FileFront Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)
-   The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)
-   -   Dangerous dogs. (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/389378-dangerous-dogs.html)

ds girl December 30th, 2008 05:18 AM
Dangerous dogs.
 
Dangerous dogs.

Do you think it is right certain breeds are banned? Should all dogs be on lead? Should children be allowed around dogs? Do you think some breeds are unfairly stereotyped as agressive?

:uhm:

Your thoughts?

ds boy December 30th, 2008 05:27 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
oh hot dog!!! i was looking all over for you

come back to bed please darling

random_soldier1337 December 30th, 2008 05:35 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Oh boy, I can see where this is going. As for dogs, nobody really cares about them that much to do anything about them. As long as they are either out of the way or simply good pets nobody will really care what happens to these laws and such.

Serio December 30th, 2008 05:51 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
If dogs were to be banned, cats, birds, and even fish would have to follow. A fish can bite, a cat can scratch, and a bird can poke your eye out. But it all depends on the owner and how they treat the animal.

ds girl December 30th, 2008 05:59 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
If dogs were to be banned, cats, birds, and even fish would have to follow. A fish can bite, a cat can scratch, and a bird can poke your eye out. But it all depends on the owner and how they treat the animal.
Indeed.

Nemmerle December 30th, 2008 06:46 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
A dog is a weapon, you let attack dogs and the like around I want my guns and knives back.

Crusader December 30th, 2008 06:48 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
The Bulldog is the best dog!

The Bulldog, only comes second to a Pet Lion.

Dewit2em December 30th, 2008 07:35 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
"Dangerous Breeds" are just an excuse for people who cant take care of thier pets.I've had 3 German Shepards and 2 Pitbulls throughout my life and they have all been great dogs and we have never had any problem with them in any regards to violence or what have you.

Nemmerle December 30th, 2008 07:48 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Plenty of people keep guns and other weapons without ever using them but that’s not to say they’re not dangerous.

Fetter December 30th, 2008 07:55 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Dogs aren't behaviorally dangerous because of their particular breed. They're dangerous because of way their owner raises them.
Making a statement that an entire breed of dogs is dangerous is just asinine.

tl;dr, people who support the banning of a breed are idiots who've never raised a dog. At least not properly.

I once had a pitbull, and as most people know, pitbulls are supposed to be incredibly vicious and violent. However, the dog i had was very friendly and loved kids. I don't imagine he'd hurt anyone unless they were had malicious intent.

Nemmerle December 30th, 2008 08:01 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
There's a vast difference between the danger that an aggressive pitbull poses as compared to an aggressive poodle. A part of the danger may well be provided by the owner but there's certainly an innate capability for harm that varies with the breed. To my mind te question isn't whether the whole breed is dangerous, the question is whether people should be denied them on the weight of the few that are used or abused that way.

ds girl December 30th, 2008 08:12 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
There's a vast difference between the danger that an aggressive pitbull poses as compared to an aggressive poodle. A part of the danger may well be provided by the owner but there's certainly an innate capability for harm that varies with the breed. To my mind te question isn't whether the whole breed is dangerous, the question is whether people should be denied them on the weight of the few that are used or abused that way.
__________________
My feeling is although the owner accounts for 70% of the dogs behaviour, 30% is breed. For example, you wouldn't expect a jack russel to stop in its tracks when its peeling a rabbit apart, or a border collie to stop trying to herd things. The same goes for fighting breeds.

Serio December 30th, 2008 08:15 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4746714)
A dog is a weapon, you let attack dogs and the like around I want my guns and knives back.
Cars are weapons too., but you don't complain about those, do you?

Tas December 30th, 2008 08:20 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
It's all about the owners and how they raise the pet in question. Rotweilers can be very dangerous but they can also be extremely benign. Sure.. big dogs with big teeth and smaller dogs with powerful jaws have the ability to be more dangerous than say a poodle but it doesn't mean the "race" is dangerous.

