Campaign starts to adopt dog that killed Alberta baby

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by moon

To pretend that the risk is anything more than 0.00000001% is silly as well.

We all know you hate dogs so you have no ability to be rational on this topic but in terms of threats to a baby the dog is much. much lower on the list of things that are commonly found in a house.

It's certainly more than that. The birth rate in the United states is about 4 million per year. Looking at the list I posted, lets say that an average of 4 infants are killed every year. So, 1 in 1 million babies are kiled by a dog. That's 0.0001%. That's 10,000 times your "to pretend its any more than" percentage. However, dog ownership is about 40%, so if we only count 40% of the babies born, i.e. 1.6 million, and take the percentage then, we have 0.00025%.

Still a small number, sure. 2.5 dog deaths per million babies born. That doesn't make it better for the handful a parents that have to deal with a dog that just killed their newborn.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I actually agree that the risk of death is pretty damn close to zero. But the risk of injury on top of the very slight risk of death makes me leery of having dogs around babies and I question the judgement of people who don't come to the same conclusion.

Seriously, the amount of baby-proofing we as parents do borders on ridiculous as it is. From bumpers on the corners of tables, to the elbow/knee/hand/wrist pads on bikes, five-point harnesses on strollers, etc. Removing a dog from the house is one of the more logical things you can do to protect your baby.

The injuries that happen from all those other things you mentioned are way, way more common than any injury from a dog in the house of the baby.

It seems crazy that you think that a blanket statement like get rid of all dogs around babies when it is has been shown that the risk is so very minimal makes any sense.

Considering that dog bites, by the parents dog, in the babies house with responsible parents are so very rare it doesn't seem logical to me at all that they should be removed.

[Sliver]

Go nuts then. I sleep better at night knowing my kids won't be maimed by a "member of the family."

[moon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It's certainly more than that. The birth rate in the United states is about 4 million per year. Looking at the list I posted, lets say that an average of 4 infants are killed every year. So, 1 in 1 million babies are kiled by a dog. That's 0.0001%. That's 10,000 times your "to pretend its any more than" percentage. However, dog ownership is about 40%, so if we only count 40% of the babies born, i.e. 1.6 million, and take the percentage then, we have 0.00025%.

Still a small number, sure. 2.5 dog deaths per million babies born. That doesn't make it better for the handful a parents that have to deal with a dog that just killed their newborn.

Were all those deaths in the house of the baby by the dog of the parents and by responsible parents? Of course the stats aren't likely to be found that are broken down that way but just from remembering a few stories off the top of my head there definitely have been some deaths that involved other dogs whether when parents were out or brought into their home as well as dumb, irresponsible parents that had more to do with them than the dog being a threat.

[moon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Still a small number, sure. 2.5 dog deaths per million babies born. That doesn't make it better for the handful a parents that have to deal with a dog that just killed their newborn.

I don't think that it makes it any better at all, but nothing will.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Go nuts then. I sleep better at night knowing my kids won't be maimed by a "member of the family."

I sleep fine at night knowing the same thing.

[Sliver]

Correction: you sleep fine at night knowing your kids have a low probability of being maimed.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Correction: you sleep fine at night knowing your kids have a low probability of being maimed.

Nope.

I know that they won't be maimed but I guess one of the other kids could hurt one at night as they are a much bigger risk to my kids than any dog is.

So I guess because of the kids I have to agree there is a low probability of being maimed and zero probability of being maimed by a dog.

[Sliver]

Sorry, I assumed you had a dog.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Sorry, I assumed you had a dog.

I do.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Correction: you sleep fine at night knowing your kids have a low probability of being maimed.

Yup, the numbers I was working on there also don't include non-fatal dog attacks, which I would imagine are orders of magnitude higher than the fatal ones. It may not ever have happened to you or someone you know closely, but I wouldn't think it's "rare."

[Sliver]

Well then there is a chance they could be maimed by your dog so now I'm not sorry.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well then there is a chance they could be maimed by your dog so now I'm not sorry.

You think there is a chance, I don't so I don't really care if you are sorry or not.

[Sliver]

Well it's a fact there is a chance. We're not in a grey area here.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well it's a fact there is a chance. We're not in a grey area here.

You have no idea if there is a chance or not because you have no idea about a ton of factors that come into play in a situation like that.

[MarchHare]

We know that about four children are mauled to death by dogs in the US each year; how does that number compare to child fatalities caused by house fires, accidental shootings, swimming pool drownings, car crashes, bee stings, poison ingestion, etc.? How can any parent sleep at night with all those potential child-killers in or around their home?

[Sliver]

If your kids interact with the dog in any way, there is a chance they could be maimed. If you disagree with that you're going to lose all credibility as a poster henceforth. I mean seriously, you're 100% in the wrong here. Like are you even being serious at this point or are you just trolling me?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

If your kids interact with the dog in any way, there is a chance they could be maimed. If you disagree with that you're going to lose all credibility as a poster henceforth. I mean seriously, you're 100% in the wrong here. Like are you even being serious at this point or are you just trolling me?

I said I go to sleep every night knowing that they won't be maimed. How can you argue with what I know or what goes through my mind as I go to sleep?

[moon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

We know that about four children are mauled to death by dogs in the US each year; how does that number compare to child fatalities caused by house fires, accidental shootings, swimming pool drownings, car crashes, bee stings, poison ingestion, etc.?

But do any of those things bark loud bothering precious Sliver or possibly poop on his lawn?

If they don't they no reason to be concerned.

[pylon]

Personally if I have kids, I will still have a dog. But I won't have a penis extension dog or a big breed. Wiener dogs are just fine by me, and I have owned a couple of them over the years. However, there is always a risk and it is not uncommon to happen for kids to be attacked. My sister was bit in the face badly by our neighbors Corgi. I was tackled by a German Sheppard in a campground, and thank god my dad was there and kicked it's eye right out of it's head before it could hurt me.

There is certainly a risk of attack Moon, more so than you think.

[moon]

Originally Posted by pylon

There is certainly a risk of attack Moon, more so than you think.

Oh I certainly know there is a risk and have acknowledged it in this thread.