Dog attack

I am just curious when you guys draw the line on the personal freedom thing. If you guys feel the public should be able to own whatever weapon they feel like, how about nukes? Why don't we just go all the way and say I, as a law abiding citizen, should be able to own a nuclear weapon IN MY OWN HOME. How about I should be allowed to set up a meth lab in my own home and smoke whatever crap I want as long as I don't leave my home when I am doing it? There has to line drawn somewhere and being extreme on one side or the other is a waste of time. Where that line is drawn depends on us, as voters, to put the politicians in place who will push our agendas. All the senseless posting will not get us anywhere.
 
So, we're comparing owning a German Shepard to owning nuclear weapons now? Maybe if we allowed everybody to have that Meth lab in thier house they might get wasted enough to buy that argument. :p
 
ATW525,

I am not comparing dog ownership with owning nukes. I am just asking where the line should be drawn on personal liberties.

Trip is saying that he should be allowed to own whatever dog he wants on his own property. What happens when that dog manages to get loose and gets off his property? Then we have an dangerous and agressive animal roaming the streets. Someone raised the question why aren't the parents watching the kids? That is the most idiotic statement I have ever read. Since when parents have to watch over their kids every second to keep them safe. Whoever made that statement probably doesn't have kids. Besides, the attack occured when children were walking home from school? Don't they have a right to do that?

Let me repeat, I do not have a problem with people owning whatever dogs PROVIDED that they can demonstrate that they can do so in a responsible manner. In a responsible manner means properly training the dog and conditioning it to reduce its agressive tendencies, not bring them out. Responsibility also means properly securing the dog so that it does not get loose and wander out of the control of the owner. How can this be enforced? By registration and permitting. YOU CAN OWN WHATEVER THE HELL KIND OF DOG YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU WILL DO SO RESPONSIBLY!!!

Kids are getting mauled and sometimes killed because there are no controls in place. You can say that people are financially responsible but will any amount of money bring your kid back from the dead? What if the animal cripples your child or scars them for life. Nobody wants to go out with scar face or gimpy. Can you put a value on that kind of pain and suffering? What about if the owner doesn't have insurance or has nothing to sue for? What if the parents of the child don't have money to hire a good lawyer and the defendant doesn't have enough money to attract lawyers on a contingency basis? What about if the child doesn't have insurance (how many families can really afford insurance now a day) and the bills pile up while the attornies are fighting it out? This is the REAL WORLD... not some idealistic utopia.

Even if the parents are watching their kids, what if they are not armed? Does that become their fault? Come on now. Where does this end?

What if we carried this a step further and said people can own whatever animals they want. Lets use a tiger for example. Would you want one in your neighborhood if there were no restrictions regarding securing the animal? Those of you idealistic extremists will probably say you are fine with that but will carry a 10 gauge shotgun loaded with slugs (24/7 mind you and following your kids wherever they go) in case the tiger attacks.

Certain liberties must be restricted or at least controlled to ensure the safety of society. In a lawless and anarchistic society, the strong will dominate. Our democratic system of government is designed on the idea that all people are created equal and that the weak have an equal voice.

Like I said, if you don't like how things are, do something about it. This may mean voting, running for office, or moving to some place that allows you your freedoms.
 
stephen426 said:
Let me repeat, I do not have a problem with people owning whatever dogs PROVIDED that they can demonstrate that they can do so in a responsible manner. In a responsible manner means properly training the dog and conditioning it to reduce its agressive tendencies, not bring them out. Responsibility also means properly securing the dog so that it does not get loose and wander out of the control of the owner. How can this be enforced? By registration and permitting. YOU CAN OWN WHATEVER THE HELL KIND OF DOG YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU WILL DO SO RESPONSIBLY!!!
Click to expand...

When you go for your CC permit, (I'm generalizing here) your state makes you go through training, and a few other precautions to ensure you can demonstrate you will CC responsibly. You get your permit and hopefully they never see you again.

What's to stop this responsible citizen, who has gone through all the proper measures, from using the CC permit and firearm irresponsibly?

No matter what measures you put in place, the responsibility falls back on the citizen. Are you one of those people who thinks criminals should be able to blame everything on their childhood? I hope not, because it's the individuals responsibility to do the correct thing, make the right choices, act responsibly, and ensure they act in a safe manner as to not infringe upon others rights. The government does not need to have a grip on all facets of public safety - because incrimentally, they squash our rights - as they try to, as you see it, protect our rights.

