Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    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.
    :facepalm:

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    I think you've got your figures a bit wrong. Staffy owners are not a 'tiny minority' - they're the 5th Most popular breed in the UK - there's tens of thousands of them.

    Your fear is based on ignorance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    :facepalm:

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    :facepalm:

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    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?
    That doesn't make sense at all. Your dogs could snap and kill someone. That is undeniable.

    This whole situation is subjective. It's about where you draw the line.

    I personally see equal to Belfast Council - that dog looks extremely dangerous and could probably kill me if it snapped, and I believe that it violates people's freedoms and rights to have such animals walking around, leashed or not.

    I think the fact that one of you said "dogs should only be punished only once they have ripped out a kid's throat" is testament to the small amount you value human life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    ‘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. :confused:[/URL]
    This REALLY annoys me!! I'm all for the ban of dangerous dogs, but each case should be considered individually, and not just banned for the breed. It's a disgrace. This is a fully trained, helpful dog that plays a major role in a little girl's life - is that not proof enough that it's not a typical dog of such "dangerous breed" ? Absolutely WRONG.. The Council just won't admit it and put it right. *£&!?%$^
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balface)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    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.
    But you see, it will be difficult to allow one section of society to keep these dogs while others are prohibited from using them. So the best thing to do is ban them completely.

    Some people use drugs 'safely'. Others do not. So should I allow some members of society to take drugs, or should I ban it completely.

    These dogs are a risk, therefore we shouldnt have them on the streets.

    And also to all the people saying just keep your children away from these dogs, why don't you tell that to my brother who was bitten in the middle of the high street by one of these brutes.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    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.
    No, it would be foolish to allow some people to own them. Its best to illegalise the sale and breeding of these types of dogs completely. A type of dog which was originally bred for FIGHTING.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    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. :yep: People need to know the mentality of canines before they take them as pets. I think, anyway. :cool:
    Yeah I definitely agree with that - invariably it's down to their treatment. Even when they do actually lash out - this dog doesn't appear to have done anything wrong - I'm quite disturbed they are put to death over it.

    I was just trying to point out that there is a huge number of genetic traits - including aggressiveness - that can be bred into (and out of) dogs. But, even the friendliest dog you've ever seen will eventually snap if they are abused enough - just like any human would.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Council b******s. Words fail me
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    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.
    I understand what point you were trying to make, but lots of other dogs have a history of attacking people. German shephards, Dobermans, Rottweilers - 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!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    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 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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    What breed is Lennox? I can't make him out, is he a large staffie? The KC don't register cross breeds, and pitbulls are illegal, but he looks like a pitbull to me.

    Such a shame that he has been caught up in this big mistake.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balface)
    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!
    Staffs have a history of violence in the UK, we constantly hear stories of people and children being attacked by them. Yes other dogs are doing it, but its not happening on the scale it happens with staffs. If it was, it would be just as widely reported.

    Sure in the UK there may not be any reports on these dogs, but look at this one

    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
    And sadly, life isn't fair, and what you are suggesting isnt practical. I am not suggesting we round up all the staffs in the country and slaughter them, I am saying that we should implement laws so that they will no longer be sold or bred. That way, there is no need to kill any of the current staffs.

    You are very right, it is about how the dog is raised. So the best thing to do is prevent these reckless owners from owning these naturally aggressive dogs. And the best way to do that is by illegalising them

    And the fact that you people seem to be putting the lives of DOGS over the lives of CHILDREN is very disturbing.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    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.
    That first guy was a troll just trying to provoke you. But I do think he had a point. You are not a nazi, I am a supporter of animal rights as well. However the rights of humans should come above those of animals in my opinion. And we as humans shouldn't have to feel at risk from potentially dangerous animals with a history of attacking people.
    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.
    In an ideal world this would be the perfect solution. But the world doesn't work like that. Illegalising them completely would be the only way to insure things like this dont happen
    and to insure that we are no longer at risk from a dangerous animal.

    Op's dog may be perfectly safe, but thats because it is well trained. She can't say that for all staffs though, can she?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.