The difference is that some breeds of dog have been specifically bred to be violent and aggressive. You can't 'breed' aggressive children.
It's an unwinnable argument though - like gun laws in America. You can no more 'unmake' violent dog breeds than you can 'unmake' guns - the genie is out of the bottle.
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
So the vast, vast majority of responsible owners with well-behaved, non-dangerous dogs all have to suffer because of the actions of an absolutely tiny minority of f**kwits.
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
So the vast, vast majority of responsible owners with well-behaved, non-dangerous dogs all have to suffer because of the actions of an absolutely tiny minority of f**kwits.
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
All of the suggestions I have made above are in place in other countries.
I never said you was inherently stupid. I said people are. As for dogs not being inherently dangerous well there we will disagree.
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
So the vast, vast majority of responsible owners with well-behaved, non-dangerous dogs all have to suffer because of the actions of an absolutely tiny minority of f**kwits.
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
All of the suggestions I have made above are in place in other countries.
I never said you was inherently stupid. I said people are. As for dogs not being inherently dangerous well there we will disagree.
Btw. I am a dog owner.
Well in that case I have to say that I find your opinion even more surprising, particularly as I presume that you are a responsible dog owner. Someone on the previous page of this thread said that there have been 18 dog-related deaths in this country since 2005. Whilst that's admittedly 18 too many, it's a tiny number in comparison to the number of dogs and dog owners in this country, and the prospect of making, for example, every Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua and Poodle walk around with a muzzle on because a tiny proportion of halfwits are intent on training their bulldogs to be fighting machines seems ridiculous to me.
Well in that case I have to say that I find your opinion even more surprising, particularly as I presume that you are a responsible dog owner. Someone on the previous page of this thread said that there have been 18 dog-related deaths in this country since 2005. Whilst that's admittedly 18 too many, it's a tiny number in comparison to the number of dogs and dog owners in this country, and the prospect of making, for example, every Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua and Poodle walk around with a muzzle on because a tiny proportion of halfwits are intent on training their bulldogs to be fighting machines seems ridiculous to me.
So if 18 Ford Fiestas exploded when turning on the ignition, that is ok, as only a tiny number in comparison to the amount sold, so no need for all Ford Fiestas to have something done to address the problem?
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
So the vast, vast majority of responsible owners with well-behaved, non-dangerous dogs all have to suffer because of the actions of an absolutely tiny minority of f**kwits.
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
All of the suggestions I have made above are in place in other countries.
I never said you was inherently stupid. I said people are. As for dogs not being inherently dangerous well there we will disagree.
Btw. I am a dog owner.
Well in that case I have to say that I find your opinion even more surprising, particularly as I presume that you are a responsible dog owner. Someone on the previous page of this thread said that there have been 18 dog-related deaths in this country since 2005. Whilst that's admittedly 18 too many, it's a tiny number in comparison to the number of dogs and dog owners in this country, and the prospect of making, for example, every Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua and Poodle walk around with a muzzle on because a tiny proportion of halfwits are intent on training their bulldogs to be fighting machines seems ridiculous to me.
Anyone who says their dog is not dangerous is mistaken. Any dog, no matter how well trained can suddenly bite someone.
Bit like saying a Nun could never slap someone in the face just because she is a nun.
Right, so presumably you would be in favour of all nuns being forced to wear handcuffs when out in public, because of the highly unlikely prospect that one of them might start playing up?
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
So the vast, vast majority of responsible owners with well-behaved, non-dangerous dogs all have to suffer because of the actions of an absolutely tiny minority of f**kwits.
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
All of the suggestions I have made above are in place in other countries.
I never said you was inherently stupid. I said people are. As for dogs not being inherently dangerous well there we will disagree.
Btw. I am a dog owner.
Well in that case I have to say that I find your opinion even more surprising, particularly as I presume that you are a responsible dog owner. Someone on the previous page of this thread said that there have been 18 dog-related deaths in this country since 2005. Whilst that's admittedly 18 too many, it's a tiny number in comparison to the number of dogs and dog owners in this country, and the prospect of making, for example, every Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua and Poodle walk around with a muzzle on because a tiny proportion of halfwits are intent on training their bulldogs to be fighting machines seems ridiculous to me.
The policy you described as being favourable to you - all dogs on muzzles and on leads, etc is what I would describe as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I presume you accept that the vast majority of dogs that you might encounter in a local park are not a danger to you because they are properly trained and their owners are responsible people who will not allow them to misbehave, but you would still be in favour of a blanket policy to protect people against the dangerous minority.
Does this line of thinking apply only to dogs, or is it something that you would apply in a broader sense? Would you introduce some sort of licensing system for children/potential parents because a minority of children turn into very bad people who mug old ladies, shoplift, etc? As a less extreme example, the thread below (which you have probably seen already) relates to a fight at the game on Saturday that appears to have been caused by someone who'd drank too much - does this therefore mean that all supporters should be banned from drinking in football grounds because a minority can't be trusted to behave sensibly? http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/1753833#Comment_1753833 Not looking for an argument and hopefully not winding you up. Just curious about the opposing side of the argument.