As you've suggested, if they put measures in place for dog owners who wish to possess aggressive breeds (i.e. training, back-ground check :barf: , and what ever else you can drum up), as soon as they get this permit, the responsibility is right back on that citizen to do the right thing.

Thinking that regulating dog ownership will negate the fact that dog attacks will happen, is preposterous. Just as thinking slapping an "assault weapon" title on a wide gammet of firearms, and making them illegal, is going to lower firearm related crime, is absurd.

Your really showing your true colors when you assume we're all anarchists because we believe the government doesn't have to, as you say, restrict certain liberties.
 
stephen426, idiotic is the belief that anybody but yourself is responsable for the safety of your children. You can't expect that state to keep them safe by passing laws and regulating every posible danger. Pedophilia is outright illegal, but there are still pedophiles. Are we going to have police sitting in the yard of everybody who owns an "assault dog" to make sure they handle the dog responsably 24-7? Maybe you wouldn't mind it if these same cops followed all us gun owners around to make sure we always handled our firearms responsably, too. I'm sorry, but that's not the world I want to live in.

The reality is that you can't control what other people do. You can only control what do and how you safegard your well being and the well being of your family.
 
Geezer, I have American Eskimos also. I had one, several years ago, a wonderful dog and I loved him dearly. However he didn't like kids. He had been teased and picked on by kids when he lived with his first family, and that's why I took him, I didn't have small children. Well, long story short, I ended up having to move in with a friend who had her grandkids living with her. The kids were told to just leave him alone, and Spirit got along ok with the kids as long as they left him alone, but the little girl is a rather mean little thing, and she would pull his ears, drag him by his collar, stuff like that. Well, the first time he bit her nobody got too upset because at the time she was yanking on him tail. However, one day she was walking past him (he was sleeping) and he decided to make a pre-emptive strike, bite her before she could hurt him. Unfortunately for him, that's crossing the line. The hardest thing I ever had to do in my life was put him down, but Cajun and I couldn't see an alternative. We just couldn't guarantee that he would never be around another child again, and I couldn't trust him. The 2 eskies I have now aren't agressive, but they WILL defend me (another story for another time). To this day thinking about Spirit brings tears to my eyes, but there was nothing else I could do. OH, and the little girl STILL picks on the animals. :(
 
Dog breeds just like human ethnicities?

3 weelin geezer:
Thats like saying a certain color of people commit more crimes than others.
Click to expand...

No, it's not like that - there is actually a huge difference. Dog breeds are totally artificial, a creation of man. They result from indirect manipulation of the genome, to achieve whatever characteristics the developers chose. I can give more details if you like. The point is, the mechanism for justifying that dog breeds are different is right in front of you - it's deliberate selective breeding that led to particular "flavors" if you will, of the genotype. It's just a low technology version of the thing many people fear today - genetic engineering.

Hopefully, the previous paragraph won't be controversial - it's pretty basic. Additionally, whether people here would like to believe it or not, personality is a result of neural wiring that is guided by brain chemistry. This chemistry is the result of both genetic factors, and environmental factors - they are not even completely separate mechanisms. The brain is "plastic" (essentially meaning it has both structure and malleability at the microscopic scale), and it is now known that adaptations in neural wiring and brain chemistry are also caused by environmental factors.

So, the environmental factors are largely determined by the owner, and are very important. But the genetic factors are determined by the history of the breed development by it's manipulators. And just like there is a phenotypical difference in dog height caused by deliberate genetic manipulation to achieve that, guess what, there is also a phenotypical difference in dog personality caused by deliberate genetic manipulation *to achieve that*.
 
Last edited:
CajunsMisty

I'm sorry you had to go through that ordeal, I'm sure it's a loss that will haunt you for a long time. At the same time I'm proud of you for being responsible, and not waiting until something much worse happened.
 
To back up the aggressive nature of some dogs, many Home Owner's Insurance policies will not even insure the home if it has a Rottie or Pitbull.
 
Trip,

I understand your point about the citizen ultimately being responsible. My problem is are we going to trust that all citizens will be responsible or will certains barriers (licensing, registration, etc...) weed out those people who would just get an agressive dog on a whim?

