Some People's Dogs

callen

know1 said:

The majority (maybe a slight majority) of people who own animals are unfit to do so, IMO.

Same for kids and guns.

know1

callen said:

know1 said:

The majority (maybe a slight majority) of people who own animals are unfit to do so, IMO.

Same for kids and guns.

I agree.

unsung

Curious Thirty, what gives you the right to regulate everything that people want to own?

Your entire logic is based on speculation, first with guns, now with dogs.

What's next on your agenda?

BinFrog

unsung said:

Curious Thirty, what gives you the right to regulate everything that people want to own?

Your entire logic is based on speculation, first with guns, now with dogs.

What's next on your agenda?

It's not speculative in the slightest bit.

Hmmm. Dogs and guns.

I'll take "What are 2 things that if put into the wrong hands can be quite dangerous if not lethal", for $1200, Alex.

Not everyone should be allowed to buy a gun. Not everyone should be allowed to own a dog. Especially dogs with a proven track record of violence if not trained and handled properly.

unsung

That's a lot like saying not everyone should be allowed to have children. Are you going to support that too? What bigger responsibility is there?

I can name a thousand things that could be lethal in the wrong hands, this business of people telling other people what they can or can't have is ridiculous. Where do you guys get the right deciding what I can own if I am not harming anyone?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

That's a lot like saying not everyone should be allowed to have children. Are you going to support that too? What bigger responsibility is there?

I can name a thousand things that could be lethal in the wrong hands, this business of people telling other people what they can or can't have is ridiculous. Where do you guys get the right deciding what I can own if I am not harming anyone?

Unsung...

Where do you think you have the right to own whatever you want when it poses a threat to those around you?

In most cases involving dogs hurting someone- and guns for that matter- the dog was not harming anyone right up to the moment it bit a child's face off.

Why do you think trying to take precautionary measures to ensure people's safety is to violate someone's rights? Don't people have a right to walk safely to their mailboxes or school without someone's rabid pit bull attacking them? Do people's rights to do whatever the fuck they wanna do trump public safety?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Nearly every owner of such animals say, "He's never done anything like that before" in the aftermath of an attack.

Certain breeds are wired to behave aggressively when certain stimuli presents itself- making them unpredictable. And, these 'breeds' have a long and growing history of attacks, regardless of the individual dog's personal history. In many cases... the dog's aggressiveness has not manifested itself yet.

I'll always have to accept people's choice of dog for a pet. I think that people should be accountable for their animals though and not with little bitty by-law tickets and stern frowns from others. I think, such as in the case cited to initiate this thread, that if your dog injures or kills someone... you should be held criminally responsible. Haphazard dog ownership is no different than recklessly speeding with a car through a residential neighbourhood. Those two women should have received lengthy prison terms... not one laughable year.

With exceptions of course, then watch people make careful selections for pets and take the necessary precautions to ensure their dog doesn't become a hazard to their neighbours.

Unsung... this was my last post. Where does it say 'restrict ownership'?

It says be accountable. What the fuck is wrong with that? Have I touched a nerve?

Maybe you had a dog that's bit a kid's face off? Maybe you don't want to be responsible for the 'accident'? Maybe you have used the "It's neeevveeeeer done anything like that before" excuse as an ambulance has taken a child to emergency?

I don't know. I'm just speculating because why would anyone argue against holding an owner accountable for their big, bad dog that they irresponsibly raised in an urban setting.

When people share roads and sidewalks and water lines and other services... they make sacrifices to ensure everyone's quality of life is not compromised. Raising a wolf in an apartment complex is selfish and foolhardy. If someone wants to beat their chest and cry freedom... then go fucking live in the bush and do whatever the hell you want there given your idea of freedom doesn't violate anyone else's need for general safety.

BinFrog

Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.

Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.

Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.

And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.

Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.

We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

BinFrog said:

Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.

Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.

Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.

And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.

Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.

We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.

We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.

I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.

Jason P

Does shooting a dog fall under stand-your-ground if it acts in a threatening way towards you and you have a conceal carry permit?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Jason P said:

Does shooting a dog fall under stand-your-ground if it acts in a threatening way towards you and you have a conceal carry permit?

Don't you remember the uproar when that cop shot that Rottweiler that was lunging at it?

People on this forum were demanding the death penalty for the cop.

hedonist

BinFrog said:

And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.

Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.

Excellent post.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BinFrog said:

Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.

Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.

Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.

And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.

Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.

We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.

We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.

I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.

I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BinFrog said:

Do you not see the complete contradiction in what you just posted? "...if I am not harming anyone". Sounds nice, until it happens. That's the whole point.

Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.

Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.

And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.

Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.

We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.

We've said the same thing- likely typing at the same time.

I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.

I can see you being one of those that would justify the action in a movie like Minority Report. Your entire argument is based on potential, or shall I say perceived potential.

And yet you are the one that continually talks of being prepared.

We don't want to go too far with this, but with regards to Minority Report... are you saying that if you could prevent a murder from happening you wouldn't because it would violate the murderer's rights?

unsung

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11796291

Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.

Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.


Denver should ban Labs.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11796291

Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.

Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.


Denver should ban Labs.

Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

And to my way of thinking... Denver should have issued some very large fines to some lab owners.

unsung

Screw it, ban all dogs, cats, guns, cars, abortion, climbing on ladders, bathtubs, electricity, swimming, flying in airplanes, smoking, drinking, and amusement parks. Clearly since people have died to all of the above they are all threats to public safety, I demand accountability.

Put a police officer in military riot gear on every corner, require everyone to wear a helmet at all times, and place pillows all over for people to walk on. All in the name of safety!!!

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11796291

Of the 2,060 bites, Labrador retrievers made up the biggest percentage on the bite list.

Labs accounted for 13.3 percent of the reported bites; pit bulls, 8.4 percent; German shepherds, 7.8 percent; Rottweilers, 3.9 percent; and Chows, 3.5 percent.


Denver should ban Labs.

Don't offer an incomplete set of statistics for us to chew on. Offer the ownership rates as well so we can properly place things in perspective.

Clearly the ownership of Labs is disproportionate to the population, couldn't have too many people owning Labs. I bet some are even unregistered! Oh, the humanity!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Screw it, it's a free for all. Go get an orphaned cougar, wolf, bear, or wolverine for a pet. Don't wear your seat belts or clip to a harness when washing high rise windows. Drink and drive as much as you want and if you want to go fast... go as fast as what you want because we are free men, I demand freedom.

Get rid of all police because we are very capable of managing ourselves and get along so well with each other without any police intervention. If we all have guns on our hip, we can just deal with any problem that might have typically demanded police service. All in the name of freedom!!!