Girl found dead in house with dogs 'out of control'

Doohickey said:
Are certain dogs not used historically (and to this day) for certain duties e.g. guard dogs, based on their inherent nature? Just like certain breeds are 'easier' to train/more obedient? Some dogs are more placid by nature than others, I don't see what's so controversial about that...
Click to expand...

It's the standard nature vs nurture argument, both are influences, to what exact degree is unknown. Anyone that thinks otherwise is mistaken.
 
Kenai said:
No, you're missing the point, rather spectacularly that there is more to a dog being dangerous than just how strong it is.

Overly simplistic examples with dinosaurs won't make your completely irrelevant point any more relevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right how silly to think that the size, strength etc of an animal determines their potential to be dangerous to a human.

When I next see a lion, I'll be sure to stroke it. It's only a bigger version of my cat, right?
 
AndrewNR said:
Yeah, you're right how silly to think that the size, strength etc of an animal determines their potential to be dangerous to a human.

When I next see a lion, I'll be sure to stroke it. It's only a bigger version of my cat, right?
Click to expand...

Does a lion have the same mentality as a domesticated housecat? No it does not. Are a lion and your cat equally as likely to attack you? No they are not.

So the point you're making, is that big strong things, are bigger and stronger than small weak things? Well blow me down, i'm sure glad you were around to help us all with that one.

Like I said, to ignore the mentality of the animal is to completely miss the core of the discussion, given that size, strength, teeth, claws or whatever are all utterly besides the point if the animal in question is as timid as a mouse.
 
Kenai said:
Does a lion have the same mentality as a domesticated housecat? No it does not. Are a lion and your cat equally as likely to attack you? No they are not.

So the point you're making, is that big strong things, are bigger and stronger than small weak things? Well blow me down, i'pm sure glad you were around to help us all with that one.

Like I said, to ignore the mentality of the animal is to completely miss the core of the discussion, given that size, strength, teeth, claws or whatever are all utterly besides the point if the animal in question is as timid as a mouse.
Click to expand...

Almost there.

If my cat is having a bad day and takes it out on me the worst that will happen is I will bleed a bit and my cat will be dead. With a lion it would obliterate me in seconds.

There's your analogy.

Some dogs no matter their mentality will never be dangerous to humans.
 
Jason2 said:
Give over. Staffies are great dogs. I'm sick of people like you with your pre-judgemental attitude. Get it into your head that it's the idiots who own them that turn them violent.

Click to expand...

I agree totaly dude , that terrible incident when 6 poodles went nuts and killed that little girl was terrible , not just big killer dogs can kill
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
They should add Staffordshire Bull Terriers & Rottweilers too the dangerous dogs act !
Click to expand...

Why ? because they are built like athletes ? because you don't like them ? because they scare you ?

My Mini Dachshund is more aggressive than my staffs were.. quote---"Bred to hunt, they are by nature high-spirited and independent. They have a keen intelligence and ability to think on their own." Funny enough thats a description of a Mini Dachshund :)

This is a description of a staffy... quote ---"Although individual differences in personality exist, common traits exist throughout the Staffords. Due to its breeding, and history, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known for its character of intelligence, fearlessness and loyalty.[4] This, coupled with its affection for its friends, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, make it a foremost all-purpose dog.[5] It has been said that "No breed is more loving with its family".[6]

The breed is naturally muscular and may appear intimidating; however, because of their natural fondness for people, most Staffords are temperamentally ill-suited for guard or attack-dog training. Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppies are very easy to house train" :)


Best get them Mini dachshunds on your list as well :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What the people who hate Staffs forget when banging on about 'bred to fight and attack' is that dog fighting dogs/breeds used to be specifically bred for their ease of handling by humans. That's always very specifically not mentioned. Guarding breeds imo are very much more dangerous when violently treated and under exercised as they usually are by the kind of scum we're seeing handling them these days.

2 bullmastiffs, 2 staffs and another dog in one small house isn't the smartest of thinking.
 
Pictures here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-control-animals-went-Jade-ate-meat-pie.html

Forget the SBT's, it's the bull mastiffs that would have done the most damage. They are seriously huge dogs. Not only that, there's no evidence to suggest all 5 dogs attacked. Tragic nonetheless, but how is a family allowed to own that many dogs, especially considering the breeds? They have to take responsibility for this.

We need to bring back dog licensing.
 
AndrewNR said:
This is worse than a ps3 v 360 debate.
Click to expand...

No, ps3 vs 360 arguments end up showing the pro's and cons of both consoles leading to a debate over which console has the better features,games and hardware etc. My point is that it is a debate with opinions and facts although there is no real winner it at least makes you think. This argument has only one winner and it definitely isn't Jason who is spouting complete rubbish and has a fetish for dogs.
 
Last edited:
Jason2 said:
Pictures here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-control-animals-went-Jade-ate-meat-pie.html

Forget the SBT's, it's the bull mastiffs that would have done the most damage. They are seriously huge dogs. Not only that, there's no evidence to suggest all 5 dogs attacked. Tragic nonetheless, but how is a family allowed to own that many dogs, especially considering the breeds? They have to take responsibility for this.

We need to bring back dog licensing.
Click to expand...

First bit of sense you have said.
 
Jason2 said:
Pictures here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-control-animals-went-Jade-ate-meat-pie.html

Forget the SBT's, it's the bull mastiffs that would have done the most damage. They are seriously huge dogs. Not only that, there's no evidence to suggest all 5 dogs attacked. Tragic nonetheless, but how is a family allowed to own that many dogs, especially considering the breeds? They have to take responsibility for this.

We need to bring back dog licensing.
Click to expand...

Licencing won't work, because only decent people will bother to do it. The scum bags that don't train their dogs or train them to be aggressive won't be getting licences for them.

It's so easy to buy a puppy from anywhere, there is no way to make it work unfortunately.

Would just be a tax for ordinary dog owning folk.
 
I don't think that people are BETTER than dogs as a species, I'm saying that if I could choose to save a dog or a human I would save the human because they are my own species. That's the natural thing to do.

Look back at the Comic Relief films and tell me that you would rather save a dog than a starving African child.
 
Locky said:
Stops stupid people owning stupid dangerous breeds of dog.

The dog is the owners responsibility.

Dogs can be used as a weapon and when that happens owners should be responsible.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that the dog owner is a stupid person?
Is there any evidence that the woman used these dogs as a weapon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom