Jump to content

Geoffrey Robinson MP in dangerous dogs debate


Recommended Posts

I suppose we could go for the licence idea as suggested by some.

 

Of course that would mean a training course in how to keep an animal reasonably safe so we could prevent the "bad owners" who are, in many poster's demi brains, responsible for all dog attacks.

I suppose it would be similar to a firearms licence for a handgun but, posters who actually have a working brain will be aware, you can't get one of them any more after just a couple of rogue owners went daft even though they weren't using legally held weapons to do their evil deeds.

That would, if that suggestion were to be followed, mean an immediate ban to save all the messing about banning them later when a licence holder's dog ripped the face off a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose we could go for the licence idea as suggested by some.

 

Of course that would mean a training course in how to keep an animal reasonably safe so we could prevent the "bad owners" who are, in many poster's demi brains, responsible for all dog attacks.

As a good owner would neither raise a dog to be vicious nor let a situation arise where it can harm a child, those demi-brains are right.

 

 

I suppose it would be similar to a firearms licence for a handgun but, posters who actually have a working brain will be aware, you can't get one of them any more . . . .
Actually, those of us with working brains know that you still can legally acquire handguns, and not only on section 5 licences but on the 'ordinary' Section 1.

 

Ah, "a little knowledge . ." and all that :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many dead kids or kids with their faces chewed off do you need before you admit these dogs are dangerous?

You are now freely admitting they're known killers but you still defend them.

 

Sounds more than a bit daft to me.:loopy:

 

What would your suggestion be with regard to Labrador attacks on children or Jack Russell's on children, Collies that bite.

No one that understands the dog will admit to them all needing destroying because of a few, it's not an argument based on reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would, if that suggestion were to be followed, mean an immediate ban to save all the messing about banning them later when a licence holder's dog ripped the face off a baby.

 

There's that baby card again coz that really adds weight to the argument doesn't it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, those of us with working brains know that you still can legally acquire handguns, and not only on section 5 licences but on the 'ordinary' Section 1.

 

Ah, "a little knowledge . ." and all that :rolleyes:

 

That's why me and all my mates had to surrender our weapons a few years ago.

 

What's that about a "little knowledge"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why me and all my mates had to surrender our weapons a few years ago.

 

What's that about a "little knowledge"?

I surrendered 6 pistols myself, but the 'little knowledge' is what you have on the subject if you don't realise that there are still plenty of multi-shot fullbore pistols out there on Section 1 FACs. I could get a variation to buy one now if I wanted - so, probably, could you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I was losing interest in this thread, I opened up the paper yesterday and what did I see?

 

Another child scarred for life after a vicious dog attack, this time after its chavvy owner fed it a can of stella!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8845153/Boy-mauled-by-dog-that-was-drunk-on-Stella.html

 

Go on, just before you click on the link, have a guess what breed of dog it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.