Does something need to be done about dogs?

ttaskmaster said:
But... what about zero deaths? As another poster has said, even one is one too many.
Surely the only way forward is to ban the problem thing and stop so many senseless deaths?
Click to expand...
Why do you want guns banned and not dogs? Guns aren't responsible for the deaths as it's a human pulling the trigger, whereas a dog is 100% culpable for its actions.

ttaskmaster said:
As for the "stupidity" - Several other posters have already gone into long, rambling explanations as to exactly why the guns/dogs analogy is invalid, some despite also using it themselves.
Click to expand...
So multiple people have pointed out the stupidity of your analogy previously and yet you still use it? There's a word for that.
 
An outright ban on dog ownership would be a disservice to both humans and dogs. This argument aims to highlight the invaluable benefits of dog ownership, the importance of responsible pet ownership, and the potential consequences of a ban.

  1. Companionship and Emotional Well-being

    One of the most significant benefits of owning a dog is the companionship and emotional support they provide. Dogs offer solace during times of loneliness, depression, and anxiety. Their presence alone can alleviate stress and promote a sense of well-being. Banning dog ownership would deprive countless individuals of this vital source of companionship and emotional connection, potentially exacerbating mental health issues in society.

  2. Health Benefits

    Research has consistently shown that dog ownership contributes to improved physical and mental health. Regular walks and playtime with dogs encourage exercise and outdoor activities, which promote cardiovascular health and help combat obesity. Moreover, dogs have been known to reduce blood pressure and lower the risk of heart disease. Removing the opportunity for dog ownership would deprive people of these health benefits, leading to potential long-term consequences for public health.

  3. Assistance and Therapy

    Dogs serve various essential roles in society, including as service animals and therapy dogs. Service dogs assist individuals with disabilities, aiding them in daily tasks, enhancing mobility, and offering a sense of independence. Therapy dogs provide comfort and support to people in hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, promoting emotional well-being and assisting in therapeutic interventions. Banning dog ownership would eliminate these invaluable sources of assistance and support.

  4. Educational Opportunities

    Dog ownership offers unique educational opportunities, particularly for children. Caring for a dog teaches responsibility, empathy, and compassion. Children learn about nurturing, the importance of routine, and the significance of meeting another creature's needs. By engaging with dogs, they develop social skills, build confidence, and learn how to communicate non-verbally. Banning dog ownership would deprive children of these valuable life lessons.

  5. Economic Impact

    Banning dog ownership would have significant economic consequences. The pet industry, including dog food, veterinary services, grooming, and accessories, contributes billions of dollars to the economy annually. Numerous businesses and jobs are directly or indirectly supported by dog ownership. A ban would lead to job losses, business closures, and a decline in economic activity, affecting the livelihoods of countless individuals.
Conclusion

While it is essential to address concerns related to dog ownership, an outright ban would be an extreme measure with far-reaching consequences. Instead, efforts should be focused on promoting responsible ownership, education, and legislation that encourages proper dog care and training. By doing so, we can maintain the bond between humans and dogs, reaping the numerous benefits that come from this centuries-old relationship while ensuring the welfare and safety of both humans and animals.

(Thanks ChatGPT)
 
For balance:

While dog ownership has been widely accepted and cherished for centuries, it is important to critically examine the arguments surrounding the potential ban on dog ownership. This perspective aims to shed light on some valid concerns that proponents of a ban raise, emphasizing the need to consider the welfare of both humans and animals, public safety, and ecological impact. While it is important to approach this issue with sensitivity, understanding the potential benefits of a ban is crucial for fostering a well-informed discussion.

  1. Public Safety

    Incidents involving dog attacks and bites have raised concerns about public safety. Even well-trained and cared-for dogs can sometimes display unpredictable behavior, posing risks to individuals, especially children and the elderly. By implementing a ban, we can reduce the number of dog-related incidents and minimize the potential harm caused to the public. Such a measure would prioritize the well-being and safety of individuals in our communities.

  2. Animal Welfare

    The ban on dog ownership can also be seen as a means to address animal welfare concerns. Many dogs suffer due to neglect, abuse, or inadequate care by irresponsible owners. A ban would prevent individuals from acquiring dogs without fully understanding the responsibilities and commitments associated with their care. It would also deter breeding practices that prioritize quantity over quality, reducing instances of puppy mills and overpopulation, thereby improving the overall welfare of dogs.

  3. Environmental Impact

    Dog ownership can have a significant ecological impact. Dogs contribute to waste production, as their feces require proper disposal to prevent contamination of public spaces and water sources. Moreover, dog waste carries bacteria and parasites that can harm the environment and pose health risks. A ban on dog ownership would help mitigate these environmental concerns and promote cleaner, healthier communities.

  4. Overburdened Animal Shelters

    Animal shelters and rescue organizations often struggle with overcrowding and limited resources. A ban on dog ownership could alleviate the strain on these facilities by reducing the number of dogs in need of shelter. This would allow these organizations to focus their efforts and resources on rescuing and rehabilitating animals already in their care, ultimately improving their chances of finding suitable forever homes.

  5. Alternatives and Compromises

    Banning dog ownership does not imply the complete absence of animal companionship. Individuals seeking companionship can explore alternative options such as owning other pets, engaging with therapy animals, or participating in community programs that provide temporary interactions with dogs. These alternatives can provide the benefits of animal companionship while addressing the concerns associated with dog ownership.
Conclusion

While dog ownership has numerous benefits, it is essential to objectively evaluate the concerns raised by proponents of a ban. Public safety, animal welfare, ecological impact, and the strain on animal shelters are valid factors that warrant consideration. However, it is crucial to approach this issue holistically and explore alternatives that strike a balance between the welfare of humans and animals. Regulations, responsible ownership practices, and educational initiatives can help address these concerns without resorting to an outright ban, allowing us to maintain a harmonious relationship with animals while safeguarding public safety and welfare.

(Thanks ChatGPT)
 
Solution= Licenced AI dogs that bite you at pilling stations if you even show a sign of voting for the Tories. Only works if licenced though.
 
C Kent said:
Why do you want guns banned and not dogs? Guns aren't responsible for the deaths as it's a human pulling the trigger, whereas a dog is 100% culpable for its actions.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure having a Pitbull stuffed down your trousers is quite the same nor can you fire multiple chihuahuas per minute.
 
Efour said:
Are American breed XL dogs of peace trained to use assault rifles?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they could be adapted for canine use... and I expect at least one company has already made some Picatinny rail attachments to facilitate just such a thing. They make M4-platform attachments that do just about everything else!

Meanwhile, many such dogs appear to be quite receptive to training, although few are even put forward for the more complex activities that the likes of Collies get... but it's worth a shot (geddit?) and they've already managed to get a dog to drive a car well enough.
Hell, you could probably sneak a few of these XLBs into the US Marine Corps and no-one would even notice!

C Kent said:
Why do you want guns banned and not dogs? Guns aren't responsible for the deaths as it's a human pulling the trigger, whereas a dog is 100% culpable for its actions.
Click to expand...
What on Earth makes you think I want guns banned??!!

But OK, if a dog is 100% culpable for its actions - Tell it off. Give it a stern talking to during puppy class... and then, if it hurts someone, take it to court. Put it on trial. Question its motivations before the jury and let it answer for its crimes.
When it simply ****** up the side of the bench, you could hold it in contempt of court!

C Kent said:
So multiple people have pointed out the stupidity of your analogy previously and yet you still use it? There's a word for that.
Click to expand...
Errr.... it's not my analogy, mate. That was a bod called Spellowhouse.
Go back and read the posts - I'm the one claiming such an analogy to be invalid, hence making fun of it by talking about "AK47 assault dogs"...

adidan said:
I'm not sure having a Pitbull stuffed down your trousers is quite the same nor can you fire multiple chihuahuas per minute.
Click to expand...
Challenge Accepted!!
 
bloodiedathame said:
An outright ban on dog ownership would be a disservice to both humans and dogs. This argument aims to highlight the invaluable benefits of dog ownership, the importance of responsible pet ownership, and the potential consequences of a ban.

  1. Companionship and Emotional Well-being

    One of the most significant benefits of owning a dog is the companionship and emotional support they provide. Dogs offer solace during times of loneliness, depression, and anxiety. Their presence alone can alleviate stress and promote a sense of well-being. Banning dog ownership would deprive countless individuals of this vital source of companionship and emotional connection, potentially exacerbating mental health issues in society.

  2. Health Benefits

    Research has consistently shown that dog ownership contributes to improved physical and mental health. Regular walks and playtime with dogs encourage exercise and outdoor activities, which promote cardiovascular health and help combat obesity. Moreover, dogs have been known to reduce blood pressure and lower the risk of heart disease. Removing the opportunity for dog ownership would deprive people of these health benefits, leading to potential long-term consequences for public health.

  3. Assistance and Therapy

    Dogs serve various essential roles in society, including as service animals and therapy dogs. Service dogs assist individuals with disabilities, aiding them in daily tasks, enhancing mobility, and offering a sense of independence. Therapy dogs provide comfort and support to people in hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, promoting emotional well-being and assisting in therapeutic interventions. Banning dog ownership would eliminate these invaluable sources of assistance and support.

  4. Educational Opportunities

    Dog ownership offers unique educational opportunities, particularly for children. Caring for a dog teaches responsibility, empathy, and compassion. Children learn about nurturing, the importance of routine, and the significance of meeting another creature's needs. By engaging with dogs, they develop social skills, build confidence, and learn how to communicate non-verbally. Banning dog ownership would deprive children of these valuable life lessons.

