Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I don't know if you've ever owned a dog before, and perhaps my family has historically invested in one of the most insane breeds available, but they aren't exactly the same as a 'point and shoot' weapon - as in, they don't always do what you want them to do. The vast majority of canines out there probably aren't obedient enough to use as a malicious weapon, but rather most of those injuries will have been caused by dogs out of control, or dogs protecting their property - even if they are protecting said property against people who are actually allowed to be their (a situation my father apparently found himself in when when I was still crapping my pants without knowing any better). They aren't necessarily responding to an owner's "KILL HIM!" command. You can't really use them for a 'school dogging', which sounds inherently wrong for reasons beyond this conversation.

As you know I agree with you about legalising firearms, not just limited to handguns either, but comparing them to dogs isn't really appropriate. Dogs are their own beings, some are better trained than others, but even the most highly trained ones can rip off somebody's face without their owner wanting them to do so if the situation arises. Guns don't leap out of a cabinet and murder somebody of their own accord, after all.

Which is probably an even better argument against dogs than anything, but it's not really an argument in favour of firearms at any rate. The danger of dogs is probably more comparable to cars - cars are one of the most lethal killers around, being as they are multi-ton chunks of metal which have a predilection for smashing into squishy humans at high speeds, but they are still legal and they're not really designed to kill. More often than not, it's not the car owner's desire to squish a dude all over the M54, but it happens regardless.

It's the purpose of the thing that's in question with firearms. Regardless of whether you think they should be legal or not, nobody can deny that firearms are explicitly designed to harm other beings, whereas dogs are just cute family pets with teeth that can sometimes go berserk and bite off somebody's family jewels.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dude, they're dogs. They do not have the same rights as humans, and to our knowledge they do not possess the same ability for "morality" or a sense of right and wrong. We euthanize dogs every day because they are an inconvenience, thousands of them. Clearly we have a large distinction between dogs and humans. This argument reminds me of the anti-gay marriage argument about bestiality becoming legal once gay marriage does.

Matt: I agree with you on most things, but there are some dogs that very clearly were designed/bred to harm other things. Rottweilers are most accurately known as "Rottweiler Metzgerhund". "Hund" is the word for dog, and "Metzger" is a term for butcher. I think the only way it could be more explicit what there critters were bred for would be for it to be named a "Krieghund" or "Moerderhund" or "batshit-unsinniger bösartiger Hund"(use freetranslation =p) or something.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

A pitbull just bit someone in a nearby city 2 days ago, saw it in the paper. Police came and then the owner couldnt restrain it, then it bit an officer and was shot like 5 times.

I dont hear about this type of thing with weimrainers.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

"Metzger" is referring to the people he accompanied (like the shepherd dog), not an aggressive trait. The dogs protected the cattle of the local butchers and traders in Rottweil and were also used as shepherd dogs.

They are still valuable for the police because they are very intelligent, attentive, obedient and hardworking.

In the right hands, the Rottweiler is also a child loving family dog.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Poodle attack brings lawsuit - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
CityNews: 3-Year-Old Child Mauled By Dog
BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Toddler mauled by dalmatian

Shall I go on, or are you satisfied?

And just to show how mean Rottweilers (and similar breeds) are by nature:



So yes, let's apply stereotypes to animals. We do it to people, so why not?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Of all the Rottweilers I've been around they're just big and docile. I've only really had Beagles and they're pretty relaxed too.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Another pitbull attack in a nearby city... 2 pits jumped a jogger with her dog and mauled her pretty bad.

Yet another point for the pitbull genocide movement.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

How about a more logical approach? Registry for potentially dangerous breeds, to see whether you are a fit handler/owner of the animal because your behavior and training is a huge factor in the behavior of your dog.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You are legally required to register your pets. How many people actually do it, do you think? You can make dog registration for dangerous breeds the law, but then you have to enforce it.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

People dont have to do that for their own CHILDREN to see if they would be fit handlers / owners of their children.

And you can be the best pet owner in the world, when that dog snaps and follows instinct and gets just out of your grasp, it goes and does damage. Go ahead and try and stop a pit from attacking. If you are even successful, you wont come out of it unscathed.

This animal has no good reason to be domesticated. There are plenty of other dogs out there that are more stable. You should not have a pet that has a statistical record of being violent that you could not snatch up by the scruff of the neck and throw it across the room if it growled at your month old daughter.

I have cats. My parents have 5 and when I moved out, I got a 6 month old from a shelter. I had her declawed on all four paws and neutered. She cannot replicate and she cannot hurt me other than playful biting at the most. If she bits hard she gets swated. (Mental conditioning...she bits too hard she gets pain back)

But she is over 2 years old now and a tiny cat. She will not be any bigger. I have total control over her.