You can make the same argument about anything with a potential to harm, a gun isn't a weapon until placed in the hands of someone who's going to use it as such, likewise knives and nuclear warheads. Still I doubt you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons.
And those people are subject to penalties under the law. Which is why hardly anyone - at least in this area - drives around without insurance and a driving license.
A gun is a device that serves only to shoot or threaten to do so; shooting usually results in death of the target, or is intended to do so
A nuclear bomb is a device that serves only to destroy massive areas and everyone in them that doesn't have a good 2 inches of lead (or more) or several feet of concrete between them and the blast wave. Little to nothing can survive the "fireball" itself
A dog is an animal that serves the functions of; living- eating, sleeping, shagging, surviving, nurture: potentially- hunting, watching, attacking, taking care of evidence
note: have you ever been attacked by a poodle? they can do some serious damage too, perhaps not as much as a pitbull with it's specially aligned teeth, but damage none the less.
note 2: banning guns hasn't deterred crime IIRC, banning nukes, that's something else, but their harder to get than guns, which are harder to get then dogs.
4748010
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Jeeepers
December 30th, 2008 11:26 PM
I had a pitbull once that attacked my neighbor. we didnt think he was a problem cause he was such a good dog to us and to most peope he didnt bark at. they had to put him away though because he was soooo dangerous
4748048
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Nemmerle
December 31st, 2008 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_soldier1337
Hey at that rate even the spoon you eat with and the book you read are weapons. You can use them just as easily to harm someone. The only reason personal ownership of nuclear warheads as opposed spoons is restricted is because of the area of effect and the impact. I mean your fists and feet are weapons. Nobody goes around cutting those off.
But I'm sure you already knew that.
But this is where the next point comes in that dogs cannot really harm people (or at least the impact is not as large as nuclear warheads) and, therefore, it is totally dependant on the owner/user/etc. The worst that could happen is a person getting rabies which is totally the carelessness of the owner to not get a shot for the dog. But the people who do said things and are completely careless with their dogs are in a minority as far as the government is concerned. Therefore, they don't issue such a license even though they may penalize you for having allowed your dog to assault people or whatever.
Sure, if you want to look at it that way the area of effect of a dog is larger than many knives, especially in untrained hands. A large dog can easily cause a great deal of damage, if not death, to a human. Knives are banned, dogs present the same or greater a factor of potential damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2
A gun is a device that serves only to shoot or threaten to do so; shooting usually results in death of the target, or is intended to do so
A nuclear bomb is a device that serves only to destroy massive areas and everyone in them that doesn't have a good 2 inches of lead (or more) or several feet of concrete between them and the blast wave. Little to nothing can survive the "fireball" itself
A dog is an animal that serves the functions of; living- eating, sleeping, shagging, surviving, nurture: potentially- hunting, watching, attacking, taking care of evidence
Guns: Crafting, cleaning, collecting, sporting, hunting, etc.
Nukes: Economic balances, employment, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2
note: have you ever been attacked by a poodle? they can do some serious damage too, perhaps not as much as a pitbull with it's specially aligned teeth, but damage none the less.
Maybe large poodles should be on the list of banned dogs too then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2
note 2: banning guns hasn't deterred crime IIRC, banning nukes, that's something else, but their harder to get than guns, which are harder to get then dogs.
Much easier to hide than dogs as well. You walk down the highstreet with a banned dog it's pretty easy for someone to notice.
4748053
Re: Dangerous dogs.
random_soldier1337
December 31st, 2008 12:44 AM
Quote:
Sure, if you want to look at it that way the area of effect of a dog is larger than many knives, especially in untrained hands. A large dog can easily cause a great deal of damage, if not death, to a human. Knives are banned, dogs present the same or greater a factor of potential damage.
Okay then just do a statistical report/analysis/survey and note down the injuries/deaths caused by dogs and by knives. I'll be surprised if you find that dogs cause more deaths/injuries but that's the reason that knives are banned and dogs aren't. Dogs cause less injuries/casualties than knives do, so banning knives is definitely a first. And, as I said, somebody could be bashed to death with spoons, so you might as well ban them because they can cause injuries just as dogs and knives can. I mean assuming that you want to remove anything that could cause harm.
4748062
Re: Dangerous dogs.
NiRv4n4
December 31st, 2008 12:58 AM
if we do this, let's go to the gym and ban the strong people from living because they pose more of a threat. it really doesn't make any sense. it all has to do with the learned memories, genetics have very little to do with the behavior. it just affects its disposition towards certain things, but certes that can be fixed.
oh, and are we seriously gonna compare a dog towards a nuclear weapon? jesus christ, nuclear weapons aren't alive or intelligent, a dog is, and dogs are not inherently malicious or evil, it is just the way life is that makes them who they are. just like how 2 identical twins will be completely different when separated at birth (luke and leia)
and nem, you are waaaaaaay overdoing when it comes to classifying things as threats, it is a damn dog. if the owner is too lazy to not teach it to go around biting and killing people, then for all purposes they are at fault. any dog can be made a good dog, any dog can be rendered docile. you can make a knife or gun or nuke nice
4748373
Re: Dangerous dogs.
ds girl
December 31st, 2008 08:31 AM
So you are saying this is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon..........pleeeeeease!