It just means that many owners get a dog of that race cause it's "phat" and "cool" to have a dog that can bite a toddlers face of at the drop of a hat.

Nemmerle December 30th, 2008 08:24 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serio (Post 4746821)
Cars are weapons too., but you don't complain about those, do you?
I expect people to be licensed to drive them and insured against any damages that they cause while doing so.

Fetter December 30th, 2008 08:29 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4746837)
I expect people to be licensed to drive them and insured against any damages that they cause while doing so.
Dogs are supposed to be licensed, yet few people bother to do so. Same with guns. The same is also true with cars and the people who drive them.
And even fewer people have insurance.

Primarch Vulkan December 30th, 2008 08:34 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4746714)
A dog is a weapon, you let attack dogs and the like around I want my guns and knives back.
it is only a weapon if the own trains it too be one.

Nemmerle December 30th, 2008 09:28 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa Anupuw (Post 4746847)
it is only a weapon if the own trains it too be one.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetter (Post 4746842)
Dogs are supposed to be licensed, yet few people bother to do so. Same with guns. The same is also true with cars and the people who drive them.
And even fewer people have insurance.
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.

Mitch Connor December 30th, 2008 01:19 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
It's more dependent on the owner than anything. So no, you can't ban a dog breed for the faults of their owners. While some breeds are naturally more aggressive than others they can (for the most part) be tamed with training, the length and intensity of said training is dependent on many factors about the dog.

random_soldier1337 December 30th, 2008 06:36 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
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.
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.

Chemix2 December 30th, 2008 10:38 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4746915)
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.

Jeeepers December 30th, 2008 11:26 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
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 :rolleyes:

Nemmerle December 31st, 2008 12:35 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_soldier1337 (Post 4747764)
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 (Post 4747985)
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 (Post 4747985)
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 (Post 4747985)
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.

random_soldier1337 December 31st, 2008 12:44 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
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.

NiRv4n4 December 31st, 2008 12:58 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
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

ds girl December 31st, 2008 08:31 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
http://www.nexternal.com/pugcafe/ima...1933839608.jpg

So you are saying this is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon..........pleeeeeease!

Nemmerle December 31st, 2008 09:05 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds girl (Post 4748373)
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 (Post 4748053)
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.

NiRv4n4 December 31st, 2008 11:49 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
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.

Chemix2 December 31st, 2008 12:52 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4748048)
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.

NiteStryker January 1st, 2009 09:30 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 4748611)
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.

Inyri Forge January 1st, 2009 12:33 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Pit bulls are adorable and friendly unless you train them to be vicious. I've never personally met a pit bull that didn't want me to give it a big hug.

That said, since my dog was put down I've had only cats. I've got six of them now, and certain behavioral things, such as aggression, are innate. I can tell you that I have one cat who'd never bite you or scratch you no matter what you did to him, and another who'll leave you bloody just for looking at her wrong. The thing is, though, that even my moody cat won't bite you for no reason. You always have to do something, and unless she was already pissed off for some reason (ie she'd just been tortured by one of the other cats) she'll always give you a warning before she tries to kill you.

To make a tl;dr short, most issues of animal aggression come down to human stupidity. Either the people train the dogs to be aggressive, or they do something stupid like tease it, torture it, or hurt it that causes it to attack. Example: I insist on petting my cat when she's growling at me and swishing her tail. I'm not surprised when she leaves me with a bloody stump afterwards; it's my fault after all.

There's a reason we have domesticated dogs and not wild dogs. They're domesticated. If they cause problems it's almost always a man-made problem. It's a very rare thing when a domesticated dog, regardless of breed, attacks anything for no apparent reason.

Tas January 1st, 2009 01:23 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
One thing that annoys me are owners who leave their pets and children unsupervised. It's very sad when a toddler who doesn't know any better (while it should) decides to hang from a dogs ears and ends up getting bitten. I never understood why such animals always have to be put down when the fault clearly lies with the owner and parents of the kid.

