Pets are legally owned by their human owners.
Being cruel to pets effects nobody else in a negative manner(assuming their is one propeitor).
So why can people not abuse their pets? They are not humans and hence should not be covered by a legal system devised for and by humans. Animals who are not property can be massacred and enslaved yet nobody bats an eyelid. Those who are owned should not be entitled to rights, as that infringes on the private property rights of the owner and it is hipocritical for us as a society to ban cruelty to pets whilst condoning far worse practices.
Why would any reasonable and sane person be interested in legalising cruelty to pets?
Most people regard it as abhorrent and with good reason, psychopaths who harm people usually work their way up from harming pet animals iirc.
Ownership does not confer the right to do whatever you want with a piece of property. You may legally own a Ferrari but you are not entitled to drive it around the M25 at maximum speed.
They aren't 'property' in the same way a guitar is. To call them that presupposes they can be treated cruelly, so invoking private property rights is a circular argument.
The purpose of the law is to uphold the morality of the current society, and the vast majority of people in our society would consider causing animals pain to be immoral. Of course there is no objective foundation for this - there is nothing to say harming a human is objectively wrong, either - it's just generally accepted that causing pain is wrong. Animals can feel pain.
As to it being hypocritical, you're entirely right, but the fact that thousands of people are slaughtered in Africa doesn't mean murder should be legal, and similarly farming abuses don't justify pet abuse.
Typical ****ing TSR bolllocks.