Despite the demands by the vicious dog hating scum that wanted my German Shepherd destroyed for biting the person who completely uninvited came up to my dog and started poking around his face, British justice has shown some common sense and allowed him to live.

 

Now we just need our pathetic government to allow us to treat intruders the way that they deserve

Hey Dave, life is a gamble and there is FAR TOO MUCH banning going on in this pathetic country. We have to get a perspective in this country and realise that people do die. It will happen to all of us in the end one way or another. We keep taking all the fun out of life on the off-chance that someone could be hurt. CARS ARE NEXT!!!!!! Soon, everything in the slightest bit interesting in life will be banned because of something that COULD happen, or did happen TO ONE PERSON FFS!

 

2p ;)

 

I absolutely agree with you there mate, well put :cool:

Nelson MainFella, your right in some ways as SOME ****ers do use their dogs

as macho image makers, and very sad lives they must lead, but i would say a dog is more predictable than any human, ive yet to see a dog shove a glass in someones face, or abuse another dog because it's different, or get drunk off it's face and and make a twat of itself lol etc etc

 

i wouldn't dream of leaving our dog alone with my lads baby, however much i trust her, or walk up to someone elses dog and start teasing it

 

if anyone comes to our house i put her away, as she IS unpredicable that way, but she is doing what comes natural and protecting her ground

 

the rspca and the nspcc were formed to protect both from other humans

not from dogs, how many dogs/animals will get thrown out or abused this christmas, BUT how many calls will the police get over the holidays about domestic violence/murders child abuse??

 

i can think of a lot of people i would rather put to sleep, before 99% of dogs,

and that includes the macho idiots you mention;)

 

as you say certain dogs are bred for protection etc and they need to have owners that understand that, and the next time someone gives your elderly Mum hassle maybe a touch of their own medicine would put them straight;)

and the next time someone gives your elderly Mum hassle maybe a touch of their own medicine would put them straight;)

 

believe me, I've thought long and hard about this, and would have done something, but for the woman neighbour being a hard-faced mentally unstable nutcase. whatever I did, they would do back to my parents - hassle they don't need. Revenge may be on the cards in the future tho' !

 

Basically, they are ex-council estate scum (no disrespect to decent council-estate ppl) who spend all their life fighting and shouldn't have moved to a decent suburban area where my parents live - I blame the Conservatives for letting them buy their council house cheap and/or the lack of accomodation for mentally unstable ppl.

The bitch has 2 kids -neither of them work, they recycle nothing, have regular piss-ups, loud parties, park cars all over the road (deliberately making it awkward for my parents), dog barking occasionally, etc. etc. their garden was a building site for years. I've never met such a nasty woman - if she died we'd have a party - her kids wud probably not be all that bothered either. They shud be housed under a motorway flyover.

yep sad when your Mum has to at her stage in life be worried about ANYTHING m8, hopefully one day when your in a car well insured, (not the Z) this excuse for a human may step into the road and is "careless to traffic" :mad:

 

sorry officer she was looking the other way as she stepped off the pavement

Didn't mean to comment on your case Posidrive, and I respect the opinions above - good to have an open debate.

 

No offense taken, I probably blew a fuse because this whole incident has put one hell of a stress on my family. It is a sad fact of life that the majority of German Shepherd owners (at least from my experience around the High Wycombe area) are morons who think that a big dog makes them a big man. Any dog will become what its owner makes of it just as the same sadly applies to children and the way that they are treated by their parents.

 

Sadly this incident was the last straw in our disillusionment with life in Britain and hopefully we will soon be off to a better life in Canada. So two more Zeds will soon be making an appearance in the "Cars For Sale" forum. Sob!!!!

OK sound theory. However. By your logic that would mean that everone who owns a car should not own a car because its unpredictable and could smash into someone and kill them, the car may not be at fault, it may get a puncture. I could go on here but you get my drift, and there are more people harmed by ass wipes in the leathal weapon that is a cat than dogs.

 

Another note

 

Their are more peoples killed each year my mules/ donkeys than dogs, should we not own them either. Cited Journal of social sciences last week.