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Anyone who says their dog is not dangerous is mistaken. Any dog, no matter how well trained can suddenly bite someone.
Bit like saying a Nun could never slap someone in the face just because she is a nun.
Right, so presumably you would be in favour of all nuns being forced to wear handcuffs when out in public, because of the highly unlikely prospect that one of them might start playing up?
Can't be too careful with nuns, they could get into a habit
Anyone who says their dog is not dangerous is mistaken. Any dog, no matter how well trained can suddenly bite someone.
Bit like saying a Nun could never slap someone in the face just because she is a nun.
Right, so presumably you would be in favour of all nuns being forced to wear handcuffs when out in public, because of the highly unlikely prospect that one of them might start playing up?
Can't be too careful with nuns, they could get into a habit
indeed. I'm sure i've seen a film about nuns in handcuffs, German i think it was.
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH
We do this damned thread every year and every year nothing changes. Dogs are inherently dangerous and people are inherently stupid. The combination of the two will invariably lead to this tragic situation.
Dogs, all dogs need to be licenced. Dogs, all dogs need to be muzzled in public. Dogs, all dogs need to be kept on a lead when in public. Dogs, all dogs must be chipped. Dogs, all dogs must be insured.
The licence needs to be expensive enough to completely fund the policing of all of the above by local authority dog wardens with powers of arrest. The fines should be draconian. Penalties for an owner whose dog injures someone should be severe.
Dangerous breeds should all be destroyed.
Will anything be done ? I doubt it.
So the vast, vast majority of responsible owners with well-behaved, non-dangerous dogs all have to suffer because of the actions of an absolutely tiny minority of f**kwits.
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
All of the suggestions I have made above are in place in other countries.
I never said you was inherently stupid. I said people are. As for dogs not being inherently dangerous well there we will disagree.
Btw. I am a dog owner.
Well in that case I have to say that I find your opinion even more surprising, particularly as I presume that you are a responsible dog owner. Someone on the previous page of this thread said that there have been 18 dog-related deaths in this country since 2005. Whilst that's admittedly 18 too many, it's a tiny number in comparison to the number of dogs and dog owners in this country, and the prospect of making, for example, every Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua and Poodle walk around with a muzzle on because a tiny proportion of halfwits are intent on training their bulldogs to be fighting machines seems ridiculous to me.
The policy you described as being favourable to you - all dogs on muzzles and on leads, etc is what I would describe as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I presume you accept that the vast majority of dogs that you might encounter in a local park are not a danger to you because they are properly trained and their owners are responsible people who will not allow them to misbehave, but you would still be in favour of a blanket policy to protect people against the dangerous minority.
Does this line of thinking apply only to dogs, or is it something that you would apply in a broader sense? Would you introduce some sort of licensing system for children/potential parents because a minority of children turn into very bad people who mug old ladies, shoplift, etc? As a less extreme example, the thread below (which you have probably seen already) relates to a fight at the game on Saturday that appears to have been caused by someone who'd drank too much - does this therefore mean that all supporters should be banned from drinking in football grounds because a minority can't be trusted to behave sensibly? http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/1753833#Comment_1753833 Not looking for an argument and hopefully not winding you up. Just curious about the opposing side of the argument.
when dogs get the vote i'll worry about dogs and their owners rights.
Anyone who says their dog is not dangerous is mistaken. Any dog, no matter how well trained can suddenly bite someone.
Bit like saying a Nun could never slap someone in the face just because she is a nun.
Right, so presumably you would be in favour of all nuns being forced to wear handcuffs when out in public, because of the highly unlikely prospect that one of them might start playing up?
Can't be too careful with nuns, they could get into a habit
indeed. I'm sure i've seen a film about nuns in handcuffs, German i think it was.
Millions of year of evolution to create a meat eating, hunting pack animal that cannot be reasoned with or have complex situations explained to it and we think it's 'trainable' in a couple of thousand years?
Most dogs may have a good temperament but if you think that there are no underlying carnivorous instincts in all breeds then you're fooling yourself.
Millions of year of evolution to create a meat eating, hunting pack animal that cannot be reasoned with or have complex situations explained to it and we think it's 'trainable' in a couple of thousand years?
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
That seems like a very logical and proportionate approach to me.
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
That seems like a very logical and proportionate approach to me.
but it's too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed.
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
That seems like a very logical and proportionate approach to me.
but it's too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed.
Right, I'll put to you the same question that I put to SHG then.
There were 290 deaths in 2012 caused by drink driving and 230 in 2011, so far, far more than the 18 people killed by dogs between 2005 and now. Obviously putting the drunk drivers in prison is too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed so presumably you would be in favour of either banning the consumption of alcohol altogether or banning driving altogether?
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
Completely agree and have said similar higher up the thread.
I never understand in this debate why people only focus on the number of deaths. In 2012-13 there were over 6,000 hospitalisations in the UK due to dog attacks - 17 people every day. It's estimated there were over 200,000 in total over the same period. That's 548 people every day bitten by dogs, many of whom I have no doubt were, and may well still be, pretty traumatised by the experience. I certainly know people who were bitten as kids and still get anxious if they see a dog coming towards them, and they're adults now. And the stats show that it's pretty much getting worse every year.