I feel that someone who has a concealed weapons permit should have a greater responsibility to avoid trouble, hence the restrictions for carrying in places of nuisance (bars). The know the laws and should be held responsible for breaking them. If agressive dogs required licensing, the owners will be forced to know how to properly contain the animal. Likewise, certain training classes or certifications will allow examiners to ensure that the dog is being properly trained and socialized.

We can debate this until eternity but if, God forbid, happened to your child, wife, self, etc... your view point would most likely change. You will ask why is the owner of a dangerous animal allowed to let the dog escape and harm my family.

As for ATW525, maybe you are the extremist type who home schools your kids in your underground bunker. When you drop the kids off to school, you are trusting the school to tkae care of your child. There is an expectation that the school bus driver will not be driving under the influence or drag racing. THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT YOUR CHILD CAN ENJOY THE GREAT OUTDOORS WITHOUT GETTING MAULED BY AN AGRESSIVE DOG!!! Periodic inspections of the facilities may prevent these kinds of accidents and the hassle will certainly prevent people from simply buying this kind of dog without thinking about it.

Las time I checked, it is illegal for pedophiles to stalk and rape your kids. It is NOT illegal (in some places) for people to own dogs that can rip them to shreads nor are there any types of restrictions or licensing. I am also very glad they are increasing the power of the Meagan act where sexual predators' information are made public. I sure as hell would watch my kids more carefully knowing I had a pedophile living around the block. I would also watch more carefully if I knew there was a pit bull as well. The problem is owning the pit bull is legal and I might never know until it is too late.

Am I saying that I want the police to watch us like hawks? No. That is why I don't have a class 3 permit even though I would love to own full auto weapons. Is it possible for me to own them? Yes but I have to demonstrate through a detailed background check that I am not mentally incapable nor a criminal before I can get one. The BATF also has the right to inspect if the weapons are properly stored so that these weapons do not fall in the wrong hands. Too much trouble in my opinion.

The reality is that govenment CAN and DOES control what you can and cannot do to a large extent. If you are speeding, they can ticket and fine you. If you continue to do so, they can suspend your license. If you continue to speed after that and get caught with a suspended license, you will get arrested. The state DOES CONTROL YOU! Why does the satet care if you speed? Because you are putting others in danger. This can be applied to many other topics so please don't say I am comparing speeding to dog ownership.

Everyone controls governs themselves according to the outcomes they desire. It is true that I can use a legally owned firearm in an illegal manner. It is the consequences of the actions (based on laws) that cause people to govern themselves in accordance with the laws. These laws have been put in place by legislators that we have democratically put in office. Restricting access to greater threats (class 3 weapons, dangerous animals, what-have-you) reduces the chances of their misuse and or abuse.
 
Serious highjacking here

Gentlemen,

I believe we are losing the true spirit of this thread. While these arguments would make a fine thread of their own - in the legal political section - lets stay with the poster's original question:

Primary reaction would be to attempt to get the boy to safety - if the dog was clamped on him, I would approach, weapon drawn and probaby either break the rear legs of the animal with a kick or shoot the animal if the backstop was clear - away from the boy - if not no fire.

Probably the distract and shoot tactic would be the best one. If animal had released the victim, and was a danger to others, I would open fire (again only if backstop was clear). But if street was clear, then I would let it go.

Being a dog owner, (English Bulldog) and great dog lover, I would not want to take out someone's pet. But if human life were threatened, I dont think there is a choice to make.
 
stephen426 said:
We can debate this until eternity but if, God forbid, happened to your child, wife, self, etc... your view point would most likely change. You will ask why is the owner of a dangerous animal allowed to let the dog escape and harm my family.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't ask why the owner is allowed to let the dog escape - because I know he's not allowed. There are already laws in place to forbid dog owners from letting this happen - yet it always will. Just as laws are in place regulating firearms - but every day someone uses them for criminal purpose. C'est La Vie I suppose.

No hard feelings stephen426. And your right, we could probably debate this for eternity. It was a pleasure hearing your opinion, and arguments. I had a good time considering your points, and formulating my retort.

I think it's best for me to step out of this thread for the time being, Duxman is right, this went a completely different route from what the original poster intended - I might add, one that I tried to avoid with my first few posts:

Trip20 said:
Please don't turn this into a Pitbull/Rotty/Doberman/German Shepard bashing thread.......
Click to expand...
Trip20 said:
…these dog threads degenerate into breed bashing that is not necessary.
Click to expand...
Trip20 said:
…just trying to steer this away from an unproductive debate.
Click to expand...
And silly me, just when you think your righteous you do the very thing your trying to avoid! Jeez I need to work on my self-restraint.
 
