Changes to dangerous dog act.

ST4 said:
Is it cost effective for the good it would cause over a banket ban of dangerous dogs, would it be adhered to. They used to have dog licence I will concede.

I still don't get why those need to own rotties when a small spaniel would do? Much less potential danger
Click to expand...

You really arent doing yourself any favours here.

Why own a Ferrari when a nice little Fiat 500 will do.... Its called freedom of choice.
 
ST4 said:
I still don't get why those need to own rotties when a small spaniel would do? Much less potential danger
Click to expand...

You quite literally have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
You really arent doing yourself any favours here.

Why own a Ferrari when a nice little Fiat 500 will do.... Its called freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

Gun owners weren't given this, why exactly should dog owners be? Ferrari owners aren't given higher speed limits to drive at? Why should people who say, I am good at handling dogs be justified in owning a killer beast. If I told you I am the stig, would you be ok with me driving 210mph down the M1
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Gun owners weren't given this, why exactly should dog owners be? Ferrari owners aren't given higher speed limits to drive at?
Click to expand...

No, they are not given higher speed limits, but I personally have seen many high powered 'super cars' on the roads that are being driven faster than they should be (faster than a Fiat 500 can go).
 
Nikon_Nick said:
No, they are not given higher speed limits, but I personally have seen many high powered 'super cars' on the roads that are being driven faster than they should be (faster than a Fiat 500 can go).
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I have seen many people with dogs they can't control. Difference is licence can be taken away from bad driver before they do something really bad, not so with dogs. Its only after the attack or dead baby thats said dog is removed. All drivers also go through some profiency test, what tests do people who own dogs go through?
 
Last edited:
*Sigh*

You are completely 100% correct in everything you say.


..really cant be arsed. Ive never encountered a more closed minded individual. Well done. Ill let you go back to your joyless, hate-filled existence.
 
ST4 said:
More rhetoric? Listen, you do not know me. I'd refrain from personal remarks.
Click to expand...

Well what is the point in having a conversation with someone with no ability to consider all sides?
 
Nikon_Nick said:
*Sigh*

You are completely 100% correct in everything you say.


..really cant be arsed. Ive never encountered a more closed minded individual. Well done. Ill let you go back to your joyless, hate-filled existence.
Click to expand...

:plus1: :-)
 
Just for the record, ive been attacked by a large dog (GSD) in a park when I was younger, and my dog has been attacked by a Staffie whilst at an obediance class, as the owner had no control. Fairly nasty experiences, that didnt for one minute make me think that the owners were not fully to blame for those incidents. Ive managed to keep an open mind about these things, and I also told you about my firearms experiences, and my thoughts on the banning of handguns.

So from my side? All pretty balanced opinion id say.
 
I've been attacked by a dog, but I realised it wasn't the person who owned the dog biting me, but the dog itself...

Sometimes the owner appologises and cares, other times they dont give a [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. Eitherway, its the dog that bites, not the owner.
Its a bit like these physco druggie chavs the wishy washy say oh they never had a chance in life, they had a bad child hood blah blah blah. So its ok for them to mug old ladies for scagg?
 
Last edited:
But why did the dog bite you? Did the owner have full control of the dog? Was the dog on a lead?
 
If my penis didnt exist id be called Nicola!

The owner didnt have control, that is the important part here. If the owner had control, there wouldnt have been an issue.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
If my penis didnt exist id be called Nicola!

The owner didnt have control, that is the important part here. If the owner had control, there wouldnt have been an issue.
Click to expand...

Owner didn't give a toss, but I've walked by a dog walker with a dog on lead and it lept on me, I have a bad back, it hurt. I had no other route, I am fed up with dog owners and their dogs making my life more awkward and unpleasant than it needs to be. Dog owner didn't know dog was going to jump. Its an animal capable of independent thought and action. Thats the point I am trying to make. its why I believe a blanket ban would really help solve these child hood attacks.

No dogs, no more attack victims.
 
