shome42

When a dog is physically strong enough to kill or maim a human, that dog is a dangerous weapon, only that weapon has a will of its own and an underdeveloped mind.

Here's an analogy:

Allowing people to have a dog capable of killing people is like allowing a retard to walk around with a gun. Sure, you can tell the retard not to kill people with it. You can go over the rules with him all you want, but it's still an unsafe proposition.

Or perhaps you would say, well, dogs aren't allowed to walk around; they're confined by their owners. Ok, then we can adjust the analogy: it's like giving a retard a gun to carry around in the house, but you've agreed to not let the retard outdoors.

It's still an unsafe proposition, because you can never be sure the retard will never leave the house.

Same thing with a dog. How do you know one day it won't snap? How can you justify letting something with the intelligence of a baby go around with the ability to kill people at will?

Viti

Did something spark this? I have owned dogs capable of killing, any dog over a certain size has the ability to kill. In fact, I have two dogs right now that probably could kill...but they haven't shown any signs of aggression. Most humans have the ability to kill as well. What is the actual issue here? Dog ownership in general or banning certain breeds or what?

enrious

retard, eh?

shome42

Yes, something did spark this. This article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ussia_dog_dc_1

But I've already felt this way for a while. One time I was at a guy's house who was having a party. He had a dog, and it was pretty friendly to everyone that walked in. Well, another girl walks in and the dog goes crazy, damn near bites her finger off. She was bleeding everywhere. She did absolutely nothing to provoke it, oh, other than starting to panic, which apparently dogs interpret as fear, causing them to attack the person more aggressively.

Oh, and I can't tell you how many people I know that are permanently scarred because they were attacked as dogs by children.

I also had a pet catn that was killed by a dog when I was a child.

Everytime I go into someone's house, and the dog starts barking at me, I think...this dog could be just one, tiny step away from killing or hurting someone, and there's not much anyone can do about it.

Viti

Dogs certainly pick up on your fear of them and they find your fear threatening. A responsible owner understands their dog and will remove them from the situation.

Children are most often bitten because they tend to get in the dogs face and pull their ears or poke their eyes...again, children and dogs should never be left alone together and responsible owners will not allow a child to anttagonize an animal.

shome42

Why are dogs considered any different from wolves, lions, bears or any other animal that is considered too dangerous to have as a pet???

Is it because they're supposedly domesticated? Well, maybe some are, maybe some aren't. How can you tell? Telling whether a dog is dangerous or not is hardly a science. You just never know. One day someone's adorable pooch may attack someone for some stupid reason.

Yes, I think that certain breeds shouldn't be allowed. They're a danger to everyone.

Yes, humans have the power to kill people, but they also have rational minds enough to decide not to kill. Dogs, on the other hand, don't have that mental capacity.

People create the illusion that they have the capacity to control themselves, training them with doggy treats and such. But that's not the same as the dog consciously deciding its actions.

Owning big dogs shouldn't be legal for the same reason it's illegal to own a bear. It doesn't matter if you're convinced that bear has a friendly disposition, or you've trained the bear quite well; the bear is still dangerous and somewhat unpredictable.

Viti

For perspective...about 100 people a year die from taking Tylenol...about 15 die from dog attacks. Of the 4.5 million dog bites a year, 85% do not require medical treatment of any kind (because small non-lethal dogs bite more often than bigger ones capable of causing damage). As a lifelong dog owner, I can tell you that responsible ownership and being smart around strange dogs could prevent most bites.

Dogs are domesticated animals...they are not wolves or bears.

shome42

The absolute number isn't what's important, IMO.

In a civilized society, people are allowed freedoms insofar as those freedoms don't infringe on the freedoms or rights of others, correct?

The freedom to have certain dogs violates the rights and freedoms of others; therefore, they shouldn't be allowed. It doesn't matter if they violate the freedom of 100 or 1MM.

Owning a gun or a knife doesn't violate other people's freedoms, per se. It's the use of that gun or knife which could potentially infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

Dogs, on the other hand, because we cannot completely control their actions, are necessarily a danger to others.

It would be like owning a gun with a mind of its own, and an underdeveloped mind at that.

Farren

shome42

I have a scar on my upper lip. A large Rotweiler tore it off my face and it had to be sewed back on. I went back the next day and made friends with the dog, and insisted its owners didn't put it down.

I was blind drunk when it happened, holding the dog's head and kissing it on the nose. It got scared, snapped and ran. I was so drunk they couldn't use painkillers when they sewed it back on and I couldn't feel a thing.

I don't think incidents like the one you mentioned are a good reason to hate all dogs. For one thing, there are breeds that are dangerous and breeds that aren't. A lot of the big breeds aren't. I think you'll have a establishing a case for Labradors and Great Danes being dangerous, for instance.

In Germany a whole bunch of new laws have recently been passed restricting what breeds of cats and dogs can be bred. Restricted animals include ones that have a history of savagery as well as ones that have been bred with defects that cause them anguish, like fold eared cats.

The law basically says its legal to continue owning one of the restricted breeds, but not legal to breed new ones, which effectively means these breeds will vanish from Germany in time.

Among the breeds of dogs that are now illegal are Pit Bulls, Bull Terriers, Rotweilers and Dobermans.

I think this is a commendable effort as all of these breeds have a proclivity for random violence. Bull Terriers, loveable as some peopl think they are (until recently we owned one), frequently suffer from schizophrenia and have been implicated in some horrific incidents.

Well bred labradors, on the other hand, are among the most passive, loving dogs I have ever encountered and will endure endless teasing and mild abuse from children without even expressing discomfort.

Despite their frequent use as guard dogs, a lot of the larger breeds of Alsation are more dangerous to other dogs than to humans. In my experience an alsation whcih has been raised as a friend instead of a working dog is often equally tolerant, with the added bonus of being intelligent and responsive.

I can't speak with certainty of this though, because according to a recent study of breeding lines in Germany, alsations are closer to pure wolf than any other dog, and dog trainers frequently say its a bad idea to keep wolves unless you know exactly what you're doing.

Anyway what I'm trying to get at is even though all domestic dogs technically belong to the species Canis Lupus Familiaris, they come in an extraordinary variety of tempraments, shapes and sizes.

While I think there's a case to be made for restricting ownership of dangerous breeds, your post displays a dislike that makes me suspect you have a phobia of dogs (which is fairly common).

I think its a bit unfair to tar all dogs with the same brush.

fatherphil

if we all could see dogs from a child's point of view, i'm sure there would be fewer dog owners.