As for ATW525, maybe you are the extremist type who home schools your kids in your underground bunker.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you consider everybody who doesn't agree with you to be an extremist? Nobody said anything about homeschooling... making sure young children are supervised when they're outside playing... teaching them not to provoke dogs (most likely the number one reason kids get attacked by them)... teaching them not to talk to strangers... being prepared for an emergency with both the proper mindset and the proper equipment... and other common sense stuff that could save a child's life far better than trying to regulate the world into a safer place.

The state DOES CONTROL YOU!
Click to expand...

It does not. To use your speeding example, the state cannot make you not speed. They can only punish you after the fact. How many people do you know that always drive the speedlimit or under? That's the problem with trying to obtain safety through regulating what others do... it's only marginally effective at best. People will do what they want, anyways.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm all for tougher punishments. If a dog mauls somebody I don't see any reason why the owner can't be charged criminally for assault, or if the dog actually kills some body I wouldn't bat an eyelash at the idea of charging the homeowner with murder.

That still won't mean that your kids will never have to worry about being mauled by a dog, but those kinds of laws would punish the guilty negligent dog owners and not the innocent, responsable ones.
 
Reply to Pamick

Of course there are referendums to have laws changed or enacted, it happens frequently in my state. I will never again live in California because of laws enacted by referendum. Members of both houses and the chief executive are elected representatives. Please don't even bring up the complexities of the electoral college. Can't we just let this thread "go back to the dogs"?

I sure do find TFL entertaining!!

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
Webleywielder, I wasn't trying to flame you. There are few things that push my button, but the democracy/ republic issue is one of them. No personal offense intended. I'm familiar with the chaotic referendum concept and it's as dangerous to the intent of the Founders as is the activist judges who "legislate" from the bench.
Now then, back to dogs.
stephen426 appears to be of the mindset that government should be used to enforce what he determines is proper and/or acceptable. Based on stephen426: " owners will be forced to know how to properly contain the animal. Likewise, certain training classes or certifications will allow examiners to ensure that the dog is being properly trained and socialized." He's clearly very comfortable with GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS. Perhaps stephen426 would also be comfortable with the government regulating what we eat. I mean based on his line of thinking it would be for "the greater good."
 
dogs

I tend to agree that I do not want somebody telling me what I can and can't do. But the reality of the world is that there are plenty of dog owners that are not responsible with their pets period. I work outside everyday all over town and it just amazes me how irresponsible most pet owners are. They drive all over town with their dog in the front seat hanging out their side of the window. They walk their dogs without any lease or restraint. They put their dogs out on a chain and never go out to play or socialize with them (just feed and water them). they never have any proper way of containing their dog in their yard. I could go on and on. What is worse is that the police do not enforce their rules on animals. They think it is a nusience for them to come out and deal with the problem. I see this on a daily basis and I am suprized there are not more people hurt. Most of the time they will not do anything about the animal until it has already hurt someone. Shame Shame Shame or these type of animal owners. This observation came from 25 years of walking the streets doing my job.


steve the mailman :(
 
Pamrick, no offense taken.

I like the fact that a forum like this allows people to communicate without the inhibitions normally found in discourse. I like unfiltered sincerity. It is entertaining and informative. While working at NSA I learned that sometimes more is learned from the noise than the signal. Are you listening TFL?


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
i would put blame on the owner for not having dog tied up. i have been bit by a rotterler (spelling) i was just riding my bike. the owner did not have it tied up. it bit me. on the arm i punched on the nose broke the nose of the dog, dog bit me on the leg and then the owner came to get the dog off.

i blame the owner!! i love dogs ,but in had to be put down. once a bitter always a bitter. missed a week of work, hospital bills, the owner paid for the bills and my payed 80% of what i missed of work. and the dog got put down. in Michigan(i could be wrong) but if a dog bites human it is put down.
 
Webleywielder

It is my understanding that the United States is considered to be a country where adult citizens vote to enact laws by referendum and to elect representatives to excersise the power of administration and to enact laws. In other words the U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic as opposed to an Aristocratic Republic. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

In a Republic, citizens vote to elect officials to vote for them.

In a democracy, everyone gets to cast a vote on every issue.

Wayne is right. The USA is a Republic...

Now back to the Dogs, uuhhh, Guns!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top