But your talking about it like the bad luck that you have had is exactly the same experiences that every other dog hater has had. Youve been unlucky, so this must happen everywhere to everybody else...
 
Nikon_Nick said:
But your talking about it like the bad luck that you have had is exactly the same experiences that every other dog hater has had. Youve been unlucky, so this must happen everywhere to everybody else...
Click to expand...

I never said that, I know many who are uneasy with dogs who've never been bit. I know of many who simply wouldn't want a dog and I have friends with dogs too. I am not a dog person.

A bit a bit like the guns, and fast cars speeding drivers/drink drivers they need regulated for the safety of others. Even if you've never been a victim of a drink driver or drunk drive and been fine, surely you can see why regulating drink driving is a good idea.I feel the same about dogs. There is no smoke without fire and there are too many incidents with dogs for society not to demand something be done about it. However much the dog owning fraternity protest, for the greater good change is needed, be it barring certain breeds, certain people keeping dogs but change is coming, and imho for the good of us all.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I never said that, I know many who are uneasy with dogs who've never been bit. I know of many who simply wouldn't want a dog and I have friends with dogs too. I am not a dog person.

A bit a bit like the guns, and fast cars speeding drivers/drink drivers they need regulated for the safety of others. Even if you've never been a victim of a drink driver or drunk drive and been fine, surely you can see why regulating drink driving is a good idea.I feel the same about dogs. There is no smoke without fire and there are too many incidents with dogs for society not to demand something be done about it. However much the dog owning fraternity protest, for the greater good change is needed, be it barring certain breeds, certain people keeping dogs but change is coming, and imho for the good of us all.
Click to expand...

And ive already stated that I think there should be licensing for dog ownership...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Nikon_Nick said:
And ive already stated that I think there should be licensing for dog ownership...
Click to expand...

I favour this, but I also favour the banning of keeping of certain breeds being pragmatic. What I'd love is dog ownership outlawed, which realistically won't ever happen or is fair, but I'd like it. But I simply don't like dogs. Certain breeds (these pitbull type things) to start with.

I'd be more tolerant if there were public parks and areas that were dog free and enforced dog free zones. I hate that the only nice place near me to go get a walk is a no go area due to the dog walkers and these bouding 4 legged creatures. Even if there were times in the days dogs were not allowed, it would give those who wish not to be near dogs, to go there.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I'd be more tolerant if there were public parks and areas that were dog free and enforced dog free zones. I hate that the only nice place near me to go get a walk is a no go area due to the dog walkers and these bouding 4 legged creatures. Even if there were times in the days dogs were not allowed, it would give those who wish not to be near dogs, to go there.
Click to expand...

...and that is probably the most common sense thing you said so far! Dog licencing will not work, simply because its aims currently are misguided. Like the idiots that drive cars unlicenced/uninsured, like the illegal guns, like gangs carrying knives...yes, punishments are in place IF you are caught, but they take the risk because the chances of getting caught are still relatively slim and all too often a tragedy has already occurred before you get within a sniff [pun intended] of catching them. Dog licencing will be exactly the same - the people it aims to crack down on in the main, are the ones that won't bother with it and the chances of them getting caught are relatively slim so they will take the risk. [this is just my opinion btw] However, I CAN very much see an argument for parks/open spaces having dog free and dog specific areas to give everyone some choice - however, THAT kind of common sense would cost money to build fences for the councils/government, an ill thought out licencing system will bring money in, of course.
 
And leads/muzzles in public. It would sort that issue out, but the whole child death/dog attack thing, what do of that. These pittbul breeds need banned and confiscation of them en mass enforced to prevent further breeding.
 
ST4 said:
And leads/muzzles in public. It would sort that issue out, but the whole child death/dog attack thing, what do of that. These pittbul breeds need banned and confiscation of them en mass enforced to prevent further breeding.
Click to expand...

Pit bulls are already banned.

And confiscated... what would you do with the dogs then? Would you really be OK with mass slaughter?
How about the fact that many many of these dogs make up a part of a loving family. They have their own character and place in the home, they are a part of family life. You are advocating mass slaughter of an innocent family member with absolutely no thought for how these families will feel.

