. If someone's name ends up on there and he/she has never received such a citation, then there would be channels to go through to get the name removed, and the mistake remedied. You're acting like people will be ruined for life. Overreaction.
The database is already there. Everytime a citation for animal abuse is issued, it goes into a computer database. Just a question of combining those databases into a single website that can be accessed by the public.
I'm not much for looking at "slippery slope" arguments. If something sounds reasonable and helps to protect something I believe should be protected without unreasonable cost, I say do it. If folks want to cross state lines, they will... but the vast majority won't bother. The abuse I see of animals out here in "the country" is appalling. Every damned month some ass is going to trial for starving his animals, or beating them, or flinging a litter of kittens into a river, or taking a meat cleaver to a screaming baby possum... so yeah, if something as simple as a website data base keeps those same freaks from adopting or purchasing other animals, I'm all for it.
Why not make a drug abuse registry?
Underreaction/blind dismissal. Look at the no-fly list and the sex offender's lists, the same idea is spouted, but the truth is quite the opposite - or at least such where it feels like the exact opposite is true.
.. as long as it's not a drug use registry... i never ever abuse my drugs, so i'm good:lol:Why not make a drug abuse registry?
it's the same idea.... it's the same principle for every registry out there... and not one of them operates as advertised:lol: Quite a stretch comparing people who have been cited for animal abuse to keep them from getting more animals to sex offenders and the terrorist no-fly list! :mrgreen:
Props for panic, though!
if a database exists, there is no need for another one then....they just need to give access to qualified people or give a point of contact that people can call up and check **** out.... easy peasy.
not sure if i want it to be a public list though....I don't trust the public with this information,....well, i don't trust PETA-types, and other wackos , to not go nuts on folks whom have been cited for any of the varying animal laws.
what public interest does it serve to make it public?... and if you don't mandate background checks for animal purchases /adoptions.. it's all for naught anyways.
I used to be against slippery slope arguments... but too many have come true over the course of my life to discount them out of hand.
What I would support is a registry for violent crime and place those who have violently abused animals on there as well. I don't know if I can support an animal abuse registry for every action of animal abuse/neglect. I do think criminals deserve some sense of privacy, but violent crimes against humans or animals would be an exception for me.
Took several posts to get around to it, but it appears you do approve of collateral damage. The end justifies the means, innocence is irrelevant, and as long as branding 2 people as criminals... "keeps one sadistic freak from getting hands on an innocent animal"... so be it.Anyway, this sounds inexpensive and useful, and if it keeps one sadistic freak from getting hands on an innocent animal, I'd like to see it tried.
Took several posts to get around to it, but it appears you do approve of collateral damage. The end justifies the means, innocence is irrelevant, and as long as branding 2 people as criminals... "keeps one sadistic freak from getting hands on an innocent animal"... so be it.
No.
What's next, an index of habitual speeders? Seatbelt scofflaws?
We've arguably abused the sex offender registry already.
Consarn it, I was trying for like 10 minutes to figure out how to say exactly that. My thoughts precisely.
I'm all for society taking a stand against animal abuse, but creating a new class of social pariahs might not be the way we want to go.
Then why did you vote that it was a good idea? Just curious.
If that's what you gleaned from my comment(s), then your reading comprehension is a HUGE FAIL.The absolute least convincing argument to me would be to try to appeal to my sympathy for animal abusers. I have none.Took several posts to get around to it, but it appears you do approve of collateral damage. The end justifies the means, innocence is irrelevant, and as long as branding 2 people as criminals... "keeps one sadistic freak from getting hands on an innocent animal"... so be it.
The database is already there. Everytime a citation for animal abuse is issued, it goes into a computer database. Just a question of combining those databases into a single website that can be accessed by the public.
I'm not much for looking at "slippery slope" arguments. If something sounds reasonable and helps to protect something I believe should be protected without unreasonable cost, I say do it. If folks want to cross state lines, they will... but the vast majority won't bother. The abuse I see of animals out here in "the country" is appalling. Every damned month some ass is going to trial for starving his animals, or beating them, or flinging a litter of kittens into a river, or taking a meat cleaver to a screaming baby possum... so yeah, if something as simple as a website data base keeps those same freaks from adopting or purchasing other animals, I'm all for it.
I mean, this isn't life altering. If someone's name ends up on there and he/she has never received such a citation, then there would be channels to go through to get the name removed, and the mistake remedied. You're acting like people will be ruined for life. Overreaction.
Is it really that big of a problem in Michigan?
In Wayne County alone there were over 5,000 reported cases of animal abuse last year.
In Wayne County alone there were over 5,000 reported cases of animal abuse last year.