Dog attack

[stephen426]

Trip,

I read the thread that you linked to about the government not gauranteeing our safety. Some of the people posting seem to prefer out right anarchy. They want to do whatever they want to do and they don't want anyone to tell them what they can and can't do. People seem to have this whole idea that the government is the "Big Brother" who is looking to take away our freedom. Last time I checked, we live in a democratic society governed for the people and by the people. It is our responsibility to use our right to vote to change things we don't like. For some who feel the calling, they should run for government and make sure that our voices are heard.

That said...
No one's individual rights are any greater than anyone elses. YOU may be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't affect ME and MY freedoms. I also feel that no ONE person's should be greater than that of the collective whole (or sheep people) as the other thread called them.

Why are you not allowed to drink and drive? Because you can harm OTHER PEOPLE.

Why can government place speed limits on roadways? Because excessive speed has been shown to kill and not just the driver. He can kill OTHER PEOPLE.

Why can the government prevent you from doing things that are harmful to the environment? Because it harm OTHER PEOPLE.

Why can government ban smoking in public places? Because second hand smoke harms OTHER PEOPLE.

Why should the government regulate dangerous animals? Because they can harm or kill OTHER PEOPLE.

Trust me when I say I am not an anti-gun person. My concern is not with those who are of sound mental health and know when and how to use a firearm. My concern is also not with those people who train their dogs and know how to control them. My concern is that if no one enforces and ensures that these criteria are met, it can, will, and DOES affect other people! How many incidences have unsecured guns been taken by children and used in these tragic shootings? How many unsecured guns have been stolen and used in crimes? How many people have been bitten or killed because someone was not responsible and let the dog loose? WE NEED TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS BY DEMONSTRATING THAT OUR ACTIONS WILL NOT HARM OTHER PEOPLE NOR INFRINGE UPON THEIR PERSONAL FREEDOMS!!! For me, this means that the people we have elected should create some kind of licensing or inspection process to protect the public.

Should I be allowed to have a pit bull running around off leash especially when there are children playing nearby? Should anyone be allowed to own whatever the hell kind of weapon they want without any restrictions? Think about what a field day criminals, nut cases, and terrorists could have if they could walk into their local Walmart, pick up a M-60 machine gun without any paper work or waiting period. For the GREATER GOOD OF THE WHOLE, certain restrictions have been put into place.

You guys can bash away now.

One other note, I have heard the arguement that we gun owners need to be extremists to counter the extremist anti-gun people. If everyone is reasonable, there will be less BS going back and forth. Hi-Lo negotiation style is a waster of time.

[stephen426]

On a side note, for those of you who think that I am an anti-gunner based on my previous post, let me clarify my position. I believe that in responsible gun ownership as it allows me to protect myself against those who are out to harm me and my family.

[stolivar]

I have worked out in the public and see dogs everyday for the last 25 years. You can not say that just because a dog looks friendly and is waving his tail he is not going to bite you. I have seen dogs do a 360 degree turn in personality in less than a second. The dogs I hate to see on my route is Pitt Bulls, german shepards and Chows Period. Now it is not the dogs faught but the owners. But I have met hardly any of those breeds that was not highly agressive and just downright mean. German Shepards I think are the worse. You can flame all you want, but by my experience most dogs owners need more regulations on them. Over 3000 mail carriers are bit every year at a cost of over $10 million in emergeny room bills alone. That is not counting the rest of the people that are bitten everyday. No dog should be loose without a lease when out and no dog should ever be put on a chain. Almost every dog I have ever seen on a chain becomes agressive. All I am stressing is responsible dog ownership is needed. All it takes is one bad owner to give certain breed of dogs a bad name. I see a lot of people that get certain dogs because they think it makes them super cool to have that breed. Those are the dog owners I have problems with.


steve

[Webleywielder]

Even the sheepeople must have the right to make the wrong decision. The difference between the shepherdpeople and wolfpeople is honoring and defending that right.

For those thread readers who may be confused about the above, check out the Legal and Politics forum.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[Trip20]

Webley, he's suggesting the "sheepeople" do not have the right to make the wrong decisions. Yet you feel he made an excellent post? Speak-a-da english dude.

Stephen, applying your philosophy: we should regulate child-birth for low income people, because we as tax payers end up footing the bill. They're now infringing upon MY freedoms. Because someone feels THEIR right to a certain life-style is more important than MY right to keep more of my hard-earned money.

Where do we draw the line?

I don't feel it's right for politicians to tell me what type of dog I can own, what type of firearms I can purchase, whether or not I can exercise my 2nd Amendment Right......etc. Of course it's happening - as in they do this very thing to me and all of us every day -, and I do listen, because I do not want to have to deal with the consequences... but it's not right.

Why are you not allowed to drink and drive?

Why can government place speed limits on roadways?

Why can the government prevent you from doing things that are harmful to the environment?

Your trying to advocate your stance using the most inane examples that anyone would have to agree with. Equating regulation of speed limits, and owning a German Shepard is the most ridiculous thing I think I've heard in awhile. For one, the state or federal government OWN the highways, and just like when your in my house, you have to follow my rules... so forth goes the speed limit in their house.

But, my dog is mine and on my property - he will do as he/I pleases. Yet when I go onto property such as a park with my dog, I have to have him on a leash - not my land, not my rules. That's fine. But don't tell me I can't own the damn dog to begin with. That's BS.

The same applies for guns with me. When I'm home I can strap myself up like Rambo - but when I leave my home, I cannot carry a weapon. There's no CC in my state and I feel that is wrong. Lets say it was legal, and I had a permit. I'd have to remove my firearm when I go into a court house, that's fine, but don't tell me I can't carry, or I can't own the damn gun to begin with. That's BS.

You can put rules in place to protect other's freedom, but do not infringe upon mine to protect theirs. The same thing you said, but in reverse.

There's a difference between setting up a speed limit, and passing legislation stating everyone must use public transportation. Both are "in the best interest of public safety" - but one infringes upon my right to be happy and be free.

[Lawyer Daggit]

Carbine caleb your photo is a splitting image of a dog I used to have called Jasmine. She was very much a one owner dog- I could do anything with her including taking a bone off her and she was highly protective of me and got to level 4 in obedience training. She died six years ago and I have never come across another like her.

I share your loss.

[Webleywielder]

I must disagree. If the sheepeople in your state democratically vote or support representives that make the wrong decision, for example to support a ban on CC, you must respect it. You can always move or get active within the system to change things. To do anything else makes you a wolf like Eric Rudolph and Ted Kazinzki (Sp?).

I am fluent in english btw.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[CarbineCaleb]

Thanks Daggit - she was the greatest, I really loved that dog, probably sounds silly, but I did. She was very clever, someone who worked with her said the smartest dog they had ever seen, and terribly athletic, and what a great spirit. There may be a Shepherd in my future I might guess though... I know what you mean about the one-owner dog, Shepherds are pretty emotional, and bond very tightly to their owner. That bond can go both ways.

[ATW525]

My opinion is that pushing for legislation restricting dog owners is wrong. If you believe that the state should babysit you by restricting everybody's elses behavior so you don't have to look out for yourself than you're just a sheeple. If somebody has little kids that outside playing and they get mauled by a dog, I have to ask where the $%^# were they and why weren't they supervising thier children properly?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for legislation that holds owners accountable for the actions of thier dogs, however. I personally believe the owner should be charged as if they committed the crime thier dog did.

[USP45usp]

Damn,

And here I stupidity thought all this time, that we were a Republic, not a democracy.

Oh well

Wayne

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by Webley

I must disagree. If the sheepeople in your state democratically vote or support representives that make the wrong decision, for example to support a ban on CC, you must respect it.

Just curious if you actually read my entire post, because I said:

Originally Posted by Trip20

I don't feel it's right for politicians to tell me what type of dog I can own, what type of firearms I can purchase, whether or not I can exercise my 2nd Amendment Right......etc. Of course it's happening - as in they do this very thing to me and all of us every day -, and I do listen, because I do not want to have to deal with the consequences... but it's not right.

[3 weelin geezer]

I would be real happy if pit bulls didn't exist - they're a powerful, aggressive breed to begin with, and too often, don't seem to have responsible owners to properly train and restrain them.

I am a doglover, btw, but if you have a breed that dangerous engaged in a serious attack on a person - he is toast.

______________________

Thats like saying a certain color of people commit more crimes than others. I have a pit bull/german shepherd and she is a very loving dog. I also have a cute alaskan eskimo dog that that looks about the size of Kelly and wants to rip everyone apart if they get close enough. Especially kids since they tend to call her over then let her have it with rocks for no reason. I would do the same if treated like that. I would pick up a bigger rock and jump over the fence and let them have it. See how they like it. Now, the second part of the first sentence is the problem--> the owners who train the dog. A dog has no concept of such silly things as human laws. It can't read. It doesn't go to school. It only learns from the master. If the master is just an apprentice then why are you blaming the dog for the inferior instruction it recieved? That thing about pit bulls is just that pit bull. Mine jumps on people to get affection and lick faces.

______________


Should I be allowed to have a pit bull running around off leash especially when there are children playing nearby? Should anyone be allowed to own whatever the hell kind of weapon they want without any restrictions? For the GREATER GOOD OF THE WHOLE, certain restrictions have been put into place.
______________
I would love to walk into walmart right now and get me an m-60 or a tommy gun or an mg-42 or a 50 cal browning or an AK 47 or a mac 10 or a BAR or an m-14 or ...... if they sold it at a reasonable price. Hell I would settle for a good old smith and wesson .357 magnum in 6".
Who is in charge of allowing me to own whatever thing I want? What makes that person so just and noble that they can do no harm and is granted the legal or moral power to decide such things? Nobody. There is no such person. I think I should be able to own whatever I please but what I do with it is what should be judged by a judge if it is not the correct thing to do with it.
____________

Think about what a field day criminals, nut cases, and terrorists could have if they could walk into their local Walmart, pick up a M-60 machine gun without any paper work or waiting period.
_____________

They do this already. What happened to tim mcvay? No one even checked his driver's licence for lack of insurance I bet. The terrorists of 9-11 got planes from somewhere here in America did they not? No background check or useless make the general public feel safe and sound waiting period. Waiting for what? Cooling off period. I never set myself on fire (well maybe when I am welding and my pants catch fire from the upturned bottom hem.) at least not intentionally.

[Webleywielder]

Did someone in this thread say it is a Democracy?

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?


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[Webleywielder]

Yes and I don't think it productive to spend anymore time on the topic direction this thread has taken. As someone who was recently accused of highjacking a thread, causing more noise than signal, etc.; I am going to do what I think my accursers should have done, either no longer participate, or ignore what they believe to be irrelavant, or start a new thread that specifies that only a specific type of posting be made.

I've only been posting to TFL for a short time and I can already see I need never worry about being the most brash, dogmatic, irrelevant, and irrational contributor. Not that I think you are Trip20, you don't even come close. I am not the slightest bit upset with the tenor of some postings or their disagreement with mine, if anything they are amusing, often witty, and sometimes invaluably educational. I am glad TFL exists to allow us to bluntly speak our minds in a harmless manner. I see nothing wrong with "rants" and "flame wars", both of which are self-extingushing or easy to manuever around. I hope TFL administrators will avoid censorship of anything but obcenity and illegality.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[pamick]

It's quite disturbing to read some of the posts here. For instance, Webleywielder, who believes "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." Mr. Webleywielder would do well to read this particular document: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
A democratic republic DOES NOT enact laws by referendum; a democratic republic DOES NOT "elect representatives to excersise the power of administration and to enact laws." Mr. Webleywielder, the elected representatives create the laws and the Executive or "administration" carries out those laws. It's appalling and frightening there is such gross ignorance of the principles of our government.

[stephen426]

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.

[ATW525]

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.

[stephen426]

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.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by stephen426

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!!!

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.

[ATW525]

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.

[CajunsMisty]

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.

[CarbineCaleb]

3 weelin geezer:

Thats like saying a certain color of people commit more crimes than others.

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*.

[Trip20]

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.

[Old Shooter]

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.

[stephen426]

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.