> avogadro wrote:

> lol, you're such a moron. there are plenty of personal reasons to have a pitbull, just because you're too idiotic to think of more, doesnt mean they dont exist.

as for the disproportionate number of dog bites they have, if you keep killing off the most prone dog, you will have to kill off all but 1 dog species; one species has to be at the top.>

Me, personally, I just hate pit bulls. The information I used for support wasn't really supporting an argument, other than offering incomplete reasons for why you might want to agree with me.

Kelvut,

There are plenty of security alternatives than a guard dog.

Primo,

I know you think criminals should be reformed and such, but I honestly don't care if a home owner shoots a burgular. I know there is a net economic loss, but for real I can't see how such a person who would do that kind of thing is any more human than a psychopath.

so, if a kid steals some candy, go blast his brains out?

@ morbo, they wouldnt be B&E'ing if they were looking for help, I'm sorry i gave a little incomplete info as I do not know the complete details of the law as they are so separated that it makes you dizzy if you're even just curious.

@ Primo, chris did a better clarification than I could, the proof i meant was proving to a jury that you feared for your life, and by property i mean they have to enter your home or building, you cant do simply cuz theyre on your lawn or something.

"if you keep killing off the most prone dog, you will have to kill off all but 1 dog species"

True but irrelevant. Assume for the sake of argument that levels of dog attacks on humans are unacceptable, then of course the most obvious dogs to take action against are the ones which appear to be the most dangerous. Once Pitbulls are taken care of, if dog attack levels are still unacceptable then the next dog type down the list is next. However, you would not keep going until there is only one type of dog left, you would keep going until the risk of dog attacks had become low enough to stop justifying the "genocides". Remember that there are two elements of risk (1) frequency of incident and (2) severity of incident. Even if pitbull attacks were found to be rare, if the likely level of severity of an attack is thought to be too high then outlawing pitbulls would be justified.

"You can teach a poodle to rip someone apart. It wont be as effective, but it'll sure rip the
shreds out of toddler."

This is where the idea of there being two components of risk comes in. Let us assume that the severity of a poodle attack is the same as the severity of a pitbull attack. Well anecdotal evidence (i.e. the number of times stories appear in the news) would suggest that pitbull attacks are more frequent. If we instead assume that poodle attacks are just as frequent as pitbull attacks then that same anecdotal evidence suggests that pitbull attacks are more severe than poodle attacks. Either way you look at it pitbulls are more dangerous. Yes, I understand that this argument is flawed through lack of genuine statistics, but rather than being pedantic about that I hope you will see that the idea is sound. Pitbulls are clearly more dangerous than poodles!

"If a dog is savage,
the owner needs to be punished."

I agree entirely, but the dog also needs to be put down! I do like animals and I like dogs, but for me humans come first. If a dog is a danger to humans then it should be put down.

"I think the majority of pitbull owners are more aggressively
treating and training their dogs. Different conditions, which would skew the statistics."

A valid point. I am sure that the way a dog is trained is more important than what breed it is. However, if people looking for aggressive dogs are choosing pitbulls then you have to ask why? Well clearly it is because an aggressive pitbull is a dangerous animal whereas (to take an extreme example) an aggressive Yorkshire Terrier is little more than an annoyance. It should also be noted that even accepting that training is more important than breed does not mean that breed is irrelevant in terms of a dog's temperament and it might be true that Pitbulls are more prone to aggression than other breeds.

"So since male dogs are several times worse, should we prevent anyone but breeders from
having male dogs?"

The problem here is that you are suggesting the male of every dog breed is always more dangerous than the female of any other dog breed. i.e. that a male chihuahua is more dangerous than a female pitbull or bull mastiff. Well that clearly is not true. Going back to what I said before, if the risk of dog attacks is deemed too high then the most dangerous dogs should be banned first. Assuming for the sake of the argument that Pitbulls were found to be the most dangerous type of dog and particularly male pitbulls, then yes, why not ban anyone other than breeders from having male pitbulls? If that doesn't work enough to reduce the risk then ban the females too. But of course you would ban female pitbulls before banning male Yorkshire terriers. For the sake of practicality and enforceability of the rules though it would clearly be the case that a whole breed would be banned rather than just one sex of a breed .

"Similarly one could argue that different races of people ARE different from one another as well"

An attempted analogy with human races is a little undercooked. In my opinion one of the fundamental ideas underpinning modern western ideals should be that all men are equal. However, I don't see this being extended to be that dogs are equal to men or in any way think that all dogs are equal.

"
True but irrelevant. Assume for the sake of argument that levels of dog attacks on humans are unacceptable, then of course the most obvious dogs to take action against are the ones which appear to be the most dangerous."

so if crimes in your country is too high, you should go after the race that commits the most crimes? you are assuming genocide is the only way tor educe the number of dog attacks.

I have to flee my home before defend myself?

Yeah. Not gonna happen.

"I'm sorry officer, but it was dark and he was a stranger in my home... I didn't have time to ask him if he was armed or not before I fired. I'm sure he learned his lesson. He won't do it  again."

> I realize there are problems for identifying who exactly is a burglar
> or thief. But I still don't care if one is shot, assuming that they actually are one.

Assumptions create quite the problem.

You are also allowing for people to become the judge, jury and executioner on their
own property. Theres a reason why courts have evolved...the law should be governed
by the government, not the land owner.

I don't have a problem at all with perpetrators of an aggressive home invasion are
shot, as long as:
- The government has proven their guilt.
- There is a near-to 100% probability there are no faults in the case, and they DID do it.
- Its the government that organises and carries out the execution.
- The invaders are of legal age (I would say >16 for this type of crime IN MY OPINION).

"so if crimes in your country is too high, you should go after the race that commits the most crimes? you are assuming genocide is the only way tor educe the number of dog attacks"

I anticipated a response like this, but no, of course not. This analogy is invalid because the reasons for a difference in crime rates among different human races are normally attributed to socio-economic factors and can in no way be attributed to innate characteristics of that race of humans. In dogs where it is clear that certain breeds of dog (a) have a tendency to be more aggressive and (b) are likely to cause more damage to a human if they attack. This is clearly not true for humans.

But regardless, who said anywhere that the same standards should be applied to both humans and dogs? It would be cruelty to tie a child up to a small wooden shelter in the garden and leave them out there for the night. It isn't cruelty to do that for a dog. Clearly the same standards do not apply. Therefore just because it would be horrific to outlaw the existence of a race of human, it does not necessarily mean the same is true for dogs.

....i think the idea of genocide for dogs (or particular breeds) is a mad idea

....we should use them for our entertainment....such as "dogs vs. cats - the cage version"....or...."a gladiator special"....(where dogs are forced to defend themselves against an opponent....such as lions, etc)....or how about a game based on throwing grenades for dogs to chase and catch....(that is now copyrighted)....after all most of the nations (developed or otherwise) have been doing it throughout history....even executions were done in public for one reason or another

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
Assumptions create quite the problem.

You are also allowing for people to become the judge, jury and executioner on their
own property. Theres a reason why courts have evolved...the law should be governed
by the government, not the land owner.

I don't have a problem at all with perpetrators of an aggressive home invasion are
shot, as long as:
- The government has proven their guilt.
- There is a near-to 100% probability there are no faults in the case, and they DID do it.
- Its the government that organises and carries out the execution.
- The invaders are of legal age (I would say >16 for this type of crime IN MY OPINION).>

You don't get it. I'm not talking about the practical problems that would be faced by permitting an owner to shoot a burglar or thief. My point is that if a thief or criminal was shot by a homeowner in the most clear of circumstances, I would not care that the perpetrator was shot dead by the homeowner.

Of course, as you say, because there are circumstances that are less clear, there should be at the very least stipulations on when it is ok to shoot a trespasser. And maybe you think that it can only be cleared by a court, in which case you could argue that you can never shoot one. Although, I personally don't think it's that extreme. If a person actually breaks in to your house, then I am ok with permitting a homeowner to kill them.

Yeah so I guess that works with crooks who quit when you shout "oi! In the Queen's name"

Crooks started it, over here

Google "northfield raid"

And go to crimelibrary.com and read up on dillinger and his gang. Babyface Nelson shot down deputies patrolling county fairs. No reason, he just got edgy

i dont think you could compare the uk to the us for that matter, and i dont think you could compare the whole of the us, zuz there are different parts with different subcultures so to speak

back on topic, the ppl saying it s all about upbringing and that dogowners mostly are the agressive/stupid ones; what to do about it? laws for owning dogs, special courses etc?  or just let it pass a way of human stupidity at work..