STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

exactly.

Devildog

BBC NEWS | Wales | Dog attack girl has 100 stitches

BBC NEWS | England | Humber | Hunt for dog after boy is bitten

BBC NEWS | England | South Yorkshire | Postman badly hurt in dog attack

BBC NEWS | England | Bradford | Police breeding dog attacks woman

BBC NEWS | England | Cumbria | Dog attack leaves four men hurt

BBC NEWS | England | Devon | Pet dog fatally injured in attack



And yet the original poster of this thread only links to an incident with a Rottweiler involved.

Its pathetic, and it just proves my point as made on the other thread.

Not much more to say really.....

Devildog

No one is denying these incidents are happening Paul. My issue is that Rotties are being singled out unfairly.

My point is that the reality is that dog attacks are still few and far between and the vast majority of occasions down to negligence in some way shape or form on the part of the owner/parent whatever.

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to either keep dogs or have kids.

Or vote, for that matter...but that's another thread.

PeteBrant

It's not clear though.
Pick any breed you like in Britian today and you can be sure that 99.999% of them have never attacked anybody.

Your thinking just doesn't add up.

[Davey]

I bet they are all stories from over a very long period too.. Oh and the last one is about a DOG getting attacked by a person

Infact I bet there are a FAR thousands more dogs that are killed or injured by people than dogs that kill or injure people.

The Zohan

Where i come from is a licencing point of view for certain breeds to keep out the riff-raff/wrong sort of owners, same should be applied to children/having kids!

Leslie

It must be virtually impossible to know whether a particular dog is likely to attack a child or anyone else for that matter without provocation.

I don't know how one can legislate against such occurrences happening in the first place without being unfairly restrictive on animal owners.

I certainly think that animal owners should be held responsible for any damage or injusry caused by their pets and also that parents should be held fully responsible for their children's safety too. We see too many cases where the parents or guardians of the child concerned have not taken adequate precautions to protect the child.

A few stringent penalties in this respect should concentrate people's minds when it comes to mixing children with animals.

Les

The Zohan

maybe this will help, however the sort of people who do stupid things are not likely to think it will ever happen to them, bit like the fcuktard father who let his 7 y/o daughter ride that quad on a public road, she was killed by an oncoming car, he was in front, in his range rover, he did not feel it was his fault, he compared it to a horse riding accident, these people need to be treated as having special needs (when in fact common sense is what is missing) and thinking for them, punishment is fine but i still think a proactive approach of licencing in a similar way to firearms is the best way forward.

PeteBrant

Just out of interest, how will you test to see if people are suitable to be parents? Given that you have absolutely no idea how you will work out as a parent until you become one.

DCI Gene Hunt

Simple.....

......anyone that would actually WANT to become a parent in this day and age MUST be mad and therefore unfit to be a parent.

......anyone who becomes pregnant by accident is an IDIOT and therefore also unfit to be a parent.

The Zohan

Oh now let me think, serial rapist father and drug addict mother, perhaps a match made in heaven, maybe not the best parents.

teens having kids because they are too stupid to know better or want to get on the council gravy train - maybe not ideal parents

Peter Huntley will eventually get out of prison, i would not want him to become a father or parent, maybe you can see to good in him, me not really.

Peter, Peter, not everyone reads the Guardian or is in the NL chattering classes mate

Lot of unsuitable people out there know their rights and not their responsibilities.

CRB check would be a good start mate - obviously not all offences, depends on what but serious crimes - no-no!
Age, nothing under 18, not 11 onwards
Educated/employable able to pay their way

that sort of thing really, in an idea world maybe you would not need it but we live in a far from ideal world

PeteBrant

Right, so under your test, the bloke with the range rover that bought his kiddie a quad would have been fine, then.

what the fvck does whether you may have commited a crime in the past have to do with your ability as a parent?

Its already illegal to have sex under 16, so that's sort of covered.

As for being educated and employable, well , thats pretty much everyone. Unless of course you know, you are saying mentally disordered people shouldn't be allowed to procreate? I mean, say if someone had severe autism - should they be prohibited from having kids?

PeteBrant

Wish they did, perhaps then we wouldn't have ****ing stupid ideas like this put forward

The Zohan

Peter, calm down a bit, it was for fun mate.

OK then Peter - answer me this then, do you think Peter Huntley would make a good parent and do you think he should have kids, do tell

It is his right to after all.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Why cant people just get a less powerful Dog ?

Any dog can 'turn', that is true but why get something so big that is so dangerous when it does, I got bitten by a Westie and it hurt, the same dog went for my Five year old lad but it was easy to drag off and subdue because it only weighed what, 15 pounds, I stopped short of killing it but luckily it had not managed to hurt him, it got his jacket and not his skin, I managed to control the situation but had it been a Rottweiler I would not have been able to. It could have hurt him but not as badly as something bigger could.