You need to get a grip. There are solutions to the problem and no sane person would choose mass slaugher and banning over education and better laws underpinning dog ownership.
 
.[/quote]
RichardtheSane said:
Pit bulls are already banned.

And confiscated... what would you do with the dogs then? Would you really be OK with mass slaughter?
.
Click to expand...

Yes
RichardtheSane said:
How about the fact that many many of these dogs make up a part of a loving family. They have their own character and place in the home, they are a part of family life. You are advocating mass slaughter of an innocent family member with absolutely no thought for how these families will feel.

You need to get a grip. There are solutions to the problem and no sane person would choose mass slaugher and banning over education and better laws underpinning dog ownership.
Click to expand...

Its a dog, not a family member. A child is a family member. A dog is a dog. Would any sane person argue a dog is their flesh and blood the way a child is. if you would, you need to get a grip. These things pose a danger to young children, they should not be around them. Its too big a risk. You need to smell the coffee on this one, just many mawled kids who's lives are ruined by so called pets can we have as a society just so some other family can call a killer beast fido and throw bits of wood around a park for it to pick up.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
.

Yes


Its a dog, not a family member. A child is a family member. A dog is a dog. Would any sane person argue a dog is their flesh and blood the way a child is. if you would, you need to get a grip. These things pose a danger to young children, they should not be around them. Its too big a risk. You need to smell the coffee on this one, just many mawled kids who's lives are ruined by so called pets can we have as a society just so some other family can call a killer beast fido and throw bits of wood around a park for it to pick up.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention flesh and blood? Oh that's right, I didn't. Where did I mention a child? Oh that's also right, I didn't. You inferred that so you could carry on arguing with your very peculiar logic.

You have successfully established with your abhorrent views that you are not worth the waste of effort involved in discussing this. Fortunately for the rest of the animal loving country you are in the significant minority.
 
Last edited:
RichardtheSane said:
Yes


Its a dog, not a family member. A child is a family member. A dog is a dog. Would any sane person argue a dog is their flesh and blood the way a child is. if you would, you need to get a grip. These things pose a danger to young children, they should not be around them. Its too big a risk. You need to smell the coffee on this one, just many mawled kids who's lives are ruined by so called pets can we have as a society just so some other family can call a killer beast fido and throw bits of wood around a park for it to pick up.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention flesh and blood? Oh that's right, I didn't. Where did I mention a child? Oh that's also right, I didn't. You inferred that so you could carry on arguing with your very peculiar logic.

You have successfully established with your abhorrent views that you are not worth the waste of effort involved in discussing this. Fortunately for the rest of the animal loving country you are in the significant minority.[/quote]

Family is flesh and blood, family is people. Family, is not a dog, unless you are a dog.

I could say your views are abhorrent as they go against keeping the young and vulnerable safe and go against keeping people free from fear in their communities. No, you favour the well fair of a dog over people. Thats abhorrent.

Maybe I am fortunate I don't need the slavish following of an animal to validate my life, maybe others do. But they are risking the safety of others. Facts are these dogs are dangerous, fact is, children would be safer without them present, fact is, its safer to ban them completely.
 
neil_g said:
So you mean ANY dog?

Or are we just taking about the stereotypes that the media and people like yourself like to bang on about?
Click to expand...

No-ones actually answered my question, perhaps you fancy a pop?

Can someone please explain why they need to own a dog capable of tearing a human being apart?

I'd love to know why someone would want to own something that would be capable of that, and why they make good family pets.
 
ST4 said:
No-ones actually answered my question, perhaps you fancy a pop?

Can someone please explain why they need to own a dog capable of tearing a human being apart?

I'd love to know why someone would want to own something that would be capable of that, and why they make good family pets.
Click to expand...

And I want to know what your definition of a dog that is capable of tearing someone apart is. Because at the moment your argument is ridiculous.

ST4 said:
People make better companions. I pity those who relate to dogs/cats better than people.
Click to expand...
Good grief.

To be honest with your attitude id prefer an animal.

And for the record I don't own a dog. Your attitude is that stupid.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
No-ones actually answered my question, perhaps you fancy a pop?

Can someone please explain why they need to own a dog capable of tearing a human being apart?

I'd love to know why someone would want to own something that would be capable of that, and why they make good family pets.
Click to expand...

In words of one syllable that even you might comprehend

THEY DON'T.

But as any reasonable person would accept (but not you) not all dogs are killers, and the ones that are, are usually owned by people as blinkered as you, but opposite.
 
View attachment 11660 I have one of these
I will never let her do something I wouldn't want her to do and for safety's sake she is very very well trained.
She had been barked at by more small nasty little dogs and has never barked back!
 
Tigger.ufo said:
In words of one syllable that even you might comprehend

THEY DON'T.

But as any reasonable person would accept (but not you) not all dogs are killers, and the ones that are, are usually owned by people as blinkered as you, but opposite.
Click to expand...

So those people with the dog that mawled their baby wanted their kid dead?

Face the innconvienient truth, dogs are dangerous and this law if its enforced and embraced will make things better for families with children.
 
ST4 said:
So those people with the dog that mawled their baby wanted their kid dead?

Face the innconvienient truth, dogs are dangerous and this law if its enforced and embraced will make things better for families with children.
Click to expand...

The baby was mauled by a dog that was got by the father of the baby from a bloke down the pub a matter of days before the attack and the dog was left alone with the baby.

The father of the baby was a complete idiot.

How about YOU facing up to the truth which is that OWNERS are the problem, not the dogs.
 
ST4 said:
Family is flesh and blood, family is people. Family, is not a dog, unless you are a dog.
Click to expand...
Family is more than that. I'm sorry you don't see it that way but that is your problem not mine.

I could say your views are abhorrent as they go against keeping the young and vulnerable safe and go against keeping people free from fear in their communities.
Click to expand...
You could say that, but you would be wrong. Possibly because you are being overly dramatic but mostly because you don't actually know what my views are with the exception of how a dog fits into the family.

No, you favour the well fair of a dog over people. Thats abhorrent.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are inferring things based on your on peculiar logic. Unless, of course, you can point out where I said that?

Maybe I am fortunate I don't need the slavish following of an animal to validate my life, maybe others do.
Click to expand...
Did you say that just to be inflammatory? I'm suspecting so.

But they are risking the safety of others.
Click to expand...
A few maybe, most are not.

Facts are these dogs are dangerous
Click to expand...
Wrong, it's not fact.

fact is, children would be safer without them present, fact is, its safer to ban them completely.
Click to expand...

Where would you end striving for safety? As I said before, should we ban cars? Should we ban knives? It is safer to ban those completely as a lot more people get injured or killed by them each year than by dogs.
 
neil_g said:
And I want to know what your definition of a dog that is capable of tearing someone apart is. Because at the moment your argument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Jack Russells, which of course are Small Terriers ... one killed a baby a short while ago, so that's it, KILL EM ALL, get rid of ALL small terriers!! Don't worry, all the thousands of innocent ones are insignificant, the working ones that deal with rats and other vermin, pah, let the vermin go wild, ther are not enough rats the world... oh yes, I forgot, many smaller terrier type dogs are used as disability assistance dogs, they can go too, not needed by that wheelchair bound person that is home all day on their own and requires a hand [paw] here and there, they could be done untold amounts of injury by that trained animal suddenly going tonto.

Shall I stop now?

ST4 said:
So those people with the dog that mawled their baby wanted their kid dead?

Face the innconvienient truth, dogs are dangerous and this law if its enforced and embraced will make things better for families with children.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!?! You can choose not to own a dog if you think that is better for your family, but if you choose to own one, then you should also choose to use some common sense and never leave a child alone with a dog, regardless of how trustworthy you think it is. It isn't rocket science and it doesn't require any kind of legislation, it just requires that people switch their bloody brains on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top