NiteStryker January 1st, 2009 07:15 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri Forge (Post 4749663)
Pit bulls are adorable and friendly unless you train them to be vicious.

Sorry but I gotta call bullshit. I have seen too many stories of a "well-trained" pit just one day snapping and biting the head off a 2 year old or mauling another dog to hell.

Maybe in retrospect it is an isolated instance and a rareity of 1 in a hundred thousand, but I will breed-profile to keep myself safe.

Inyri Forge January 1st, 2009 07:18 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
I believe everything I see on the news too, especially since you know they never have the full story -- just enough in order to sell it. :)

Do you think pit bulls are the only dogs that attack people? But you're not going to hear many stories of poodles attacking people because dogs are a product that breeders still want to be able to sell. No worries about giving a bad rap to a dog breed that already has a bad rap.

And again, do you think any dog "bites the head off a two year old" just for shits and giggles? The dog has a motivation, trust me. Any pet owner can tell you that their pets always have motivation for the things they do.

NiteStryker January 2nd, 2009 01:45 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri Forge (Post 4749990)
Do you think pit bulls are the only dogs that attack people? But you're not going to hear many stories of poodles attacking people because dogs are a product that breeders still want to be able to sell. No worries about giving a bad rap to a dog breed that already has a bad rap.
Ok. Look at a poodle.

http://christianmen.files.wordpress..../03/poodle.jpg

Small. Small body, small mouth. Thing could prolly just barely fit your toe in its mouth.

Look at a pit.

http://bosdogkennels.com/batman-pitbull-01b.jpg

Large, muscular. Looks aggressive.

Quote:
And again, do you think any dog "bites the head off a two year old" just for shits and giggles? The dog has a motivation, trust me. Any pet owner can tell you that their pets always have motivation for the things they do.
The motivation? The animal succumbs to instinct. Pit bulls are bred to be vicious animals by irresponsible people.

Also I think I remember hearing something about they being bred to be hunter / killer type dogs or something.

I think they should be banned for anyone who has anyone under 13 in their home and you have to have the dog registered and must pay a fee to have it and if the dog gets outta line even once and authorities are called, it can be shot on sight.

If the world ran my way the pit would be exterminated systamatically. Get a group of people to go door to door. *Knock Knock*. "Hello?" "Do you have a pit bull?" "Yes" "Can we see him" *Shotgun Blast* "Have a nice day".

Darth Taxi January 2nd, 2009 01:48 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds girl (Post 4746615)
Dangerous dogs.

Do you think it is right certain breeds are banned? Should all dogs be on lead? Should children be allowed around dogs? Do you think some breeds are unfairly stereotyped as agressive?

:uhm:

Your thoughts?
No way...dog however big, however blood thirsty if raised properly has no way of attacking humans.

Sedistix January 2nd, 2009 02:07 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
My cousin had a Rottweiler, and fed him weight gainer shakes for most of his puppy days, in the end the dog was more then 220lbs and pure muscle. I spied it eating another dog once in the alley way, and it wasn’t too long after that the city ordered it removed or destroyed.

It’s now a watchdog on my aunts property and by far the biggest, baddest, meanest dog I’ve ever seen in life.
Here’s a picture of it as a puppy.



Do I think it’s unethical to own such an animal. No, not really. Should some types of dogs be banned from ownership by the general populace, no. However I believe that the owners of such animals should liable in every way when it comes to the actions of these animals. If you're going to own it, and be the reasons for its existence in your area, you better take proper care in safe guarding others from it

Huffardo January 2nd, 2009 04:45 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Dogs bred to fight should be legal only for people without small children who can prove that they are responsible owners. Sure, you could argue that such legislation should apply to all breeds, but such bureaucracy isn't free and I don't want to make owning a dog more expensive than it already is, if an irresponsible or criminal individual gets himself e.g. a golden retriever instead of a fighting breed, chances are he will do less damage with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Taxi (Post 4750959)
No way...dog however big, however blood thirsty if raised properly has no way of attacking humans.
Dogs are living creatures, not programmed robots, so I'm afraid you are wrong.