  5. Economic Impact

    Banning dog ownership would have significant economic consequences. The pet industry, including dog food, veterinary services, grooming, and accessories, contributes billions of dollars to the economy annually. Numerous businesses and jobs are directly or indirectly supported by dog ownership. A ban would lead to job losses, business closures, and a decline in economic activity, affecting the livelihoods of countless individuals.
Conclusion

While it is essential to address concerns related to dog ownership, an outright ban would be an extreme measure with far-reaching consequences. Instead, efforts should be focused on promoting responsible ownership, education, and legislation that encourages proper dog care and training. By doing so, we can maintain the bond between humans and dogs, reaping the numerous benefits that come from this centuries-old relationship while ensuring the welfare and safety of both humans and animals.

(Thanks ChatGPT)
Click to expand...
I'm sure the gun lobby in the US make similar statements about guns, its a coping strategy or putting it another way burying your head in the sand. No-ones got a problem with companion dogs (other than those of us who might like stroll in the park and not be accosted by someone elses dog or walking in their mess, but they've got to walk them somewhere, probably) but dangerous or out of control dogs or at least dogs who are clearly aggressive or a nuisance there simply isn't enough being done or being cared about enough. And so the problem persists (and so do the deaths). Clearly those in charge i.e. local authorities or national govt doesn't regard it as a pressing issue.
 
SpellowHouse said:
It's pretty serious for the five people who get bitten every day. To me, one attack is too many.

Having said that, this figure, I think, is postmen. And certainly I would make the simple rule of "keep your dog in, or you don't get mail".
Click to expand...

I was one of those five, a few years ago.

Not funny.

Was walking home from a shop with two full bags of shopping, not far from my home.

Noticed a bloke on the opposite side of the street, opening his car door, whilst holding a small black dog.

Suddenly the dog freed himself, and started trotting across the road towards me.

How cute, I thought, it's coming to say hello, next thing, the little ****** leaps onto my calf and bites, drawing blood.

WTF, why?

Cue a trip to the hospital for a tetanus injection, meh.
 
sidimmu said:
we get it, you hate dogs.

Unsure what this news story brings as its nothing new to this thread. It does not mention the breed of dog (which is what this thread runs on), person got attacked, other person in the dwelling has killed the dog, world moves on.
Click to expand...

I don't hate dogs. I hate needless harm to people.
 
sidimmu said:
Well that's debatable, but not what we are here to discuss.

Thanks for not answering the second part of my post.
Click to expand...

That's because the second part of your post was an oxymoron. How can news not be new? It's in the name. I'm perfectly welcome within my own thread to record further instances of harm to people by violent and dangerous dogs.
 
Dis86 said:
That's because the second part of your post was an oxymoron. How can news not be new? It's in the name. I'm perfectly welcome within my own thread to record further instances of harm to people by violent and dangerous dogs.
Click to expand...
So you are linking for the sake of linking even though it provides nothing to the discussion or thread itself.
Noted thanks for the waste of time.

Also, the second part was clearly a question asking as to why you would link it, as funny enough its brings nothing to this discussion.
 
sidimmu said:
So you are linking for the sake of linking even though it provides nothing to the discussion or thread itself.
Noted thanks for the waste of time.

Also, the second part was clearly a question asking as to why you would link it, as funny enough its brings nothing to this discussion.
Click to expand...

As opposed to your riveting posts? It continues to highlight nothing is changing and we still have a significant problem. Come on, put that brain to use man!
 
Dis86 said:
As opposed to your riveting posts? It continues to highlight nothing is changing and we still have a significant problem. Come on, put that brain to use man!
Click to expand...
Lol, get more defensive.
Sorry I seem to invoke so much anger in yourself.

It continues to highlight- checks notes - that a very small percentage of dogs can be dangerous.

Without wishing to repeat everything in here, but there's a ton of context missing from the news piece and as to why this dog is violent/has become violent.
Stating, oh here's another one is just pointless. I could make the same argument and justifications against groups of individuals.
Is it all of those individuals within that group causing the issues and as a result, all of them should suffer. Here's a hint, the answer is No.
 
sidimmu said:
Lol, get more defensive.
Sorry I seem to invoke so much anger in yourself.

It continues to highlight- checks notes - that a very small percentage of dogs can be dangerous.

Without wishing to repeat everything in here, but there's a ton of context missing from the news piece and as to why this dog is violent/has become violent.
Stating, oh here's another one is just pointless. I could make the same argument and justifications against groups of individuals.
Is it all of those individuals within that group causing the issues and as a result, all of them should suffer. Here's a hint, the answer is No.
Click to expand...

More smooth brain posting. You've challenged my post so of course I'm going to defend it. Again, use your brain man! Come on!

Stating there's another one isn't pointless, it highlights a continuing unactioned problem that some individuals are in complete denial of. Like the person who challenged the number of attacks then ran off like a whipped pup when they were given the government's own statistics. Weirdly they've not been back in the thread...or yourself for example with your weird rambling anecdote above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom