Steven,
Exactly.
You would have to ask JR and others who are emotionally invested in being against Pit-bulls why they are arguing otherwise.
IMHO, dangerous dog laws would most likely solve much of the problem. However, then you would see all of those arguing favorably for the pit bulls, start to argue that there is a need for some study, or url, or link, to show the “dangerous dog” data. So, it would still be, in effect, a hamster stroll situation.
Also, I think J R has a very valid concern for the dog that attacked his mother’s small breed dog. And all I see is disdain for his mother’s obvious hurt and pain for what happened to her small pet.
And I cant help but wonder why anybody would intentionally be so callous as to make fun of J R and his mother for their problem with an attacking dog incident??
:.,
I must have missed all these posts which “were so callous as to make fun of JR and his mother”….
I called it anecdotal evidence, which it was.
You’re right, “Hank.”
Anti-social people tend to own anti-social breeds of dogs.
And, since “Nathan” has attempted to divert his lost argument to an unrelated discussion of racial profiling, I’ll revert to his earlier tangental argument regarding gun ownership. It’s only fair.
I don’t care what firearms you choose to own. I care about the types of people who really, REALLY, *REALLY!!!* want to own guns. A lot of guns. Same as if someone wanted to own and love and control a couple dozen pit bulls.
I have no objection to the registration and training requirements of concealed-carry regulation. In fact I embrace the concept, and want those aspects of a “well regulated militia” to be expanded to all gun ownership.
If you can’t control your guns, just as if you can’t control your dogs, you are an irresponsible citizen. If you have demonstrated yourself to be an irresponsible citizen in other aspects of your life, your right to own “dangerous” dogs, or dangerous weapons, should be curtailed.
And, yes. If a toy poodle mauls or kills an infant or old lady, the poodle-owner should not be allowed to own a dog and should be convicted of some degree of crime. If you harbor a breed of dogs that’re genetically predisposed to be aggressive, teritorial, and to inflict massive damage with their teeth, jaws, and claws, you probably deserve a bit more attention than the little old lady with a blind, arthritic peekapoo.
Reality, “Hank.” It sometimes interferes with your ideology. Sorry to break the news to ya.
Gee, Nathan, many of those callous posts were yours! Ha! Ha! Anecdotal evidence is all any dog bit or attack is, actually. Unless it results in the death of a human, of course.
The fact is, that it happened. That is not anecdotal to J R or his mother.
YOU choose to see it as anecdotal, because it didnt happen to YOU or a member of YOUR family. Must be that internal selfish streak of yours talking again.
I have an anecdotal story about the pit-bull breed issue. My neighbor had a significant other living with her for a while who had pit bull. The dog was real good at getting out of their fenced in yard. In our neighborhood people often walk their dogs on leashes. The pit bull would get out, approach people walking their dogs, and frequently got sprayed with pepper spray or some such repellent. Whenever the pit came into my yard, it was clear she was a puppy and wanted to play. I felt real sorry for the dog.
People fear and dislike pit bulls and that is to their disadvantage.
I think Nathan means anecdotal in the sense that a single subject case study, does not provide evidence for a wider phenomenon amongst the population.
I don’t think he was dismissing or being unduly disrespectful of anyone’s personal experience.
Nathan can make some logical errors, but let’s not dogpile on him when he isn’t.
Rhonda – your litmus test worked. It didn’t take long to lure out the reason why the national debate won’t come to Wichita.
On a related note, thanks for this blog. Unless some of these addicts blog/post while they drive and protest in front of health clinics, you are doing a great job of keeping the nuts off the streets.
We can’t even attract bowling tournaments here, how can we attact a presidental debate?
Because they would get the stupidest of softball questions.
1: Pit bulls are only as dangerous as they are trained to be. I own a stray Pit Bull that is more passive than a French Liberal.
2: Back on topic. If debates won’t come to Kansas because we are to “Red”, then am I to assume that all of these locations that are being used are completely and totally neutral? I don’t think so: bad argument.
bad arguement – correct. And it isn’t size either – Oxform MS is not a huge city.
Good one!
We can’t even attract bowling tournaments here, how can we attact a presidental debate?
I still say build a casino and they will come.
sarcasm/off
Wichita?
HAHA!
Topeka maybe. Kansas City, or Johnson County.
Yes.
That’s where the population is.