The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by aaronck

I've met some awesome Pit Bulls and Rotweilers that are totally gentle. I've encountered many vicious border collies and angry small chihuahuas. I also know a person that was attacked by his own golden lab out of the blue.

And I have seen idle fully automatic assault rifles sitting on the shelf that looked shiny and pretty. Hell, I've watched somebody cook yummy yummy bacon with a machine gun. I've seen people shoot each other with small calibre pistols too. I also know somebody that shot off his own finger with a legal registered firearm.

I guess the only thing I'm missing is the "pit bulls don't kill other dogs, people kill dogs" or some other nonsense.

[llwhiteoutll]

The only parallel between this issue and gun control that you can draw is that both essentially punish or place unreasonable burdens on responsible users/owners at the expense of a minority. These days, people seem to not mind harming the majority of a user group, so long as it's an activity that they don't partake in or if it won't affect them personally.

What is the difference between the dog issue and the offenses and injuries that occur from motor vehicles? With cars, everyone is happy to wait until something bad occurs until you punish the guilty party only. Why would this be different?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What is the difference between the dog issue and the offenses and injuries that occur from motor vehicles? With cars, everyone is happy to wait until something bad occurs until you punish the guilty party only. Why would this be different?

You have to pay more to insure cars that go faster. Some cars aren't street legal. You need different licenses for certain types of vehicles. Etc...

Lots of parallels available for different licenses for different types of dogs. We also have mandatory testing to receive a license to drive. Mandatory training and check ups (which I think should be done for drivers as well when you go to renew your license) are perfectly applicable to both scenarios.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The only parallel between this issue and gun control that you can draw is that both essentially punish or place unreasonable burdens on responsible users/owners at the expense of a minority. These days, people seem to not mind harming the majority of a user group, so long as it's an activity that they don't partake in or if it won't affect them personally.

What is the difference between the dog issue and the offenses and injuries that occur from motor vehicles? With cars, everyone is happy to wait until something bad occurs until you punish the guilty party only. Why would this be different?

In addition to MattyC - there are also a series of punishments in place to penalize drivers for bad behavior PRIOR to anything bad happens. These punishments can get quite severe including losing the right to even drive at all.

So the comparison isn't a good one.

Plus - what would we collectively lose as a society in terms of quality of life, by not being able to have aggressive large dogs in urban environments? I think we'd all be just fine.

[Coach]

I actually think they are very comparable, or at least should be.

Have a terms and conditions when registering your dog that clearly lays out fines/consequences of not abiding by the laws surrounding the licensing. I think if you had similar licensing rules for animals as they do for driving, a lot of this stuff would be weeded out (a lot, not all).

The tough part is that you're dealing with a living thing, and not an inanimate object like a car. What you do with the dog if you have to revoke an owner's licence? I would assume its the SPCA and hopefully they can get adopted before getting put down. It's really sad that these dogs end up getting killed off for an owners lack of responsibility.

[REDVAN]

I used to be on the side of responsible dog ownership could solve the problem.

Now, I am leaning towards not caring about that, and if people can't control their dogs but it is always the same breed attacking, then that breed needs to be banned.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

These days, people seem to not mind harming the majority of a user group, so long as it's an activity that they don't partake in or if it won't affect them personally.

Very true. I'd be curious to know how many people would be on board for full out banning of alcohol because a few bad apples can't get it through their head that you can't drink and drive and plow your car into a family filled car. My guess is not many, almost everyone drinks. But as soon as it becomes a smaller niche, it's easy to say "Oh, they shouldn't be allowed to have that."

You have to pay more to insure cars that go faster.

This is really over simplifying things. You aren't paying more just because a car "goes faster", you're paying more because the car in question is likely a higher end car. Any car can do 150, just most take longer to get there.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Very true. I'd be curious to know how many people would be on board for full out banning of alcohol because a few bad apples can't get it through their head that you can't drink and drive and plow your car into a family filled car.

They already banned drinking and driving.

We're not talking about banning dogs. Just a certain problem breed. Just like we wouldn't ban alcohol, just a certain problem action.

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

This is really over simplifying things. You aren't paying more just because a car "goes faster", you're paying more because the car in question is likely a higher end car. Any car can do 150, just most take longer to get there.

I'm fairly certain you pay more to insure faster cars. Compare the insurance of a WRX STI to a 328i BMW or better yet, a 50K SUV.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Yes I fully understand drinking and driving has been "banned". I'm trying to expand on what Whiteoult said, it's easy to pick on a small niche, let's apply the same mentality to a much larger one that also has its "problem actions" and see how many are eager to adopt that idea.

You do have to pay more for those cars, like I said, they are higher end cars. And for an accomplished driver, the difference in premium really isn't going to be that much anyways. Like maybe a couple hundred. And it has less to do with what speed they can do and much more to do with how much it costs to fix them, price of parts etc...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

EDIT: Sorry I just can't even.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Yes I fully understand drinking and driving has been "banned". I'm trying to expand on what Whiteoult said, it's easy to pick on a small niche, let's apply the same mentality to a much larger one that also has its "problem actions" and see how many are eager to adopt that idea.

You do have to pay more for those cars, like I said, they are higher end cars. And for an accomplished driver, the difference in premium really isn't going to be that much anyways. Like maybe a couple hundred. And it has less to do with what speed they can do and much more to do with how much it costs to fix them, price of parts etc...

Well that's fair but western society as a whole has agreed that drinking is pretty awesome and it's worth the negatives that come with it. Your analogy applies perfectly to guns. It's tough as hell to take away peoples guns even though it would make plenty of sense to do so.

