That’s ridiculous. Of course it makes a difference: if it’s a person problem then targeting certain dogs is stupid. And equating dogs and guns is not valid. Guns exist for the sole purpose of hurting living things. Dogs exist to do all kinds of work, provide joy and companionship, etc. It’s a lame analogy for hte same reason equating guns and cars is a lame analogy.
And if that’s Britte’s meaning, Britte should state it plainly instead of dicking around.
Please step up and clearly state your position instead of playing around with words in ways that end up meaning less than nothing.
Our society has a problem with irresponsible people owning dogs. Am I still “dicking” around?
Stoid, If you are asking me whether I have a solution and taking a position, as I stated in the below post (Post #50, I think) I clearly said I can’t see any foreseeable solution.
Not if the person problem arises when they have access to categories of dog.
If its a person problem they will use what dogs are available. If you are going to try and control the bad behavior of people by controlling the dogs, you’ll have to ban all dogs that have teeth.
It hasn’t always been pit bulls, it used to be Dobermans. And German Shepherds. And Rottweilers. Assholes who want to turn dogs into weapons will do so with whatever dogs are available. Banning the dogs doesn’t help.
Yes. What is it EXACTLY that you mean when you assert that I am “defending all dog ownerships”? It’s your assertion, it shouldn’t be so challenging.
This is hysteria. Most dog attacks are not by dogs turned into weapons deliberately. It’s usually at worst just lack of training. The suggestion that lack of training will turn all dogs into something likely to kill or hurt someone is nonsense.
If you’re Stoid, easy, sit on them.
Answer:
You are defending “dog ownership” and yet not accounting for irresponsible/clueless people also owning dogs. If all types of dogs are available to be owned then they will be owned by all kinds of people as dog ownership does not require that you pass a minimum qualification test/license. Therefore when you are on the side of “the idea of all types of dogs being available to be owned” you are also one the side of dog ownership, which is a yet to be resolved problem for our society re: irresponsible folks owning dogs. “anyone who knows how dogs think” is fine and dandy however not all dog owners “knows how dogs think” which is the problem of dog ownership as we have it.
In this thread, from how I see it, posters are divided by “us and them” and you are on the side of pro-dog owners/dogs by “defending the idea of all types of dogs being available to be owned” opposed to my side of “I have a problem with the current state of dog ownership in our society”. You are defending “the dog ownership” regardless of the existing problem anyone can own any kind of dog at a whim.
Stoid… ?
Oy, Carayo, I’m now all awake and gotta start counting again. :: starts counting::
Pardon, I’m not Jack Batty, I made no such suggestion.
Still not very clear. Would you advocate that some breeds or types of dogs be banned, or would you advocate that in order to own dogs people must pass some sort of test proving that they wouldn’t screw them up? Because if we’re going that route, can we start with the same kind of thing for people contemplating becoming parents? Far more fucked up human beings have been far moe harmful to society than fucked up dogs, that’s for damn sure.
You seem to be operating from this weird notion that everyone has a right to demand that every possible precaution be taken by everyone in every situation to make sure that no one is ever harmed by anything. Unfortunately that’s not the nature of a free society. In order for us all to be as free as possible we have to put up with the fact that some of us deal less well with our freedom than others.
Since you don’t have a solution for the problem of shitty dog owners, what difference does it make? Banning types or breeds doesn’t change the shitty dog owners into good ones, nor does it change aggressive assholes with evil intentions into less aggressive assholes with less evil intentions. Requiring people to take a test wouldn’t help, either.
So what “side” are you on? Ban dogs, period? MY “side” is: educate, educate, educate. Put resources to education. And that’s my side for most things.
No, I didn’t say anything about banning any bleed or killing them off nor do I think such is practical or doable.
No, it is an ideal. As a society we figure out and set up ideals as targets. Even if we don’t achieve the ideal we are better off than not having it. Yes I believe we can do better at preparing kids and clueless youngens to be better apt parents. We owe minimum our attempts to the posterity. Why don't we have mandatory child rearing course in school? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
I surely want to see some thoughts put into the prevention of any possible dangers that we can do something about even though all we can do might not be actively functional prevention mechanisms. Just awareness is better than doing nothing.
Individual freedom that can maul and kill its citizens, a society should be able to come to terms with some sacrifice; we are not airlines or corporations making decisions to forego fixes as paying compensation made to the casualties figure cheaper for their bottom line. How would you like to lose your family member as just an inconvenient figure written off for the bottom line? I believe we ought to do what we conclude as the right thing to do to as a society or individuals.
I’m not on the side of doing nothing. Minimum keep the discourse going instead of bickering.
Well, that’s nice to finally know your position! Education would be natural and pragmatic option and I’m all for it.
Hey, Stoid, we’ve finally come to a positive note it seems and I like it!
By the way, it’s not “Britte”. 
Peace.
Now where was I? One sheep dog and…
You’re dodging. Now you’re claiming to want a nuanced discussion, after proposing the slaughter of 30 million dogs as the solution to 22 deaths.
Neither did I, dipshit.
Thanks for clearing up my grammar when I suggested that dogs generally act like dogs – i.e., they are animals, and need to be trained – but I didn’t say that all untrained dogs are automatically Rambo-esque throat rippers.
But some sure could be.
Anecdote not cite but when we were having issues with our neighbor letting our dogs out of the back yard the reports to animal control all reported two pitbulls running wild. They’re both purebred boxers.
I think it depends where (in Calgary) you live. I have seen bylaw out and about, especially during the summer.
How is it fair to get rid of the official off-leash dog parks? How about people who don’t want to be surrounded by playing off-leash dogs go walk somewhere else where dogs aren’t allowed? I have to say it annoys the hell out of me when I take my dog to an off-leash area and someone gets annoyed if he goes near them. It’s not like there aren’t signs all over the place saying it’s an off leash area. :rolleyes:
I’ve met multiple dogs of both breeds and varying training levels. I’d pick the pit in a fucking heartbeat.
As a dog lover who grew up in a rural area with a lot of stupidly trained un-leashed dogs, I stand by your absolute right to pepper spray or outright shoot any unleashed dog that is in an attack posture or actively nipping you.
If that’s actually a worry, maybe it’s not really the dogs that are the problem here?