 

But if you are afraid of these dogs, dont go up to them, dont go up to them and anoy them, dont go into their house and anoy them, dont hassle their family, dont poke them and dont be bloody supprised when they turn round and express thirselves with teh only means they have.

 

Its not teh dogs that are the idiots it the idiot owners, and we cant do sod all about idiot owners.

To deve8uk....

 

there is acceptable risk where there is significant benefit.....cars give us a lot in terms of convenience and efficiency........we accept the risk (although in future I reckon we will look back with incredulity that we 'allowed' ~ 3,500 road death per year.............

 

but bottom line is we ALL benefit from road vehicles in some way.

 

There is no real benefit from having a big dog over a smaller more placid breed. That's my point - so the extra risk to ppl (& kids in particular) is not warranted IMO.

 

Mules/donkeys are different - who ever heard of someone being chased by a donkey/mule ? (ie. other than the owner/keeper/rider). If u have one/ride one, the risk is on you (this is acceptable).

 

But owning an aggressive dog without all the necessary precautions is like driving a car dangerously. My point is - why not get a labrador/retiever ? They don't tend to rip faces off kids.

But owning an aggressive dog without all the necessary precautions is like driving a car dangerously. My point is - why not get a labrador/retiever ? They don't tend to rip faces off kids.

 

 

Those dogs are just a likely as any other to go for you (again depending on how the mutt feels, and how it was brought up) The only reason that the Police don't use them instead of GS's is because they look cute and would defeat the object of intimidation somewhat.

 

By that logic we'd all be driving around in 1 watt electric cars made of foam rubber!! LOL!

 

And as for how pets benefit society, well they are good for lowering blood pressure, provide amusement for the owners, keep old-aged owners company.

 

Seem to remember it was only back in the 70's that they stopped people from keeping Lions/Tigers/Panthers AT HOME!!! :shock: That's fair enough (although I'd LOVE to see the face on a burglar when he breaks in and finds a Bengal Tiger staring at him - prior to having his head ripped off a mili-second later! :rofl: :rofl:

What b******s are you talking? :xxx: I used to own 2 irish wolfhounds 36 inches to there shoulder over 7ft when stood up and 14stone. The biggest breed you can get an one of the most placid. But even they would turn if someone was poking them in there face or they had to protect there family or property!!!

 

Nice one on Posidrive hate to see dogs put down for no reason :cry:

why not get a labrador/retiever ? They don't tend to rip faces off kids.

 

Like the cocker spaniel at socialisation class that almost ripped the face off my White German Shepherd (We have 3 GSDs) puppy when he was about 6 months old. The breed of dog is not the generally the problem but rather the owners or in some cases the greedy dog breeders who don't care about inbreeding which in turn causes behavioural problems.

 

By that logic we'd all be driving around in 1 watt electric cars made of foam rubber!! LOL!

 

And as for how pets benefit society, well they are good for lowering blood pressure, provide amusement for the owners, keep old-aged owners company.

 

QUOTE]

 

You didn't listen to my reasoning :nono: Cars are overall beneficial and currently irreplaceable.

 

Big dogs can be substituted for smaller less dangerous breeds (WITHOUT loss of advantages of owing a dog as you have detailed above)

 

Also....do you think a labrador could/would kill or main you ......extremely unlikely...wud probably give you one bite and them stop........whereas a lot of these tough breeds would/could carry on until you are seriously injurred/dead. There IS a big difference, not just in size, but in their level of aggression.

What b******s are you talking? :xxx: I used to own 2 irish wolfhounds 36 inches to there shoulder over 7ft when stood up and 14stone. The biggest breed you can get an one of the most placid. But even they would turn if someone was poking them in there face or they had to protect there family or property!!!

 

Nice one on Posidrive hate to see dogs put down for no reason :cry:

 

Just last year in Georgia, 5-year-old Justin Taubner was attacked by the family Rottweiler while playing with it outside. The bite wounds to his head and neck were fatal.

Boys ages 5 to 9 are most at risk, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research shows half of all children are bitten by dogs at some point, and half of those attacks occur at home with a familiar dog.