Generally I find bigger dogs to be less aggressive and more placid but its the potential and likelyhood of an attack that you have to weight up and had it been a Rottweiler it wouldnt have been allowed in the house.

Sorry Rottie owners, I am sure your dogs are big, lovable daft dogs and I do have some sympathy but not everybody sees it that way, next time perhaps get something less intimidating, a Dog is Pretty much a Dog.

PeteBrant

I am going to assume you mean Ian Huntley.

You aren;t going to prove your point by using extremes. It's a very poor way of arguing a case.

However.

Of course Huntley would not make a good parent - but this goes back to the Dogs argument - do you make everyone apply for alicense to have children because of a rogue element?

It is the most fundamental basic human function to procreate and you want to license it?

Fvck that. Thank christ it will never ever happen in this country.

The Zohan

OK then how would you prevent the Likes of hunleyt from having kids, a good stiff talking to maybe, show them a film or two on being a good dad.
Remember it is his right to.


Rights and responsibilites Peter this is the root of a lot of problems, everybody knows their rights, not so many prepared to stand up and take ownership of their responsibilities!

ulusaba1

All dogs have the potential to be aggressive. The major factor is how much damage can be inflicted in a short space of time. Some of the most aggressive dogs are the smaller breads like the Jack Russell and Yorkshire Terrier etc but the amount of damage they cause is relatively small so these incidents when they occur never get reported.

A lot of the large breeds including the Rottie are wonderful pets. The Rottie in general is a very loving and loyal companion and they are great with children.

The problem is certain people tend to by these types of animals for the wrong reasons and are unwilling to and unable to look after them correctly (Like leaving them in the back yard of a house chain up). When this happens they without a doubt can be a problem and can turn aggressive.

The simple solution to this problem is stop these irresponsible owners purchasing these animals in the first place.

Anyway that my opinion and before anyone asks, yes I own a Rottie.

PeteBrant

You don't need to prevent Huntely from having kids - he doesn't have any, nor is he likely to - So don't worry about it.

As far as Serial killers/rapists that do have kids, how many have attacked thier own children? How many have grown up to become serial killers/rapists?

For me, the rights of the majority outwight the potential pitfalls for a tiny minority. You arent ever going to license parents - It a stupid ****ing idea. You have proven already how flawed it can be by allowing the very range rover owning person you gave an example of, passing your test with flying colours.

As for not many people people willing to take ownership of thier responsibilites, again, this is patently bollocks, as millions of perfectly able parents testify.

PeteBrant

Again. How do you find out which potential owners are irresponsible without them actually owning the dog

(clue: You can't)

Tiggs

Same argument applies to guns...in this country you can by an air rifle but not an Ak47...why, they are both guns? reason is one is a more dangerous gun in the wrong hands...neither is dangerous in a cupboard.

The Zohan

Actually you can, just because you can afford to buy a dog does not mean you should automatically have one does it.

rights and responsibilities again.

Pete, have a look into how to apply for a firearms cert and what is involved, - see what is involved, it would be a good starting point IMHO.

PeteBrant

What is this obsession with equating to owning a dog to owning a gun? Have people gone mental?

The Zohan

FFS Peter, you know better, to get a licence to own a firearm means you have to pass certain criteria, as i said have a look instead of posturing and sound biting mate!

PeteBrant

Well, yes , it does. And the system works - beacause the number of dogs in the country is around 6 million and the number of people killed by them per year is about 5.


Any suggestion that this is a ratio that requires further legislation is idiotic, and pretty amazing considering this forums distaste for unnecessary bureaucracy.

PeteBrant

But, like, there is a sound reason for that. Guns, right, are designed to kill people.

Dogs, right, aren't.

If I own a gun and am abit careless, people might die.

If I own a dog, and am a bit careless, it might **** on my carpet.

Fvck me.

davegtt

And theres 4million guns in the uk Pete and only 60 people were killed by gun shot wounds in the UK last year..... Not that far out on a percentage comparision with your dog stats.....

The Zohan

Heres a 'grown up' version for you Peter just incase


the reaons we have gun licences is to weed out unsuitable candidates and protect themselves and the public.

Come on Peter you are usually smarter than that in you arguments.

FFS you suggest licencing and some of the human rights do-gooders make it sound like you want to pile all dogs up high and set fire to them.

DCI Gene Hunt

No ones been killed by a taser gun..... make those legal as well

Devildog

That statement is akin to saying one child is pretty much the same as another one.

Different breeds and different dogs within those breeds exhibit different character traits, just as people do.

If you believe a dog is pretty much a dog, then I would question your sutability to own one Jacko.

It is naievety and ignorance like that that gives rise to many of the problems.