A family pet killed for the way it looks...

No, not really. Guns are pointless as they give you a false sense of security that they will "protect" you in some way, however dogs are mainly for companionship and as something to look after.

If you are scared of dogs, stay away from them. Simple. It is not recommended that you let small children around pets anyway due to their unpredictable behaviours so if children were kept away none of these horrific injuries would happen.

You really are scum, aren't you? What you're saying is essentially that, if a tiny minority of people want to keep dangerous dogs, the other 99.5% of the country should have to stay indoors or live in fear when they go outside. Added to my ignore list, ****ing Nazi.

Hold on, what about the adults walking through the parks that are randomly attacked by these dogs. I mean, its not like they were actively approaching them, were they?

Its not a point of being scared of dogs. I'm not scared of dogs in general. I'm scared of animals with a history of ripping people apart.

I'm guessing you would happily stroke my tame pet lion then?

And also, it is the fact that many of these dogs are owned by inept individuals who purposefully raise the dogs to be threatening. Banning the dogs will protect many people from harm.

Hold on, what about the adults walking through the parks that are randomly attacked by these dogs. I mean, its not like they were actively approaching them, were they?

Its not a point of being scared of dogs. I'm not scared of dogs in general. I'm scared of animals with a history of ripping people apart.

I'm guessing you would happily stroke my tame pet lion then?

And also, it is the fact that many of these dogs are owned by inept individuals who purposefully raise the dogs to be threatening. Banning the dogs will protect many people from harm.

Do you mind explaining the reason why you think there is a chance that my dogs could snap and kill someone? Or is it based on unfounded opinion and ignorance?

‘Lennox’ was a loved family pet of the Barnes Family for five years.
He was also a care dog for their 11-year old disabled daughter, she is unable to play with other children, so Lennox was her best friend.
His owner is a veterinary nurse, and the family fostered abandoned dogs.
He was neutered, electronically chipped,licensed, fully trained, kennel club registered, insured and DNA registered. So very responsible owners.

Most importantly of all: Lennox had never shown any signs of aggression, had never attacked another dog or human in his life. He was just a regular house pet.

On May 19th 2010, Belfast City Council ordered for him to be seized and destroyed.
The reason why: they got a tape measure out and he was too tall (from the floor to his shoulder), and was therefore deemed to be a 'dangerous breed' - despite the fact that the dog wardens said that his brother, born from the same litter of puppies was not dangerous.

There is no such thing as a "tame" lion. After that comment there is no real need to entertain anything else written in your ignorant post.

I would just like to say, I don't think OPs dog should be killed. However I think laws should be implemented to prevent the sale and breeding of this type of dog in the future. Many people know they are fighting dogs, which is why they get them.

Sorry to interject, but unless I've got things mixed up, lions are not domesticated animals. Dogs, on the other hand, are.
So your comparison isn't valid.

A lion raised in captivity from birth is arguably a 'tame' lion. There was an article on a girl who let a lion sleep in her bed. Also, it was a comparison. Just because one animal may appear tame, doesn't mean the entire breed are safe.

Why don't you take a walk with me through east london. Then we will see what you think about these types of dogs and their owners.

Oh yes I agree with this view entirely, what I don't agree with is cruelty to an innocent pet just because it has the potential due to its size to harm others. But yes I agree restrictions should be put in place to prevent mistreatment and fighting etc. but not destroying pets that are already with us that haven't harmed a soul.

I live in central Manchester, it's the same up here, I hear you but I'm still not happy with the whole "lets destroy dogs even though they are innocent" movement, I just think restrictions should be put in place.

If their bred to do so. Only several breeds stand apart as dogs with any level of heightened aggression. And even then, its still down mostly to conditioning.
Even an aggressive breed can be conditioned to not be aggressive.
Granted, there's a point in which you can no longer condition them into being temperamental, but that's at about 2 years of age. This dog had been bred from the beginning to be a family pet.

Still, thank you for agreeing. People need to know the mentality of canines before they take them as pets. I think, anyway.

Indeed lions aren't domesticated. But it is the idea of safety I was trying to convey. These dogs have a history of attacking people. So it would be very irresponsible to allow people to own a dog like this. Best thing to do is get rid of them.

It is a matter of risk. Are we going to take the risk that these dogs bring, and wait until they attack someone. Or will we get rid of them completely, thus eliminating the risk they bring?

I understand what point you were trying to make, but lots of other dogs have a history of attacking people. German shephards, Dobermans, Roitweillers - supposedly - Dalmations are meant to be agressive and territorial! Heck, even Labradors can attack people!

It's not about the dog, it's entirely how they are raised. Unfortunately, the media loves to only highlight gang, staffy owners who do raise their dogs inncorrectly and breed them purposefully to be agressive and violent (on the whole). This is often accompanied by a stock photo of a snarling Staffy that manipulates the reader and ignorant public.

If you were constantly seeing pictures like this of Labradors,
,
you might end up thinking that they were vicious and agressive.

It's not the dog's fault. It's the owners and they are they ones that should be punished. I understand it is easier to just destroy the dog and ban them in regards to administrative sense, but that's not far nor humane.
And before you say life isn't fair, I know, but I'd like to think people should try as hard as possible to make it so!

Several New South Wales state government reports analysing dog attacks have identified the Staffordshire bull terrier as the leading breed of dog responsible for biting humans (ahead of the Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepherd and Jack Russell Terrier) in that state

I get your point. I mean yes you are correct that the risk should be eliminated, but that Selkarn guy was so OTT about it with his bull statistics saying I'm a 'Nazi' because I am a supporter of animals, which is sick.

I just think that if they are kept away from others there is no risk, but when chavs own them this is when the problems start.