So to my mind it's not just about the deaths - they are sadly the most tragic manifestation of a problem that simply should not happen as often as it does and could certainly be minimised - it's also about the injuries and the quality of life of others who won't risk taking their kids to the local park for fear of what might happen, because there are few meaningful measures in place to protect them. So for these reasons I agree with much of what SHG says, for what it's worth.
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
That seems like a very logical and proportionate approach to me.
but it's too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed.
Right, I'll put to you the same question that I put to SHG then.
There were 290 deaths in 2012 caused by drink driving and 230 in 2011, so far, far more than the 18 people killed by dogs between 2005 and now. Obviously putting the drunk drivers in prison is too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed so presumably you would be in favour of either banning the consumption of alcohol altogether or banning driving altogether?
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
That seems like a very logical and proportionate approach to me.
but it's too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed.
Right, I'll put to you the same question that I put to SHG then.
There were 290 deaths in 2012 caused by drink driving and 230 in 2011, so far, far more than the 18 people killed by dogs between 2005 and now. Obviously putting the drunk drivers in prison is too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed so presumably you would be in favour of either banning the consumption of alcohol altogether or banning driving altogether?
There are more cars than dogs
Cars are not sentient
Nobody is saying ban dogs completely
You are comparing a conscious human decision against animal instincts
When a dog attacks a person the owner should be charged accordingly, if the dog kills someone then owner is charged with murder, if injured badly then GBH and so on. If people have dangerous dogs they need to take responsibility for them.
That seems like a very logical and proportionate approach to me.
but it's too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed.
Right, I'll put to you the same question that I put to SHG then.
There were 290 deaths in 2012 caused by drink driving and 230 in 2011, so far, far more than the 18 people killed by dogs between 2005 and now. Obviously putting the drunk drivers in prison is too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed so presumably you would be in favour of either banning the consumption of alcohol altogether or banning driving altogether?
Nearly 200 of those 290 deaths (68%) were the drink drivers themselves.
If a dog wants to decide to kill itself it is very welcome.
Comments
Rubbish. By that logic I presume that you would also be in favour of some sort of licensing system for children, because even though 99% of kids are nice, there's always a tiny percentage who'll turn out like Jon Venables.
By the way, I am not inherently stupid and my dog is not inherently dangerous.
I never said you was inherently stupid. I said people are. As for dogs not being inherently dangerous well there we will disagree.
Btw. I am a dog owner.
Any dog, no matter how well trained can suddenly bite someone.
Bit like saying a Nun could never slap someone in the face just because she is a nun.
Well in that case I have to say that I find your opinion even more surprising, particularly as I presume that you are a responsible dog owner. Someone on the previous page of this thread said that there have been 18 dog-related deaths in this country since 2005. Whilst that's admittedly 18 too many, it's a tiny number in comparison to the number of dogs and dog owners in this country, and the prospect of making, for example, every Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua and Poodle walk around with a muzzle on because a tiny proportion of halfwits are intent on training their bulldogs to be fighting machines seems ridiculous to me.
So if 18 Ford Fiestas exploded when turning on the ignition, that is ok, as only a tiny number in comparison to the amount sold, so no need for all Ford Fiestas to have something done to address the problem?
Really ?
http://newsiclenews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/yorkshire-terrier-attack-on-boy-9.html
Does this line of thinking apply only to dogs, or is it something that you would apply in a broader sense? Would you introduce some sort of licensing system for children/potential parents because a minority of children turn into very bad people who mug old ladies, shoplift, etc? As a less extreme example, the thread below (which you have probably seen already) relates to a fight at the game on Saturday that appears to have been caused by someone who'd drank too much - does this therefore mean that all supporters should be banned from drinking in football grounds because a minority can't be trusted to behave sensibly?
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/1753833#Comment_1753833
Not looking for an argument and hopefully not winding you up. Just curious about the opposing side of the argument.
indeed. I'm sure i've seen a film about nuns in handcuffs, German i think it was.
when dogs get the vote i'll worry about dogs and their owners rights.
Most dogs may have a good temperament but if you think that there are no underlying carnivorous instincts in all breeds then you're fooling yourself.
but it's too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed.
There were 290 deaths in 2012 caused by drink driving and 230 in 2011, so far, far more than the 18 people killed by dogs between 2005 and now. Obviously putting the drunk drivers in prison is too late for the poor sod or child that's been killed so presumably you would be in favour of either banning the consumption of alcohol altogether or banning driving altogether?
So to my mind it's not just about the deaths - they are sadly the most tragic manifestation of a problem that simply should not happen as often as it does and could certainly be minimised - it's also about the injuries and the quality of life of others who won't risk taking their kids to the local park for fear of what might happen, because there are few meaningful measures in place to protect them. So for these reasons I agree with much of what SHG says, for what it's worth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10429862/Dog-attack-laws-and-statistics.html
but it's a DOG.
Dogs in muzzles don't bite people.
Cars are not sentient
Nobody is saying ban dogs completely
You are comparing a conscious human decision against animal instincts
If a dog wants to decide to kill itself it is very welcome.