frank ryan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 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? yes it is, the delusional nature of dangerous dog ownwers is all the clearer - the idea that risk is measured by the the intelligence of the owner, rather than the genetic breeding of the dog is laughable - 'one has a phd in astrophysics, therefore one's dog will not bite an innocent child' - 'I've got a A level in woodwork, therefore there is an increased chance my dog will be aggressive' 'I have no qualifications , so me dog will bite someone' don't be daft - if you choose a dog bred for power, aggression and jaw strength,it's more likely to attack and will do more damage if it does - I have no idea (or interest) in the intelligence of the man whose dog mauled a child and who responded by giving a false name and running off, he's a scumbag and his choice of dog led to terrible injury to a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 don't be daft - if you choose a dog bred for power, aggression and jaw strength,it's more likely to attack and will do more damage if it does - I have no idea (or interest) in the intelligence of the man whose dog mauled a child and who responded by giving a false name and running off, he's a scumbag and his choice of dog led to terrible injury to a child. No it isn't more likely to attack, smaller breads are more likely to bite someone, and it’s just that larger breads do more damage so end up in the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 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? I can define a 'safER' breed - it is one without breeding for power, strength and jaw strength, it is one of the many bred for being a house pet. the child in this case wasn't maimed by a yorkie, it was maimed by a 'bull terrier'. if my dog went berserk, (god forbid), she couldn't inflict terrible injuries cos she wasn't bred for the ability to do so, she is not bred for power , aggression and jaw strength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 yes it is, the delusional nature of dangerous dog ownwers is all the clearer - the idea that risk is measured by the the intelligence of the owner, rather than the genetic breeding of the dog is laughable - 'one has a phd in astrophysics, therefore one's dog will not bite an innocent child' - 'I've got a A level in woodwork, therefore there is an increased chance my dog will be aggressive' 'I have no qualifications , so me dog will bite someone' don't be daft - if you choose a dog bred for power, aggression and jaw strength,it's more likely to attack and will do more damage if it does - I have no idea (or interest) in the intelligence of the man whose dog mauled a child and who responded by giving a false name and running off, he's a scumbag and his choice of dog led to terrible injury to a child. Frank, I and others have made perfectly reasoned arguements re all the above, and none of it has sunk in has it. Well you're boring me now, and I'm not going to go over the same old ground again and again. So you carry on with your 'thoughts' if we can call them that, on the matter, but I'm moving on. Goodnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Frank, I and others have made perfectly reasoned arguements re all the above, and none of it has sunk in has it. Well you're boring me now, and I'm not going to go over the same old ground again and again. So you carry on with your 'thoughts' if we can call them that, on the matter, but I'm moving on. Goodnight. newbiz, thank you for your 'perfectly reasoned' arguments, it was lovely,- no it hasn't 'sunk in', if you can't handle argument then lose one and scuttle off, no-one will think any the worse of you, just that you can't handle criticism and prefer the mass delusion of your own kind. meanwhile, a child lies terrbly injured and a fellow aggressive dog owner is looking at a stretch in jail. off you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I can define a 'safER' breed - it is one without breeding for power, strength and jaw strength, it is one of the many bred for being a house pet. the child in this case wasn't maimed by a yorkie, it was maimed by a 'bull terrier'. if my dog went berserk, (god forbid), she couldn't inflict terrible injuries cos she wasn't bred for the ability to do so, she is not bred for power , aggression and jaw strength Not certain that any have been bred for the purpose of being a house pet, more a case of them being reduced to that over the years. You clearly have a problem with Bull breeds without knowing much about them. You're not alone. Most people whose only dealings with them are printed on newspaper are blind to the breed facts. Your eagerness to lump Akita's and Mastiff types in one pool along with Bull breeds and Pitbulls shows your lack of knowledge which is fine. Those that have them and are in control of them know differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 As stated in an earlier post I don't own any dog, aggressive or otherwise. Please do at least read the posts you're 'responding' to. Goodnight Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 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. So you're comparing the behaviour of breeds of dog's owned (usually) by social inadequates to the relatively small disadvantages a mode of travel which has revolutionised the way of life for billions of people all around the world, brings?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 So you're comparing the behaviour of breeds of dog's owned (usually) by social inadequates to the relatively small disadvantages a mode of travel which has revolutionised the way of life for billions of people all around the world, brings?! I know with your small brain you are finding this difficult to understand but I am comparing the owners of the car and dog and not the dog and car, the owners are responsable for both. The owner of the dog and car are responsible when either causes injury to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Not certain that any have been bred for the purpose of being a house pet, more a case of them being reduced to that over the years. You clearly have a problem with Bull breeds without knowing much about them. You're not alone. Most people whose only dealings with them are printed on newspaper are blind to the breed facts. Your eagerness to lump Akita's and Mastiff types in one pool along with Bull breeds and Pitbulls shows your lack of knowledge which is fine. Those that have them and are in control of them know differently. Yes I agree, Frank doesn't seem to know one breed of dog from another, nor what they were originally bred to do. He just seems intent on going on about breeds bred for 'power, aggression and jaw strength' which of course could incude Newfoundland, St Bernard, Husky, a multitude of small terriers, all fighting dogs (which were bred for their aggression towards other dogs, and not people) Doberman (which I believe pound for pound has one of, if not the strongest jaws, and about which you rarely hear a bad word) and many others. Still, there's often no reasoning with a ferociously held belief based on 'gut instinct' is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.