As for the insurance thing, what I'm saying is if you compare a WRX STI and an equally high end car but one that is not so aimed at performance, I'm fairly certain that the STI will be more expensive to insure, cause you're more likely to do something stupid in it (even though it's probably safer).

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by polak

Well that's fair but western society as a whole has agreed that drinking is pretty awesome and it's worth the negatives that come with it. Your analogy applies perfectly to guns. It's tough as hell to take away peoples guns even though it would make plenty of sense to do so.

Exactly. Apply that same attitude to a smaller interest group that affects less people and that tolerance disappears in a real hurry. I find that to be a hair hypocritical.

As for the car thing, I've seen a number of cars that are anything but high end get a shockingly large premium attached to them.

I sell insurance for a living, the speed of the car is not the end all say all. It's a common misconception. Similar to people assuming red cars cost more to insure simply because it's red.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

You do have to pay more for those cars, like I said, they are higher end cars. And for an accomplished driver, the difference in premium really isn't going to be that much anyways. Like maybe a couple hundred. And it has less to do with what speed they can do and much more to do with how much it costs to fix them, price of parts etc...

Fair enough, you can then move onto the next example of street-legal cars. Not sure what all the parameters are that go into that, but top speed would certainly be one of them.

Either way, the point is there are separate laws/requirements for different types of vehicles, mostly based around how difficult/dangerous they are to drive. And so there's no reason why certain types of dogs couldn't have restrictive laws for owning them. Not all out banning them, but mandated training and testing in order to own one seems reasonable. Have all pit-bull (and other high-risk breeds) breeders require government registration and tagging so that any dog they sell can be tracked.

All of those costs can be reflected in the price of registering a high-risk animal.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Exactly. Apply that same attitude to a smaller interest group that affects less people and that tolerance disappears in a real hurry. I find that to be a hair hypocritical.

It's just a numbers game.

Lots of people reap the benefits of drinking. Few people reap the benefits of owning pitbulls.

When it's 50/50 like guns then you have a huge debate.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by polak

It's just a numbers game.

Lots of people reap the benefits of drinking. Few people reap the benefits of owning pitbulls.

When it's 50/50 like guns then you have a huge debate.

I bet there are a ton or responsible pitbull owners that would disagree with that.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I bet there are a ton or responsible pitbull owners that would disagree with that.

Responsible people don't own pitbulls.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Responsible people don't own pitbulls.

Lolz...

[pylon]

Damn I cannot stand the pit bull apologists. There is something wrong with their brains that just doesn't comprehend logic.

Let us compare this to the gun debate for a second.

A miniature dog like a Yorkie = BB gun

A typical 25 pound house dog = a pellet gun.

A Pit Bull = a .50 cal Barrett M82

Two of these guns can be bought by anyone, at any time. Because the damage they do is absolutely minimal. The last one causes devastating damage, and should not be trusted in the hands of ANYONE but a highly trained specialist. The problem with pit bulls, and rotweiller type dogs, as the more aggressive the type of dog, the more socially unaware/agrresive the type of owner. Nobody buys a wiener dog for it ferocious defensive capabilities or aggressive image. A huge chunk of these attack dog breed owners buy the animal as a fashion accessory to compliment their totally bad ass 'tude.

I have no actual stats but anecdotal evidence, but I am pretty sure if you studied it it would show:

Regular, adjusted, stable, responsible citizen = less likely to be pit bull owner.

Agressive, twitchy, unstable citizen with anger issues = more likely to be pit bull owner.

That is the problem, these dogs are a-hole magnets. I think it would be safe to say that the likelihood of irresponsible dog ownership snowballs the more aggressive the breed. So in addition to the fact that they are unstoppable terminators when they attack, they have owners that embrace this quality of the dog, and view it as a benefit of ownership.

I am sure there are many perfectly responsible pit bull owners, but there are far too many, that are completely unfit for parenthood, let alone dog ownership.

The hilarious irony of this rant is, I own a wiener dog. Which are considered the most aggressive breed of dog, more so than pitbulls. But there is a massive difference. If my dog attacked you, you would likely only have a little scar somewhere below your knee likely, and a mildly humorous story to tell one day how you got nipped buy a killer wiener dog. If you are attacked by a pitbull, you get to explain why you have a gaping hole where your nose used to be, and how you have 6 more surgeries to replace your lips. At least the dog ripped all the nerves out of that side of your face, so at least you can't feel it.

The damage when these dogs flip out is too devastating, responsible owner or not. Humans bred these dogs into existence, and we should just let the breed die out. I have actually heard someone (an extremely stupid someone) say "You can't just make a whole species go extinct!!" Dogs are a species, pit bulls are not.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by pylon

I am sure there are many perfectly responsible pit bull owners, but there are far too many, that are completely unfit for parenthood, let alone dog ownership.

Yup, The problem is while a pitbull is a fine stable family dog with the right owners, they are deadly in the wrong hands. I've always thought that all breeds are fine, until the wrong people get them but too many bad people own pitbulls and it's becoming far too common with pitbulls.

Something has to be done.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Yup, The problem is while a pitbull is a fine stable family dog with the right owners, they are deadly in the wrong hands. I've always thought that all breeds are fine, until the wrong people get them but too many bad people own pitbulls and it's becoming far too common with pitbulls.

Something has to be done.

I agree to an extent. But even the most docile dog, can attack if a child approaches it the wrong way, or uses the wrong body language towards it. So in that off chance your perfectly docile pit bull decides your little toddler is a threat, the reality is the child will be killed or maimed for life.

There is some absolutely terrifying and gory videos of pit bull attacks online. When they grip, the simply don't let go. Most dogs can at least be called off during an attack, there are pit bulls that have continued to attack while being shot.