So you agree then, that would help with this problem and we should do that? Because a few posts back you were adamant that you want a bull terrier type dog and that even banning drink driving doesn't prevent deaths.
Last edited:
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
So you agree then, that would help with this problem and we should do that? Because a few posts back you were adamant that you want a bull terrier type dog and that even banning drink driving doesn't prevent deaths.
I’m getting a Staffordshire Bull Terrier that you have no control over what so ever.
I have no real problem with Bully XL’s being ‘banned’ as such, I’m not that convinced it’s going to rid the Country of the hand full of deaths attributed to them though. I think you don’t really understand the kind of people that are the problem.
The misses wants one like this and has already decided he will be called simba.
Last edited:
Wait what? You mean my personal opinions re: what the law should be aren't necessarily how it is? who'd have thought???
Do you mean people like you who buy bull terriers?
No I mean that I will be buying a Staffordshire Bull Terrier regardless of what you personally say or think. See above.
Look at him who wouldn’t want one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,831
Their reasons for owning a dog like that is a mix of socialising with people who view them as desirable, personal protection and outright antisocial attitude. I guess some people might genuinely like them for aesthetic reasons- there are probably a few of those.
There is hardly any chance you will associate such dogs with paedos, that's ridiculous. As a young cretin, I knew plenty of people with pits, staffies and other bull terrier types- those dogs are owned by thugs and their hangers on, and everyone knows it. There is decades of precedent for who owns them.
A better strategy would be to influence the mothers of their kids that these dogs are a danger to their own children. That might work, to some extent.
Even then, any campaign is a long-term effort with little guarantee of success.
I'm not saying it is pointless to try, only that it is a very long-term strategy.
Enforcement is the best strategy, and can be done quickly. That has to be a part of any effort to reduce injury and deaths.
Edit: I don't have a problem with staffs or English bull terriers- they're OK with people, but can be iffy with other dogs.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,831
No I mean that I will be buying a Staffordshire Bull Terrier regardless of what you personally say or think. See above.
Look at him who wouldn’t want one.
You might want to see my edit..
Sorry but I saw this bit and just sighed.
Sadly while it can be true that a small number of these dogs end up in the wrong hands, to say these dogs are owned by thugs is factually wrong. Simple as that.
They're no worse than other dogs really.
Yes, it's a legal requirement when the dog hits 8 weeks. So if you're going to the vets and having their jabs done, as you should, they'll just do it then.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,831
Yeah, probably could have worded that better.
I stand by my view that thugs overwhelmingly go for pits, staffs and other bull terrier crosses. They just do, that's been my experience.
Your average old lady isn't getting a bully xl or pitbull.
As I said, staffs and English bull terriers are alright- they just get acquired by idiots for bonus XP.
I’ve already posted a pic of 2 dogs, one owned by my mate. He supports Arsenal so he a muppet but he’s not a thug, the other is owned by his 60+ year old mum. Again not a thug.
My Dad owned 2, one staff, one staff cross. Not a thug.
A family friend owned another staff that was part of a family with 3 children. Not thugs.
You’re wrong they can be owned by thugs, as can pretty much any breed of dog, but they are most certainly not owned exclusively by thugs. That is a fact.
My Dad owned 2, one staff, one staff cross. Not a thug.
A family friend owned another staff that was part of a family with 3 children. Not thugs.
You’re wrong they can be owned by thugs, as can pretty much any breed of dog, but they are most certainly not owned exclusively by thugs. That is a fact.
Which is why banning bull terrier types in general (just requiring them to be neutered/stop breeding and phase them out w.r.t staffies etc..) would be simpler. Clearly, some people will be insistent on wanting to buy these regardless of any social media campaigns* and there is no reason for a dog breed that was selectively bred/intended to fight bulls to exist anymore.
*I'm not saying we should run campaigns too, but if people could magically be brainwashed into simply not doing something harmful (like smoking in pubs, drink driving, obeying lockdown guidance etc..) then we'd not need legislation to enforce such things, back in reality we do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,831
Yeah, I think you've misunderstood my point.
If all snails have shells, it does not mean that everything with a shell is a snail.
Yeah you’ve lost me. You’re entitled to your view as is everyone one else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,497
No-one here is making that argument except you...
The assertion is that these laws do nothing to stop the very people you need to be the most focussed on.
Yes I do understand. Probably in a lot more detail than you, in fact, and certainly enough to know why they're not a valid comparison either against each other or in relation to dogs.
Having some gun deaths is no evidence either way without context, but I can already tell from your obtuse attitude that you're not even slightly interested in properly discussing that one.
Paedos was one example, and the easiest to illustrate the point.
Pretty much everyone has a line they don't cross. You need to portray these dogs as being on the other side of those peoples' lines.
Yes, it's a long-term thing, and the reason most government campaigns fail against things is because they're never sustained, and because they're focussing on giving orders to people who don't like being told what to do.
Instead it needs to be run by people who aren't the very government tossers that the anti-establishment types are railing against, and come as a persuasive message through channels that the target audience actually respect.
It won't ever happen, as a handful of deaths from dogs is not enough to motivate people in the grand scheme of things, and because some people would rather flog the dead simpletons solution under the pretension of appearing to take action.
Every xl bully type dog i've ever come across irl (admittedly not many, but a few) has been owned by someone who at best is an idiot.
Staffs? Have been far more mixed, idiots and ok people.
I've never known an idiot to own a very placid dog breed.
Staffs? Have been far more mixed, idiots and ok people.
I've never known an idiot to own a very placid dog breed.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
not true, see the comments by the other poster, he literally believes it didn't prevent deaths. Also that assertion by you is clearly false, if you don't outlaw drink driving then you can't stop those people in the first place!
Again this is just handwaving, you provide nothing of substance while simultaneously opposing a ban.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,497
His argument, according to you, was that it doesn't prevent deaths... and if people are still dying as a result of drink-driving, then it clearly didn't prevent their deaths, did it!
My assertion is that your measures are merely reiterations of existing laws that have already failed to yield the desired result.
You have a bizarre way of saying you can't be arsed to read a couple of links...
And yes, I oppose the ban, for the same reasons as many of those involved in making and enforcing such legislation.