Chemix2 January 2nd, 2009 09:32 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiteStryker (Post 4750952)
Ok. Look at a poodle.

http://christianmen.files.wordpress..../03/poodle.jpg

Small. Small body, small mouth. Thing could prolly just barely fit your toe in its mouth.

Look at a pit.

http://bosdogkennels.com/batman-pitbull-01b.jpg

Large, muscular. Looks aggressive.

The motivation? The animal succumbs to instinct. Pit bulls are bred to be vicious animals by irresponsible people.

Also I think I remember hearing something about they being bred to be hunter / killer type dogs or something.

I think they should be banned for anyone who has anyone under 13 in their home and you have to have the dog registered and must pay a fee to have it and if the dog gets outta line even once and authorities are called, it can be shot on sight.

If the world ran my way the pit would be exterminated systamatically. Get a group of people to go door to door. *Knock Knock*. "Hello?" "Do you have a pit bull?" "Yes" "Can we see him" *Shotgun Blast* "Have a nice day".
:Puzzled:
You posted a picture of a Maltese poodle
-----This is the standard, bearing it's teeth-----
http://hammerspoodles.webs.com/carson%20teeth.JPG
Now tell me you'd stick your foot in it's mouth, eh?

Also, the dog you posted looks fairly harmless.

Your logic seems to lead to the conclusive that if something is genetically fit to survive, it should be eliminated by a force it cannot overcome because it might be able to inflict damage were it poorly treated. When the dog actually attacks, you're going to walk away bloody and torn, more so from a pit bull than a poodle, but not that much.

As for what they were bred for, it's in the name, pit and bull; they were used in sport to take down bulls, similar to bear-baiting, but ofcourse, bull-baiting. Rather awful, but when you look at the histories of many dogs, you'll find something you don't like to look at.

Nemmerle January 3rd, 2009 02:31 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 4748611)
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.
A gun can be the object in the act of those former things you dismiss, the crafting of gun parts could not occur without guns, nor the cleaning of guns. As to the latter that is something of subjective importance, much like the things you mention of dogs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 4748611)
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.
The civilians have no real chance of fighting back directly anyway. The government has lots people with guns who know how not to be seen and how to use them; and you do not. Any war between government forces and civilians will be decided on economic grounds, not military ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 4748611)
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.
See answer to Nirv bellow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiRv4n4 (Post 4748554)
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.
Whether the thing was made to kill or not, what it is meant for, is irrelevant; I can design a thing intending it for perfectly peaceable uses and have it used as a weapon, and vice versa. Indeed this is the route of many martial arts. To suggest that law be formed upon the intent of the maker of the original article, who in many cases will have been dead for hundreds if not thousands of years is insane. The question is one of capability and use, not of the intention of the maker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 4748611)
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.
Much like guns and knives. Don't get me wrong you want dogs I'm fine with that, license the things up, introduce a certain legal responsibility and give me guns and knives back and we're set. My point is the contradiction between allowing dogs, potential lethal weapons, and not allowing guns - also potential lethal weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 4748611)
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.
Do a dog's teeth have a mind? Or the human's fist? They inherit these things, as do all tools, from the higher agency of their user.

Crazy Wolf January 3rd, 2009 03:25 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
I'm for forced sterilization of dog breeds that were developed for fighting (bull fighting, bear baiting, etc). It just seems an unnecessary risk, and if we've supposedly evolved past animals fighting for our entertainment, then perhaps we should make dogs do the same.

Think of this in terms of potential damages caused if something goes wrong. If a pitbull snaps and latches on to a kid's throat/arm/leg, that dog won't stop biting. Its sharp teeth will slice through the skin and muscle and lock firmly on its target. Compare this to, say, a retriever. If a retriever were to snap and attack a child, it would have the disadvantage of a relatively narrow mouth and dull teeth. Retrievers were bred to carry quarry back to their masters without bloodying it up. Pitbulls were bred to latch themselves onto a target and bloody it up as much as they could. This is like the difference between a can of pepper spray and a Micro Uzi, except these devices have minds of their own. What would you rather have go off unintentionally?

Darth Taxi January 3rd, 2009 07:01 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo (Post 4751172)
Dogs are living creatures, not programmed robots, so I'm afraid you are wrong.
I am afraid you are wrong...everyone is programmed by their genetics and their interactions with environment. Even humans. We all are sofisticated machines.

Roaming East January 3rd, 2009 07:34 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
meh, any dog can be dangerous and its a statistical FACT that some breeds are more prone to violence then others but the issue is that any given pet owner is probably NOT a professional handler and if faced with the prospect of a 90 lb dog bred for running fast or a 125lb dog bred for agression and violence attacking me...well. If you as an owner are not capable of physically preventing your ghetto-pony from hurting someonelse you probably shouldnt have it.
thats the difference between a gun and a pit. i know for certain that a gun in my possession will do only what i wish it to do.

Huffardo January 3rd, 2009 09:15 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Taxi (Post 4751676)
I am afraid you are wrong...everyone is programmed by their genetics and their interactions with environment. Even humans. We all are sofisticated machines.
I can see that you don't believe in free will, but there is quite a difference between a computer program and environmental influence. Dogs are genetically 'programmed' to kill, but you can't fail proofly reprogram them with a layer of training.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaming East (Post 4751707)
meh, any dog can be dangerous and its a statistical FACT that some breeds are more prone to violence then others but the issue is that any given pet owner is probably NOT a professional handler and if faced with the prospect of a 90 lb dog bred for running fast or a 125lb dog bred for agression and violence attacking me...well. If you as an owner are not capable of physically preventing your ghetto-pony from hurting someonelse you probably shouldnt have it.
thats the difference between a gun and a pit. i know for certain that a gun in my possession will do only what i wish it to do.
Agreed.

Darth Taxi January 3rd, 2009 09:24 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo (Post 4751765)
I can see that you don't believe in free will, but there is quite a difference between a computer program and environmental influence. Dogs are genetically 'programmed' to kill, but you can't fail proofly reprogram them with a layer of training.
I truly don't believe in free will. I believe that free will is just aspect of the program. And yes agreed computer program is not same as environmental influence...but I think it might be if it was more complex and flexible.
Dogs are programmed to kill...but mine never attacked a human I didn't tell them to, however other animals are another case.

NiteStryker January 3rd, 2009 09:42 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaming East (Post 4751707)
meh, any dog can be dangerous and its a statistical FACT that some breeds are more prone to violence then others but the issue is that any given pet owner is probably NOT a professional handler and if faced with the prospect of a 90 lb dog bred for running fast or a 125lb dog bred for agression and violence attacking me...well. If you as an owner are not capable of physically preventing your ghetto-pony from hurting someonelse you probably shouldnt have it.
thats the difference between a gun and a pit. i know for certain that a gun in my possession will do only what i wish it to do.
Exactly my point.

Captain Fist January 3rd, 2009 03:34 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Never Surrender (Post 4746717)
The Bulldog is the best dog!

The Bulldog, only comes second to a Pet Lion.
http://www.rarebreed.com/breeds/tibetan/Snowtis.jpg

The Lion, leopard, and wolf killing Tibetan Mastiff does not agree.

No, I don't think dog breeds should be banned. The dog is only as dangerous as his owner allows him to be. Certain people shouldn't have certain dogs, but the Tibetan Mastiff can be a calm, friendly companion if it's raised right. It might never be as friendly as the picturesque dog, the Golden Retriever, but hey, I don't see a problem with that.

random_soldier1337 January 3rd, 2009 06:57 PM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4751557)
A gun can be the object in the act of those former things you dismiss, the crafting of gun parts could not occur without guns, nor the cleaning of guns. As to the latter that is something of subjective importance, much like the things you mention of dogs.



The civilians have no real chance of fighting back directly anyway. The government has lots people with guns who know how not to be seen and how to use them; and you do not. Any war between government forces and civilians will be decided on economic grounds, not military ones.



See answer to Nirv bellow.



Whether the thing was made to kill or not, what it is meant for, is irrelevant; I can design a thing intending it for perfectly peaceable uses and have it used as a weapon, and vice versa. Indeed this is the route of many martial arts. To suggest that law be formed upon the intent of the maker of the original article, who in many cases will have been dead for hundreds if not thousands of years is insane. The question is one of capability and use, not of the intention of the maker.



Much like guns and knives. Don't get me wrong you want dogs I'm fine with that, license the things up, introduce a certain legal responsibility and give me guns and knives back and we're set. My point is the contradiction between allowing dogs, potential lethal weapons, and not allowing guns - also potential lethal weapons.



Do a dog's teeth have a mind? Or the human's fist? They inherit these things, as do all tools, from the higher agency of their user.
But see by your logic the thing that is either going to have to happen is that either we remove everything that is a potential cause of damage from the Earth including our own limbs or we allow everyone the right to have anything that can be a weapon including nukes. I believe the separating lines should allow dogs but ban knives and guns because once they are put into effect the people generally die. Dogs could horribly maim but it is much rarer to see them go all the way as to kill something, especially a human, unless trained and bred for such. I mean if you want to go with the licensing thing fine but outright banning and eliminating is a bit harsh and extreme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo (Post 4751765)
I can see that you don't believe in free will, but there is quite a difference between a computer program and environmental influence. Dogs are genetically 'programmed' to kill, but you can't fail proofly reprogram them with a layer of training.
Is there anything that is truly "fail-proof"? As I mentioned earlier, if you're so worried about having a thing that has even the slightest potential of failing, then you might as well just dispose of it which includes guns and knives and other weaponry. Sure these things are controlled by our will but is the human mind "fail-proof".

"Prez whatever you do, don't push that big red button that launches nukes all over the world!... except here." "Yay! NUKES!*presses button* Oh no! What have I done!? (Darth Vader voice) NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"

Huffardo January 4th, 2009 02:25 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_soldier1337 (Post 4752534)
Is there anything that is truly "fail-proof"? As I mentioned earlier, if you're so worried about having a thing that has even the slightest potential of failing, then you might as well just dispose of it which includes guns and knives and other weaponry. Sure these things are controlled by our will but is the human mind "fail-proof".

"Prez whatever you do, don't push that big red button that launches nukes all over the world!... except here." "Yay! NUKES!*presses button* Oh no! What have I done!? (Darth Vader voice) NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
A knife is pretty damn fail proof if you ask me, a dead blade is never going to stab someone who enters what it believes is its territory without the person holding it making the decision.

Humans are far from fail proof, as are dogs, but that's exactly why I don't want everyone to be able to walk around with dogs that are more dangerous than most. If you give irresponsible or flat out dangerous people a weapon in the form of a fighting dog, why not give them a loaded gun whilst at it? Guns and cars all need a license, I don't really see why owning a very dangerous animal should be any different.

random_soldier1337 January 4th, 2009 03:13 AM
Re: Dangerous dogs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffardo (Post 4752962)
A knife is pretty damn fail proof if you ask me, a dead blade is never going to stab someone who enters what it believes is its territory without the person holding it making the decision.

Humans are far from fail proof, as are dogs, but that's exactly why I don't want everyone to be able to walk around with dogs that are more dangerous than most. If you give irresponsible or flat out dangerous people a weapon in the form of a fighting dog, why not give them a loaded gun whilst at it? Guns and cars all need a license, I don't really see why owning a very dangerous animal should be any different.
So you do see that it is dependant on the person whether a weapon can be dangerous or not? I mean licensing on dog breeds would be okay but some of the suggestions like killing of the entire breed and stuff like that don't really seem to make sense.


All times are GMT -7.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.