NewBiz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 None of them are Well said. I'm getting the impression that Frank thinks there are dogs out there that have been bred for centuries for the sole purpose of attacking children. Which by the way Frank they haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well said. I'm getting the impression that Frank thinks there are dogs out there that have been bred for centuries for the sole purpose of attacking children. Which by the way Frank they haven't. First hand knowledge is a missing factor with most of these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Clearly you have no idea of the strength of the jaws of a dog of any size. A Collie or a standard Daschund (not the Toy 'Sausage Dog' you're presumably thinking of) could quite easily rip the ear, and indeed half the face off a child. Where do you get the idea I 'don't give a monkeys' about what happened to this girl? Have you read my earlier post, where I advocated the dog be destroyed, and the owner be 'heavily punished'? I can only presume you haven't. you miss my point. which is that people who choose to keep certain types of dog must be prepared to accept the risk to others that that choice carries - the ass hole in this case desrves a stretch in prison, but anyone who chooses an aggressive, powerful breed is taking the same chance - this bloke didn't set the dog on the child, he thought he was going for a nice walk - if he'd taken a non dangerous dog for a walk, he would be ok and a child wouldn't ne seriously injured. why did he choose a 'bull terrier'? because he's inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 you miss my point. which is that people who choose to keep certain types of dog must be prepared to accept the risk to others that that choice carries - the ass hole in this case desrves a stretch in prison, but anyone who chooses an aggressive, powerful breed is taking the same chance - this bloke didn't set the dog on the child, he thought he was going for a nice walk - if he'd taken a non dangerous dog for a walk, he would be ok and a child wouldn't ne seriously injured. why did he choose a 'bull terrier'? because he's inadequate. Yes that's why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Is that more important than people being attacked or killed? Yes and if it wasn’t more important we would all lock ourselves up because we belong to the most violent species on the planet and the only way to keep other people safe is if we are all locked up, but it wouldn't be very practical so we accept some risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 you miss my point. which is that people who choose to keep certain types of dog must be prepared to accept the risk to others that that choice carries - the ass hole in this case desrves a stretch in prison, but anyone who chooses an aggressive, powerful breed is taking the same chance - this bloke didn't set the dog on the child, he thought he was going for a nice walk - if he'd taken a non dangerous dog for a walk, he would be ok and a child wouldn't ne seriously injured. why did he choose a 'bull terrier'? because he's inadequate. I'm sorry Frank but you really are taking a load of rubbish. You can't define a 'non dangerous dog' for a start. Most 'bull terriers' if by that you mean Staffordshire Bull Terriers, are very people friendly (many to an almost ridiculous extent) but may need good early socialisation with other dogs, cats etc. They were indeed nicknamed 'The Nanny Dog' I believe because of their devotion to children in their families. So what I think I and several other people are trying to get across to you, with it has to be said limited success, is that there are good and bad in every breed of dog. Some breeds are suitable for anyone, others require a more experienced owner to bring out the best in them, and ensure they are trustworthy and reliable, and there will always be 'rogue' dogs in any breed. Owning a Staffy, or a Mastiff or a Doberman or a (insert breed you think is dangerous) is not necessarily, or indeed likely a sign of being inadequate. I agree there are some, shall we say less intelligent individuals out there, that see certain beeds as status dogs, and that is a problem, but only if they are incapable of raising their dog properly. We cannot legislate easily for the small sector of society that are too stupid to breathe and walk at the same time. However, the fact they exist does not make all dogs of certain breeds killers, or even dangerous. Is that any clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 you miss my point. which is that people who choose to keep certain types of dog must be prepared to accept the risk to others that that choice carries - the ass hole in this case desrves a stretch in prison, but anyone who chooses an aggressive, powerful breed is taking the same chance - this bloke didn't set the dog on the child, he thought he was going for a nice walk - if he'd taken a non dangerous dog for a walk, he would be ok and a child wouldn't ne seriously injured. why did he choose a 'bull terrier'? because he's inadequate. People who keep any type of dog must be prepared to accept the risk to others that their choice carries. When they don't, this is when dreadful things such as the injury to the child can happen. The common denominator is the failure of the person, not the dog. Unless you can define a "safe" breed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 It is the owner’s fault, just like when a car kills someone, we don't scrap the car we punish the driver. It should be the same with a dog, punish the owner not the dog. What a silly analogy, even allowing for the poster! How many unoccupied cars do you hear of mowing down pedestrians?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 What a silly analogy, even allowing for the poster! How many unoccupied cars do you hear of mowing down pedestrians?!?! Lots. Have you never seen Herbie Rides Again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 What a silly analogy, even allowing for the poster! How many unoccupied cars do you hear of mowing down pedestrians?!?! Was the dog on its own or with the owner? Answer With its owner. An inconsiderate Dog owner is no different to an inconsiderate car driver, so why punish all dog owners or all car drivers for the inconsiderate actions of the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.