4748404
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Nemmerle
December 31st, 2008 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds girl
So you are saying this is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon..........pleeeeeease!
No, that's not what I said at all. Go back to high school and learn to read properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_soldier1337
Okay then just do a statistical report/analysis/survey and note down the injuries/deaths caused by dogs and by knives. I'll be surprised if you find that dogs cause more deaths/injuries but that's the reason that knives are banned and dogs aren't. Dogs cause less injuries/casualties than knives do, so banning knives is definitely a first. And, as I said, somebody could be bashed to death with spoons, so you might as well ban them because they can cause injuries just as dogs and knives can. I mean assuming that you want to remove anything that could cause harm.
Well, yeah. Dogs cause about four thousand injuries a year, knives about ten thousand. My point is if you're going to follow the line of logic that says the potential damage of a thing doesn't matter then I want my weapons back. And if you're going to follow the line of logic that says that the potential damage does matter you need to advance an argument as to why the line should be drawn at a certain point. You can say that knives cause more damage but that’s not an argument for why the line should be drawn somewhere between four and ten thousand, it’s just a statement that it is.
4748554
Re: Dangerous dogs.
NiRv4n4
December 31st, 2008 11:49 AM
look, banning dogs would be like banning humans that can potentially hurt someone (pretty much everyone who isn't a vegetable), which really is dumb. i can see why you would ban guns or knives, because the types of guns and knives they ban are the ones that have the serious potential to cause harm. guns were made for killing things, both animals and people. they are adapted to recreation, but they still keep their killing power, and it is ENTIRELY dependent on the wielder. now, for knives, i dunno if you are talking about combat knives or kitchen knives, so a clarification is necessary.
whereas dogs were made to hunt and keep as companions, they have the ability to be nice little things that are no where near as dangerous as a gun. they still hold the killing power, but it is partially in their mind to decide how to use it (i don't believe most dogs are man eaters). they are heavily influenced by the people who own them, but also display a degree of self influenced behavior. guns can't do that. nuclear weapons can't do that. knives can't do that. basically, dogs aren't inherent killing machines.
4748611
Re: Dangerous dogs.
Chemix2
December 31st, 2008 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle
Sure, if you want to look at it that way the area of effect of a dog is larger than many knives, especially in untrained hands. A large dog can easily cause a great deal of damage, if not death, to a human. Knives are banned, dogs present the same or greater a factor of potential damage.
Guns: Crafting, cleaning, collecting, sporting, hunting, etc.
Nukes: Economic balances, employment, etc.
Give me a break, a gun's mechanisms created around shooting something, and guns cannot clean surfaces, you can only clean the gun itself as maintenance. It's also very hard to craft with a gun, maybe it works as a hammer, but an actual hammer works better. Sports and hunting are potential uses, but the latter is a method of killing, animals albeit, and the former is largely a pissing contest between men that want to show that they have a bigger penis than the other. Oddly enough, I'm not for the banning of guns, because if you leave them only in the hands of those in power, they have no reason to listen to the people other than to appease them and make for less civil strife, the civilians themselves have no real chance of fighting back.
On nukes, a nuke is still a device that is meant for destruction, sure it can be used for fear or for jobs, but it's still ultimately comes down to wiping out massive areas.
Maybe large poodles should be on the list of banned dogs too then.
Much easier to hide than dogs as well. You walk down the highstreet with a banned dog it's pretty easy for someone to notice.
When you start banning dog breeds, you're merely treating a symptom of the problems within society, rather than the cause, and you're taking whatever good those lives could do out of the equation as well.
If we keep on going with this, could be a weapon logic, you can eventually break it down to the ultimate weapon, our own minds, from which all our criminal activities stem, and pacifying the human mind would again, only cover up the real problems within society, and would do far more destruction than good. Reversing this logic, you could say that perhaps nukes shouldn't be banned, but a nuke's purpose, it's design, is to do a certain thing, destroy, whereas dogs and people have brains and choice making abilities that bombs don't have, a bomb goes off, and that's what it was made to do, boom.
4749496
Re: Dangerous dogs.
NiteStryker
January 1st, 2009 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2
When you start banning dog breeds, you're merely treating a symptom of the problems within society, rather than the cause
A pitbull biting a kids face off is causing a problem.
I think all pits should be exterminated. Call me inhumane or retarded, but that breed has got to go. Every pit I see I want to put a shotgun to its head. Hate those damn dogs.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
.gif "Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) at that stupid method of spelling color")
The Pub 
Linear Mode
