Nice try, but when someone is drunk they are in the car but the car is clearly NOT under control. Get it? A dog does not let itself loose to go out and kill. Just as the car needs a human to put it in a situation where it is a dangerous weapon a dog requires a human to allow it to do the same. Dogs are property. Legally they have as much freewill as a table. If I drive like a maniac and kill someone I cannot turn around and blame the car. If my dog kills someone (who didn’t deserve it) I can’t tell the cops I am innocent and say it was all HIS idea.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Not one poster has stated that the entire breed is a monster.[/quote]
Nobody acussed you of saying that. You did say most people buy them for the wrong reasons though.
[quote]
Another aspect of that problem is the fear of those dogs that this creates. Something else I have stated time and again. I have stated the problem.[/quote]
I don’t agree that the fear that the dogs create would be part of the problem of the dog owners. That’s just ridiculous. Because people are affraid of something, certain restrictions should be put on it?
That is not another part of the problem, IMO. It’s the problem of the ignorant person who is afraid of the dog.
If I have a fear of mice, and I show pictures and reports of the diseases that they have caused in people, should they be made more difficult to have as pets than other pets? (rhetorical question)
And if I am a poor 12 yr old whose mother is on welfare who are you going to sue? Good luck proving the dog is even mine.
Irresponsible people are often people who have nothing to lose.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
derek wrote:
Listening to you, perhaps banning and/or killing the majority of male humans would be a good idea. I mean look at all the prisons loaded with violent adult male humans! Oh, sure SOME OF US behave but we can’t risk one more violent attack.
I was going to make an analogy along these lines, but I don’t think she would get it. The majority of domestic violence is cause by males. Are all men evil?
I also thinks it speaks volumes that no one else has taken Octogirls side on this “problem”.[/quote]
I am not the only one that has stated they understand the reason for the ban.
We’ve even had posters on here who have suffered attacks or had family members attacked.
If you want me to stop making sweeping statements, don’t make statements about what my opinions are regarding anything outside of this topic.
The car analogy, not good, the gas analogy, even worse. Me saying men in prisons, that is so stupid and I don’t think even you believe that.
We don’t agree.
It all comes down to perspective and everything that we’ve experienced that creates and opinion.
We also disagree about who is the minority/majority of owners.
We could spend many posts dragging out link after link, statistic after statistic to support either side.
I never said I want all those dogs killed and I have said that more than once but you continue to LIE and say that is what I am saying. Stop lying about my posts and what I posted.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I have never seen a car drive itself into car after car, attacking those other vehicles, without the presence of the owner. Does this happen often where you live?
If so then yes, that would make the car analogy a good one.
[/quote]
You must not live near any hills or ice.
Parking brakes fail all of the time, and cars drift away under the force of gravity, smashing in to people and buildings.
Drivers lose control of cars and trucks on ice, skidding, crashing, and killing many people, year after year.
These are caused by properties of nature(gravity,friction,inertia), but they are made wors by the sheer size and composition of the vehicles.
The analogy is good.
Your fear prevents you from accepting that though.
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Not one poster has stated that the entire breed is a monster.
Nobody acussed you of saying that. You did say most people buy them for the wrong reasons though.
Another aspect of that problem is the fear of those dogs that this creates. Something else I have stated time and again. I have stated the problem.
I don’t agree that the fear that the dogs create would be part of the problem of the dog owners. That’s just ridiculous. Because people are affraid of something, certain restrictions should be put on it?
That is not another part of the problem, IMO. It’s the problem of the ignorant person who is afraid of the dog.
If I have a fear of mice, and I show pictures and reports of the diseases that they have caused in people, should they be made more difficult to have as pets than other pets? (rhetorical question)[/quote]
Thanks for addressing my post so well! I can follow what you are saying and I hope you can expand on that.
Don’t you think the fear is the problem? That is what is driving the ban. You seem to be saying that people do not have a basis for the fear and it is out of ignorance. I do disagree.
I suppose that is the crux of the two sides of this thread.
A mouse will not go on a rampage and kill me.
The fear of these dogs is even part of the thrill some of the dog owners get.
Maybe instead of a total ban cities should start with the ban, as I said, of no violent offenders, drug users, or maybe anyone under the age of consent, owning these dogs. That might be a good place to start.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I have never seen a car drive itself into car after car, attacking those other vehicles, without the presence of the owner. Does this happen often where you live?
If so then yes, that would make the car analogy a good one.
You must not live near any hills or ice.