 

 

'>http://www.effect.net.au/scallywags/aug99/kids.htm

 

To be balanced it does say this.....

A South Australian Health Commission study found that German Shepherd, Bull Terrier, Doberman, Rottweiler and Blue Heeler dogs were over-represented in dog bites.

 

...but that's just wrt kids.....adults are the ones who are in most anger from big dogs.

 

[quote=Nelson MainFella

You didn't listen to my reasoning :nono: Cars are overall beneficial and currently irreplaceable. ----- Err, what about busses, trains, bicycles?

 

Big dogs can be substituted for smaller less dangerous breeds (WITHOUT loss of advantages of owing a dog as you have detailed above) - so your 3.0L Twin Turbo is ESSENTIAL? - couldn't get from A to B in something a little smaller?

 

Also....do you think a labrador could/would kill or main you ...it might try......extremely unlikely....you sure?.....wud probably give you one bite and them stop.. are you certain? and how bad would ONE bite be for a 3 year old kid?............whereas a lot of these tough breeds would/could carry on until you are seriously injurred/dead. There IS a big difference, not just in size, but in their level of aggression.

 

:)

Just re-read my post above and it's not very clear where I'm coming from :slap: ..... what I'm saying is that owning WHATEVER breed of dog is entirely the choice of the owner, but it is also their RESPONSIBILITY.

 

There is no good REASON for owning a big dog, but then there is no real justification for doing the majority of things that we enjoy/do.

I shud have said road vehicles are essential - buses and train are, however, no substitute for standard of living gained by owning and using a car. so, cars are ESSENTIAL to maintain our standard of living.

 

Even a cyclist benefits from cars/road vehicles, as goods and people who work need to be moved efficiently to generate wealth. A big engine is NOT essential, but it doesn't necessarily pose a greater risk (depends how fast and the style of driving - smaller cars can be just as dangerous, then engine size makes little difference to risk). A big dog DOES impose greater risk, ON AVERAGE.

One-off incidents are annecdotal and prove very little. (ie if a certain dog did or didn't attack someone / something it doesn't prove a lot).

 

I believe certain breeds were bred with fighting / agression in mind and these, in general are still more likely to be aggressive.

 

I found some stats on line an I assume they don't take into account the overall number of each dog.

 

Equally, they can't take into account that 'bad owners' may be more likely to choose an agressive breed (I'm certainly not saying everyone who chooses what can be seen as an agressive breed is a bad owner though!)

 

*Fatal dog attacks: Breeds Involved

Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),

Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),

Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),

St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),

other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

(from http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html)

 

So Rotties, GSD and Pit bulls account for 43% (almost half) of deaths worldwide.

 

I think it might be better if people didn't own the sorts of dog which tend to attack and kill (most of the deaths were children under one year old). Maybe the answer would be to "make owners responsible for the dogs crime" but its too late then for the dead child's parents.

I think it might be better if people didn't own the sorts of dog which tend to attack and kill.

 

The percentage figures are somewhat misleading. Firstly, they do not take into account the relative populations of each type of dog. The German Shepherd is one of the most popular breeds worldwide, so if you applied a correction factor for this then the picture would be somehat different. OK, I agree that you can proove anything with statistical manipulation, but ..... Secondly, they do not take into account the type of owner/treatment of the dog. Sadly,as I mentioned before, many GSD owners are a....holes and their dogs are often cruely abused.

 

Please don't label particular breeds for the behaviour of their owners!!!! A well treated and properly trained dog of any breed will not tend to attack and kill anyone.

 

Maybe the answer would be to "make owners responsible for the dogs crime"

 

In the UK they already are, under the 1991 dangerous dogs act plus later revisions (These do not just apply to pit bull types). You can be jailed if your dog attacks somebody, although the maximum sentance is 2 years. I was lucky that the CPS only raised my issue under the 1871 dogs act which is not a criminal offense, although I really think they should not have raised it at all given the circumstances.

..... Secondly, they do not take into account the type of owner/treatment of the dog. Sadly,as I mentioned before, many GSD owners are a....holes and their dogs are often cruely abused.

 

Please don't label particular breeds for the behaviour of their owners!!!! A well treated and properly trained dog of any breed will not tend to attack and kill anyone.

 

.

 

The thing you need to take into account when talking about national laws - and this applies to politics in general....

 

is that you have to legislate for ALL people - this means accepting lawless criminal types/nutcases/good people/misled people etc. etc.

 

so if the majority of the owners of a dog breed are irresponsible (for whatever reason), then legislation is justifiable.

 

A failed government/politician blames ppl for the failure of a policy/government tenure instead of their policies. It may be true that the policy woulod have worked if people behaved better, but that doesn't help the situation and the policy must have been naive/misguided. A government governs for everyone - they need to accept ppl as they are (good and bad) - it's the job of teachers and parents and other adults to encourage us to behave in society.

 

If all the bad dog owners cause a wave of injuries/deaths - there's no logic in saying "but if they'd been good owners this wouldn't have happened - it's too late for the victims !

 

Hungerford and other shootings were only due to bad/crazy people, but without the guns it wouldn't have happened. The guns are not to blame, but where there's guns in society, there will be nutters willing to use them in bad ways. FACT.

 

Make sense ?

Make sense ?

 

 

Yes, but what is your solution? Ban everything that could be 'potentially' dangerous or open to abuse?

Hungerford and other shootings were only due to bad/crazy people, but without the guns it wouldn't have happened. The guns are not to blame, but where there's guns in society, there will be nutters willing to use them in bad ways. FACT.

 

Make sense ?

 

I see where you're coming from, but in my view there is a big difference between guns and dogs. In the hands of the public, guns make no valuable contribution to any aspect of society whereas dogs do in fact make a useful contribution. In its sinplest form they provide companionship to the lonely. In my particular case, the companionship of our dogs helped my wife through a difficult spell after the death of her father since otherwise she would have been alone during the working/school day.

 

I for one, would welcome the reintroduction of dog licenses of significant cost. This would go much of the way towards preventing a population of abused and mentally unstable animals since those that people had would then in all probability be properly treated.

Yes, but what is your solution? Ban everything that could be 'potentially' dangerous or open to abuse?

 

I would say, yes, when there is an option which offers most or all of the benefits with significantly lower risks. Then legislative control (not necessarily outright banning) is a option worth considering.

 

I could be wrong if a pit bull offers it's owner significant benefits over, say, a labrador. But I don't see what they are other than looking / being well 'ard.

I for one, would welcome the reintroduction of dog licenses of significant cost. This would go much of the way towards preventing a population of abused and mentally unstable animals since those that people had would then in all probability be properly treated.

 

 

We had licences and endless legislation for fire-arms ownership in this country, but it was ignored by the police, hence we had Hungerford and Dunblane. The solution was not to start enforcing the existing laws, but to bow down to a small but vocal group of 'outraged women' who got the ear of the media and BAN full bore hand guns and most rifles.....and that was MY sport/hobby out of the bleedin' window! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :( :cry:

Sorry... I've been bored at work today and have just playing "Devil's advocate" on a subject I don't know a lot about.

I realise this is a subject some people are passionate about and hope I haven't offended anyone.

I'm off to play pool now.

I would say, yes, when there is an option which offers most or all of the benefits with significantly lower risks. Then legislative control (not necessarily outright banning) is a option worth considering.

 

I could be wrong if a pit bull offers it's owner significant benefits over, say, a labrador. But I don't see what they are other than looking / being well 'ard.

 

Good answer - anyone who suffers would welcome legislation which mitigates against the cause. Especially if there is no great need for the cause to remain. WHY do you need a big/strong dog ?? Don't you like more docile breeds ?

That's a fairly typical attitude in today's Britain, sadly. E.g.:

 

* I don't understand why you need/want a big dog, so we should legislate to stop you having one.

 

* I don't see why any normal person would want to shoot guns, even for sport, so we should ban them.

 

* I don't smoke, so you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public either.

 

* I drive a Nissan Micra and it gets me from A to B, so that should be perfectly adequate for you too.

 

And on and on and on... :rolleyes: