Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour
Boy howdy, this turned into an anti-dog/dog owner discussion. Anywho, if the systems in place had reduced the risk of deaths to a frequency equal to or less than death by lightning strike, would you consider that adequate?
The response, I'm sure, will be "one death is too many". That poor woman and her surviving family went through, is going through, the worst of tragedies. No one could argue that. Those dogs should be euthanized and I'm sure they will be. That owner, will likely be punished as they should be.
Every system requires tweaks and continuous improvement. Not sure if a complete overhaul, and the money/resources required to implement a complete overhaul of the dog control system, would be supported by statistics.
The dog attack which bumped this thread, or any dog attack, is terrible but dogs in general bring far more good to society than bad. Especially in the field of mental health (I would put a link in, but a Google of "dogs and mental health" will bring up all the reading material one would need if you feel that statement has no foundation).
|
The issue is that a major way to mitigate risk seems painfully obvious. Why are we still allowing people to breed attack, fighting, work, etc.. dogs for domestic purposes?
Regulating breeds and mandatory owner training (we don't let people drive without a license) seem like easy fixes.