Parking brakes fail all of the time, and cars drift away under the force of gravity, smashing in to people and buildings.
Drivers lose control of cars and trucks on ice, skidding, crashing, and killing many people, year after year.
These are caused by properties of nature(gravity,friction,inertia), but they are made wors by the sheer size and composition of the vehicles.
The analogy is good.
Your fear prevents you from accepting that though.
[/quote]
No it isn’t.
The car does not put itself on ice! The car does not then put ITSELF into reverse and go attack another car. The car does not decide to jump its fence and go after the neighbor’s cat.
Your stubborness will not allow you to admit that analogy sucks.
stop beating that dead horse.
[quote]DM246 wrote:
SBT wrote:
First of all, sorry to hear about your past experiences.
But you are right, these instances were the result of irresonsible owners. So why am I, as a resonsible owner, facing the fact that some day, someone is likely to come take my dog?
I’m all for licensing, tests, classes, whatever it takes to keep my right as a resonsible dog owner to have my beloved Staffie.
I hate irresponsible owners… of any pet.
As my favorite saying goes, “Ban stupid people, not dogs.”
I liken the dog issue to the gun control issue.
When a child gets shot/killed by a unsecured gun the media immediately cries for gun control legislation. Same happens when a Pit or Rottweiler attacks someone.
I am a gun owner and I am no more in favor of taking your dog via legislation than I am for legislated gun control.
I am also for responsible ownership. Fears about certain breeds (and guns)will dissipate when irresponsible ownership is eliminated. That may ultimately be a bridge too far.
My shotgun is only a danger to a would be criminal who attempts to enter my home uninvited. For him/her my Winchester will be the instrument of his/her execution. That doesn’t always comfort other parents who fear the presence of a gun in a home.
In both of my bad experiences the dogs were used primarily for utilitarian purposes so I applaud your love for your dog. Loving a pet reduces the potential for irresponsible behavior.
Irresponsible use of a firearm results in life changing civil and criminal consequences for the owner. I accept this as fact and mitigate the personal risk by being a responsible gun owner. Dog owners must do the same.
[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am also a gun owner and have made gun safety a priority. I also realize that most dog problems are do to irresponsible owners.
But I would still protect me and my own. A dog that I deem aggressive and deadly and acting in such a way as for me to believe that will be killed.
I am responsible for my actions when I treat patients, drive a car, owning property, and using my firearms.
Dog owners that do not control their animals should face fines, jail time, and financial responsibility. The problem I see is the irresponsible person with nothing to lose and no assets. These people should face felony charges in case of a serious injury, due to serious neglect, just as a person who causes an injury while driving drunk.
I love dogs and won’t say a person can’t own any particular breed, but they should face serious punishment if they don’t uphold their end of the bargain.
[quote]DM246 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
But first, this must be addressed. Like someone else said, by asking for a solution, you’re implying there’s a problem. What is the problem?
The problem is irresponsible owners not protecting their dogs from the potential for tragedy.
Too many owners mistake their dogs’ gentle actions around the family as a sign they won’t hurt others. Just because Pluto likes you kids doesn’t mean he extends the same courtesy to mine. The owner of the two Pits that nearly killed my son complained about his dogs being put down because they were so “gentle” with his kids.
Well, no fuking sht!!! Those two beasts nearly killed my 42 pound kid and he thinks they are gentle??? Guess what? Ted Bundy’s mom thought he was sweet too.
I don’t care if you keep a Pit (or Rott) in your yard. However, it is incumbent upon you to make darn sure it is impossible for the dog to ever get the opportunity to come into the street or my yard to attack my kids
Failing in that responsibility will lead to two actions on my part.
-
I will execute the dog(s) involved in the attack.
-
My lawyer will take your house.
[/quote]
Thank you for responding intelligently and making sense. I see no problem with what you say, I just hope you extend the same courtesy to all dog breeds.
As far as Octobergirl, you are a lost confused person. I don’t know what you can’t see in the analogies and I don’t know why you can’t see the flaws in your argument so I give up. You’re not worth debating.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
derek wrote:
Listening to you, perhaps banning and/or killing the majority of male humans would be a good idea. I mean look at all the prisons loaded with violent adult male humans! Oh, sure SOME OF US behave but we can’t risk one more violent attack.
The car analogy, not good, the gas analogy, even worse. Me saying men in prisons, that is so stupid and I don’t think even you believe that.
[/quote]
My analogy is actually pretty damned accurate. It sounds silly because it is (just as silly as some of the stuff I’ve read here)
It’s like the woman in her husband’s fishing boat who was fined for fishing without a license… She says " But I’m not fishing" the officer tells her “Well you have all the equipment, therefore you must be fishing.” She comes back calling the officer a rapist, he says " Ma’am, I haven’t even touched you" she says “Yeah, well you have all the equipment…”
-
All breeds have been known to attack unprovoked.
-
I have been bitten by a Golden Retriever, a Schauzer-type dog, and a cat. I have NEVER been so much as barked at by the “dangerous” breeds having had tons more exposure to them than any other breed.
-
Dogs that attack people are either provoked (or believe they are in danger) or owned by assholes and are taught to attack.
-
Banning ownership a specific breed is coming awful close to the “logic” of racism.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And if I am a poor 12 yr old whose mother is on welfare who are you going to sue? Good luck proving the dog is even mine.
Irresponsible people are often people who have nothing to lose. [/quote]
Except that my neighborhood doesn’t contain any poor 12 year olds with mothers on welfare.
Proving the dog is yours is easier than you think when a dog mauls a small child. You would be amazed at the number of people who come out of the woodwork to offer eyewitness reports.
The owner of the two Pits that mauled my son seriously considered withdrawing his consent to have his dogs put down. I laughed and told him his dogs would not survive 24 hours if he brought them back into the neighborhood. I told him about the six different people who had already stopped by to tell me of their intentions to kill his dogs if they weren’t euthanized. Some of these people weren’t even my neighbors. They were just grandparents and other relatives who feared for the safety of other little kids in the neighborhood. One was even an older gentleman who had terminal cancer and had been told he had six months to live. He saw this as something he could do to protect his grandchildren.
The owner finally decided that euthanasia was more humane than poisoning or shotgun blasts.
That and the fact that his homeowners insurance was going to require a huge bond if he kept the dogs.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
DM246 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
But first, this must be addressed. Like someone else said, by asking for a solution, you’re implying there’s a problem. What is the problem?
The problem is irresponsible owners not protecting their dogs from the potential for tragedy.
Too many owners mistake their dogs’ gentle actions around the family as a sign they won’t hurt others. Just because Pluto likes you kids doesn’t mean he extends the same courtesy to mine. The owner of the two Pits that nearly killed my son complained about his dogs being put down because they were so “gentle” with his kids.
Well, no fuking sht!!! Those two beasts nearly killed my 42 pound kid and he thinks they are gentle??? Guess what? Ted Bundy’s mom thought he was sweet too.
I don’t care if you keep a Pit (or Rott) in your yard. However, it is incumbent upon you to make darn sure it is impossible for the dog to ever get the opportunity to come into the street or my yard to attack my kids
Failing in that responsibility will lead to two actions on my part.
-
I will execute the dog(s) involved in the attack.
-
My lawyer will take your house.
Thank you for responding intelligently and making sense. I see no problem with what you say, I just hope you extend the same courtesy to all dog breeds.
As far as Octobergirl, you are a lost confused person. I don’t know what you can’t see in the analogies and I don’t know why you can’t see the flaws in your argument so I give up. You’re not worth debating.[/quote]
Did you just realize you can’t twist my posts or say that I want all men in prison?
And of course you then have to resort to personal insults. Very big of you.
We just don’t agree.
[quote]derek wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
derek wrote:
Listening to you, perhaps banning and/or killing the majority of male humans would be a good idea. I mean look at all the prisons loaded with violent adult male humans! Oh, sure SOME OF US behave but we can’t risk one more violent attack.
The car analogy, not good, the gas analogy, even worse. Me saying men in prisons, that is so stupid and I don’t think even you believe that.
My analogy is actually pretty damned accurate. It sounds silly because it is (just as silly as some of the stuff I’ve read here)
It’s like the woman in her husband’s fishing boat who was fined for fishing without a license… She says " But I’m not fishing" the officer tells her “Well you have all the equipment, therefore you must be fishing.” She comes back calling the officer a rapist, he says " Ma’am, I haven’t even touched you" she says “Yeah, well you have all the equipment…”
-
All breeds have been known to attack unprovoked.
-
I have been bitten by a Golden Retriever, a Schauzer-type dog, and a cat. I have NEVER been so much as barked at by the “dangerous” breeds having had tons more exposure to them than any other breed.
-
Dogs that attack people are either provoked (or believe they are in danger) or owned by assholes and are taught to attack.
-
Banning ownership a specific breed is coming awful close to the “logic” of racism.[/quote]
Why would you say I want to put all men in prison? You didn’t say “people”, you had to make your analogy personal. You really do not know me to make such statements. You were just being insulting.
I agree that bad owners have bad pets.
There has always been pet legislation and code enforcement.
What I offered up in my posts was an explanation for the fear. I never said kill the dogs, I never even stated whether or not I support the ban. But you decided that I did.
I have suggested what I thought was a good solution but those posts have also been ignored.
And you have been personally attacking me.
[quote]DM246 wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
And if I am a poor 12 yr old whose mother is on welfare who are you going to sue? Good luck proving the dog is even mine.
Irresponsible people are often people who have nothing to lose.
Except that my neighborhood doesn’t contain any poor 12 year olds with mothers on welfare.
Proving the dog is yours is easier than you think when a dog mauls a small child. You would be amazed at the number of people who come out of the woodwork to offer eyewitness reports.
The owner of the two Pits that mauled my son seriously considered withdrawing his consent to have his dogs put down. I laughed and told him his dogs would not survive 24 hours if he brought them back into the neighborhood. I told him about the six different people who had already stopped by to tell me of their intentions to kill his dogs if they weren’t euthanized. Some of these people weren’t even my neighbors. They were just grandparents and other relatives who feared for the safety of other little kids in the neighborhood. One was even an older gentleman who had terminal cancer and had been told he had six months to live. He saw this as something he could do to protect his grandchildren.
The owner finally decided that euthanasia was more humane than poisoning or shotgun blasts.
That and the fact that his homeowners insurance was going to require a huge bond if he kept the dogs.
[/quote]
I hope your son is well now DM. Sorry that happened. I hope your son outgrows his fear of dogs, if he is afraid, and gets over the trauma of the attack.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
And you have been personally attacking me.
[/quote]
Huh?
OK, you’re beautiful… Now, I’ve personally complimented you!
PS, if me drawing analogies in this thread equals “personally attacking” you, you may want to grow a pair.
Believe me I was NOT “personally attacking” you so don’t make youself out like you’re a victim, it wont fly here. We are engaged in debate. If you can point out where I’ve personally attacked you ANYWHERE, I’ll appologize immediately.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Thank you for responding intelligently and making sense. I see no problem with what you say, I just hope you extend the same courtesy to all dog breeds.[/quote]
Naturally.
At this point in my life any breed that comes into the street or my yard and even growls in the direction of my kids without provocation will be summarily executed with a rifled slug fired from the barrel of my 12 gauge Winchester.
I don’t discriminate.
And THIS is a personal attack?
I thought it was me telling you how your argument appeared to me. Just an analogy, I’m very sorry if you were upset by this.
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person’s claims or comments.
I believed I was adressing your claims and comments and NOT adressing any personal issues.
(By the way, you DO look pretty nice in your avatar!)
[quote]DM246 wrote:
Naturally.
At this point in my life any breed that comes into the street or my yard and even growls in the direction of my kids without provocation will be summarily executed with a rifled slug fired from the barrel of my 12 gauge Winchester.
I don’t discriminate.
[/quote]
I’d be right beside you!
Come on now, we should be getting rid of these dogs. Shit lets ban evry breed of dog that ever hurt of killed a person. I saw a study once that said dogs are dangerous. Kill them
Dont try to ban guns or anything like that. Im sure there a lot safer then dogs.
[quote]derek wrote:
derek wrote:
Listening to you, perhaps banning and/or killing the majority of male humans would be a good idea. I mean look at all the prisons loaded with violent adult male humans! Oh, sure SOME OF US behave but we can’t risk one more violent attack.
And THIS is a personal attack?
I thought it was me telling you how your argument appeared to me. Just an analogy, I’m very sorry if you were upset by this.
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person’s claims or comments.
I believed I was adressing your claims and comments and NOT adressing any personal issues.
(By the way, you DO look pretty nice in your avatar!)
[/quote]
I had taken that analogy as an attack. Thank you for explaining. My mistake. I got caught up in the spirit of things and assumed what you hadn’t intended.
I think this analogy along with one that Nick H. made earlier about making breed specific legislation, do we then make legislation regarding races, ethnic or cultural human groups?
That was a good analogy. As is the one about prisons.
I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know if I am for a complete ban. I do think it would be reasonable to disallow ownership of certain breeds of dogs to violent offenders, drug offenders, or minors under the age of consent. Maybe it should be for all animals as I doubt those groups would be responsible dog owners and as has been said, any dog can attack if provoked.
Again sorry for misunderstanding. You are right, I will grow a pair and not take things personally.