The ad hominem was necessary old boy.Originally Posted by brianp
(1) I already mentioned that the last recorded death from a Pit Bull or Rottweiller in Australia was in 1986.
(2) Neither breed is prohibited breed in this country.
(3) The risk that my dog may harm some one is minimal . As I am breaking no laws,the calculated risk is mine to take.I do not seek to avoid my responsibility.
(4) I weighed the real risk of home invasion against the minimal risk my animal will cause harm. That my is dog is capable of killing some one does not mean he will or that it is even likely. My decision was not made casually ,or with indifference,but pragmatically. I neither apologise for nor need to justify that decision to you or anyone else.
@Floppit; The actuarial risk argument is neither original nor uncommon. That you disagree does not make it nonsense merely a different point of view.
@Brian; see it's not all that hard to reply to an argument without attacking the person.
Perhaps not but to say that the breed of dog means that if it has a bad day it could rip your throat out or kill a child and to also argue there are no dangerous breeds of dogs is nonsensical!The actuarial risk argument is neither original nor uncommon. That you disagree does not make it nonsense merely a different point of view.
If there's an argument that makes that make sense perhaps you would be better to expand on it rather than just leaving the two statements unsupported.
Who is taking the risk here? If I leave a loaded gun around and a child is accidentally killed, I am immediately guilty of gross negligence and in certain circumstances would certainly be investigated from a manslaughter/murder standpoint. Having a potentially lethal dog around should carry a similar level of responsibility - you are responsible for the 'lethal weapon'. The problem is that, this is one you can wash your hands of - because it has independent volition, meaning that it is very difficult for the police to prove that you have been negligent even if this were patently so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8627361.stm
Yet another child dies.....
The deaths come around almost like clockwork. Is anything ever going to be done about the root cause: the dangerous dogs?
.
Sad news indeed.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8627361.stm
Yet another child dies.....
The deaths come around almost like clockwork. Is anything ever going to be done about the root cause: the dangerous dogs?
I'd argue that the whole culture of dog ownership needs to change.
On one extreme you have those that own dogs specifically because they are aggressive. Certainly, this needs addressing....
I find the general attitude of dog owners to the behaviour of their 'pets' is rather odd, often dangerous and almost always a nuisance.
I regularly cycle/walk/run along a bridleway in my local woods. The place is popular with dog walkers. Though this is a 2 mile section of what is usually a route of 6-25 miles it is the ONLY section I consider dangerous. People just fail to control their dogs. To be fair there are (rare) exceptions. But in my experience, the cautious, sensible, polite dog owner is in the minority. They seem to think they can let the dog off the lead, let it charge around (like an animal!?), jump up at people (on bike, on horse, or on foot)....and behave as if no one else has a right to use the path! It is a bridleway! Why do they invariably seem to believe this is OK? Why do they seem to believe that if their dog runs under the wheel of my bike, injuring both me, my bike and their animal, that it is somehow MY fault?!
Would dog owners let their kids behave in a similarly dangerous, uncontrolled fashion? Harassing runners, throwing cyclists from their bikes and shitting all over the path? I think not.
Last edited by smudge; 18th April 2010 at 08:46 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks