The argument against this is Driving is a necessity currently (some may argue that I guess?) but owning a dog isn't. I wouldn't mind paying for licensing to own my dog, as as much as I consider him a member of my family at this point, I didn't need him when I got him did I?
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
The argument against this is Driving is a necessity currently (some may argue that I guess?) but owning a dog isn't. I wouldn't mind paying for licensing to own my dog, as as much as I consider him a member of my family at this point, I didn't need him when I got him did I?
And this is why taskmasters handwaving solution won't work... people will stubbornly buy them anyway.
Ditto to smoking in pubs, caused plenty of deaths and is anti social but it required legislation to actually ban it.
Do you think we shouldn't ban drink driving because some people break the law anyway? Imagine if someone just said they don't believe the Daily Mail headlines about drunk drivers and they'll carry on having a few pints down their local as they're safe/responsible drivers anyway not some boy racer type.
It's the driver that's at fault not the alcohol, they were going too fast but I'm always careful and responsible when I have 4-5 pints down the pub... not really properly drunk so I can handle it, it's just those chavs who can't handle a car properly and aren't as capable of handling beer as me.
Last edited:
Drink driving has never been a necessity… unless you live in the Countryside.
That said I wouldn’t have a problem with having a license to own a Staffie when the time comes. It matters not to me, but then I’m not part of the problem.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
We DO currently have licensing for breeders. That's why illegal breeders are such a problem.
This has already been pointed out to you, along with links to the legislation that you didn't read.
Police officers already can (and do) check to see if your dog is registered.
Again, you are already aware that chipping and registration has been mandatory for some time now, and they have the power to seize your dog and prosecute you if it/you aren't in compliance.
People can even report you if they suspect such non-compliances.
None of this stops people from going outside in public, either with their banned breeds, or owning dogs while banned from doing so. Often people don't even get looked at by the authorities until their dog misbehaves and bites someone.
So what makes you think anything will change with additional legislation.
To imagine that a slightly enhanced version of what we already have, without a massive increase in dedicated resources, is just flogging a dead horse.
Smoking in pubs and drink-driving still required massive buy-in from the populace before widespread compliance was effected.
The latter is an especially pertinent example, driven primarily by peer pressure and celebrity endorsement, as already explained.
Do you think repetition of your strawman misrepresentation of arguments somehow makes them valid?
No-one is calling for removal of the law.
We’ve had people argue for more legislation. Well we already have plenty of legislation that doesn’t prevent deaths.
Getting frothy about a teeny tiny number of deaths when the same effort applied elsewhere can yield considerable higher results, is just pointless. How about frothing about poverty, consumption of alcohol, drink driving or all the other causes of suffering or death.
Sort of the issues in society that causes all this anti social behaviour. Typically people are weak, they go after those they consider either beneath them or weaker than themselves. They go for short termism rather than long term solutions.
As I’ve said this thread is pointless and it will achieve absolutely diddly squat. Guaranteed.
Because you'd need a licence which can easily be checked and various breeds would be banned and couldn't be licenced.
You're conflating different things, just because a dog can be chipped doesn't add anything and *some* breeders need to be licenced in the UK but that's kinda tangential too. I'm talking about licencing all breeders and all owners and simply not allowing illegal breeds to be registered. If you buy an illegal dog from an unlicensed breeder and you then can't register it then that poses an obvious problem... you can quite easily kill a lot of demand for those dogs as many people won't want a pet that could be taken from them at random.
Like driving a car in the US, if you have a dog in the UK then bring your dog licence in your wallet... that's very easy to check and if you've got a (then outlawed) XL Bully then you won't have the required licence.
Nope, there was widespread opposition to it, smokers did it begrudgingly as pubs forced them to because allowing it would lead to enforcement action against the premises.
There is no straw man argument there. If he does in fact think drink driving should be banned in spite of the fact that *some* people still do it then...
Last edited:
OK so to be clear, do you think drink driving should be outlawed?
Or do you think that because we still have *some* deaths from it we should just make it legal?
Out of interest does the fact that we still have *some* gun deaths make you believe that we should remove all UK gun laws and be like the most permissive US states w.r.t firearms?
Can you see the obvious flaw in your reasoning yet:
"
"Well we already have plenty of legislation that doesn’t prevent deaths."
Is quite clearly false...
This is like the anti-vaxer nonsense during covid... but but some vaccinated people are still dying therefore the vaccine doesn't work herp derp.
Last edited:
Does making it illegal prevent deaths? Cathy.
Yes! It seems it does... why would you think otherwise?
Last edited:
That’s a no. We still have deaths due to drink driving, as we do with gun crime, as we do with all other forms of crime.
What will yield higher results, banning the sale and consumption of either alcohol or tobacco or both? Or banning all dangerous breeds of dogs combined? Let’s ramp in up all deaths caused by dangerous dogs in the World compared to alcohol and tobacco in just this Country.
Last edited:
Do you believe that the covid vaccine prevented deaths or does the fact that *some* people still died after being vaccinated mean you think it didn't?
Just stop and think a little about what you're arguing here?
Likewise re: gun crime, yes we have gun deaths but go and look at US stats... do you spot anything different there?
This is very basic stuff, I can tell why you want to own a bull terrier now though.
The drink driving problem is greater than deaths caused by dogs. It's not remotely the same in terms of the scale of the problem or the potential damage caused (to multiple victims).
It's like banning steak because 4 people choked to death on a bite they didn't chew well enough.
It's like banning steak because 4 people choked to death on a bite they didn't chew well enough.
No one said it was, that's not really the point, the other poster brought it up with some unclear point that we still have deaths despite the ban and seems to think the ban didn't prevent deaths.
Last edited:
Fair enough!
These people are not concerned about saving lives they are driven by prejudice. They have an image of the breeds and owners of these breeds cultivated in the pages of gutter rags such as the daily Mail and the sun.
Absolutely, that is a noble cause but how many people are more invested in tackling the root causes of societal issues, rather than trying to tar everyone with the same brush as a very, very small minority.
I don't think anyone can help with your innumeracy but whatever social issues there are doesn't change the fact that some dog breeds are inherently more dangerous than others.
No, I'm just pointing out that we could introduce legislation to address this problem and then responding to some quite obviously flawed arguments re: drink driving where despite a clear reduction in deaths one poster doesn't believe banning it prevented deaths.
Last edited:
I don't entirely agree with this, I come from having the perspective of being a (I hope) responsible dog owner who has grown up around large dog breeds, and has pretty much always had a dog / dogs in my life many of which were rescues. But my parents were also responsible dog owners, and they taught me a lot about them. Others see people being seriously hurt, or worse, by the same breeds of dog over and over again. It's not hard to see why they have the perspective they do.
I see the same thing, I see the same breeds of dog on council estates. I see morons walking dogs they can't control and think it's great. I see women who can't weigh more than 60kg, being dragged behind a dog I would struggle to restrain if it kicked off. XL Bullies seem to be the status dog of choice around where I am at the moment.
The obvious solution is to just get rid of those breeds. It would solve the problem. But it's a solution with zero nuance that a significant, and possibly greater number of people would object to.
I have a particular thing for Staffies though, as they are the most unfairly tarnished breed. I do get a feeling they are falling out of fashion as a status dog, as American Bulldogs are bigger and stronger. And XL Bullies? They're another level again.
Last edited: