shome42

Yes, but in our society, we allow every human, including children, individual freedoms at the expense of complete security. We don't extend animals that same courtesy.

Viti

You can have wolf hybrids in some states. You can have wolf-dogs where I live. You can have coyotes and tigers and whatever else you want...but because they are wild animals you have to have a special license and the county will inspect your facilities.

Most cities require a dog be on a leash and can and will fine an owner that allows their dog to roam free or is threatening in any way. Most places do require a secure enclosure for dogs. Where do you live that dog attacks are so common and dogs are simply wandering around unleashed and ready to for violence?

shome42

Compile a list of all dogs that have ever attacked people. Figure out what breeds have been most likely to attack people in the past, then make those illegal.

Dr Rick

Right, and dog ownership is an exercise of those individual freedoms at the expense of complete security, and yet one that gives many individuals more security and protection.

brighid

A properly trained dog will not attack or harm a person without direct instruction from the owner. It is irresponsible owners, or irresponsible breeders that produce defective and or viscious dogs.

I have owned three doberman pinchers in my lifetime. We presently own one we rescued from an abusive situation. My husband has been raised with German Sheppards. I have been bitten twice in my lifetime - once by a Jack Russel mix and once by a cocker spaniel. As a child I rode my dobes like horses, children freely came in and out of our yards, screaming and yelling, pulled the dogs ears, tails, opened their mouths and rough housed with the dogs. NEVER has a dog we owned and trained bit a child, or even an adult. They did treat adults differently, but rightfully so.

I have a very close friend that breed Brazilian Filas (a very large breed dog that is known for it's aggressive nature). His dogs (one male and one female) WILL NOT even under aggressive circumstances disobey his commands. They are properly trained and controlled animals. They are also well bred animals. Dogs, like children, are a reflection of their "owners" and parents. I would also poorly trained people interacting with dogs are more to blame then a dog reacting as a dog does.

I regularly attend doberman functions in our area, as well as demonstrations provided by schools who train in Schutzhund and personal protection dogs. Dogs, properly trained will not act out of hand. The problem is not the dog, but the owner or in some cases the breeder. Direct your anger where it should be and it is misplaced directed at all dogs because some have harmed humans.

Brighid

Viti

LOL...most dogs that attack are small yappy things. Cocker Spaniels are known biters as are Pekignese.

All dog breeds can attack...a Chihuahua is just as likely to bite as a Rottweiler...they simply can't cause as much damage.

shome42

Ok, good point. Compile a list of all dogs that have ever attacked people and have been large enough to do significant damage to them.

Viti

All dog breeds have attacked or bitten somewhere at some time. Labs are among the friendliest of dogs but still have been known to attack under certain circumstances. As Brighid said, direct your anger at the source...irresponsible owners and breeders.

shome42

Wait a minute, this is a unique case. Surely people are able to excercise their freedoms, but in this case the end result is a potentially dangerous being with a mind of its own. When else does that happen in society?

What if I started building protection robots tomorrow that were capable of killing people? In fact, that would be their goal if need be. That's the same goal of a guard dog, right? How would you feel about me building these Killer Protector Robots(tm)?

Most people would not approve of building such robots, despite the fact that computers are more reliable than animals.

Farren

shome42, your bias is showing. Some of us have vastly more respect for other life forms than the law accords them.

Just because a courtesy isn't extended by law to another creature doesn't mean it shouldn't be accorded.

Sure, our inability to communicate concepts such as law to an animal make it difficult to consider giving it the latitude that we would give an adult human.

But Dr Rick's comparison was fair. A child shows an equal lack of judgement and can do some downright stupid and dangerous things. My brother set a blaze when he was young that burned all the dry grass in an 8 hectare area to the ground and burned down a plant nursery to boot.

Nonetheless we endure the difficulties of having to deal with children out of love and compassion.

Some of us feel that that level of compassion should be extended to other species, because we respect and cherish other life forms.

The comparison of a dog to a gun or a car betrays a mindset that sees an animal as a "thing" rather than a "being", an object or cute toy.

There is a massive and demonstrable difference. The very quality which you criticise, the ability of the animal to act according to its own thoughts, is what elevates it above cars and guns.

The law, which you've used as the basis of your moral argument even recognises this by not criminalising cruelty to guns or cruelty to cars.

You can't argue from consistency that because x, an object, is restricted or should be, that y, a being should be similarly treated. They're categorically different. Some common qualities can be examined usefully, but your OP (a retard with a gun) goes too far.

Animals are not just dangerous toys. They are not robots. They are not alarm systems.