Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Ayahuasca]

Just saw a FB video where a guy smacked attacking dogs with a what looks like a plank of wood. Knocked them out cold.

Would post it but some funky commentary.

If it's the guy standing on the hood of a truck, looks like the first one he hit could potentially be dead or at least have severe brain damage. It's still out cold at the end whereas the other one gets up and trots off.

The video is fairly old and I'm pretty sure it's in America as well so they are lucky they weren't shot.

 

[jigger]

Looks like they aren't allowing dogs to go on the walk.

Probably the fear that if something went wrong it could literally be a gore fest.

Imagine if 100 XLs started fighting. It would be unimaginable.

Even the organisers must see the risk.

Imagine the trail of crap. I think the probability of people being attacked and killed would have been very high.

 

[413x]

Imagine the trail of crap. I think the probability of people being attacked and killed would have been very high.

It may have been nearly guaranteed.

Even typically tame dogs in that situation (lots of new unfamiliar dogs) would be dicey.
But lots of bully xls? That thier owners can only control when they (the dogs) are controlled? Could have been (and I'd say probably would have been) carnage.

And that for me is exactly why they should be banned. If it did flip, no one would be able to stop what events would unfold.

 

[jigger]

It may have been nearly guaranteed.

Even typically tame dogs in that situation (lots of new unfamiliar dogs) would be dicey.
But lots of bully xls? That thier owners can only control when they (the dogs) are controlled? Could have been (and I'd say probably would have been) carnage.

And that for me is exactly why they should be banned. If it did flip, no one would be able to stop what events would unfold.

The chap I seen in Leeds was getting walked by a pair of these dogs. If those dogs decided to go after someone he would have been little more than a passenger.

The chap planning on taking three dogs would have needed to be built like Eddie Hall.

 

[Abraxaz1]

Looks like they aren't allowing dogs to go on the walk.

Probably the fear that if something went wrong it could literally be a gore fest.

Imagine if 100 XLs started fighting. It would be unimaginable.

Even the organisers must see the risk.

I would have paid good money for someone to turn up and throw a couple of lumps of casserole beef into the mob and film the chaos.

 

[MikeTheNative]

The chap I seen in Leeds was getting walked by a pair of these dogs. If those dogs decided to go after someone he would have been little more than a passenger.

The chap planning on taking three dogs would have needed to be built like Eddie Hall.

A guy has one where I live, it seems well behaved and trained. However I've seen his young daughter with the lead sometimes, there is no way she could keep it under control.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Easy enough to say until its your kid that's attacked by a "friendly" dog whilst playing in the park
I don't think you've really thought through what you've just typed there properly (or at all...)

I wasn't just talking about dogs. Every time some idiot hurts themselves or someone else, due to their own stupidity, we just ban something.
And yes, I have been on the receiving end of such idiots on several occasions, usually the 'someone else' getting hurt, and I have buried several friends due to that same stupidity... I still wouldn't ban the things that caused the damage, else we'd all end up living in empty rooms.

Stop pandering to the lowest standards of societal responsibility, by punishing everyone else for it... or at least let us kick the **** out of those unwilling to behave themselves.

Probably the fear that if something went wrong it could literally be a gore fest.
Imagine if 100 XLs started fighting. It would be unimaginable.
Even the organisers must see the risk.

It'd certainly expedite the ban though, right?
Such a perfectly opportune scenario, you'd almost think it was a deliberate ploy by the anti-dog brigade.

 

[413x]

I wasn't just talking about dogs. Every time some idiot hurts themselves or someone else, due to their own stupidity, we just ban something.
And yes, I have been on the receiving end of such idiots on several occasions, usually the 'someone else' getting hurt, and I have buried several friends due to that same stupidity... I still wouldn't ban the things that caused the damage, else we'd all end up living in empty rooms.

Stop pandering to the lowest standards of societal responsibility, by punishing everyone else for it... or at least let us kick the **** out of those unwilling to behave themselves.


It'd certainly expedite the ban though, right?
Such a perfectly opportune scenario, you'd almost think it was a deliberate ploy by the anti-dog brigade.

That's what I thought. The idea to bring dogs along.. It won't do any good for thier goals.. But could speed it up and destroy any support.

It does seem this is widely wanted by the public. The ban.

 

[ttaskmaster]

It does seem this is widely wanted by the public. The ban.

I hate to mention it, but... So was Brexit!

 

[Haggisman]

I wasn't just talking about dogs. Every time some idiot hurts themselves or someone else, due to their own stupidity, we just ban something.
And yes, I have been on the receiving end of such idiots on several occasions, usually the 'someone else' getting hurt, and I have buried several friends due to that same stupidity... I still wouldn't ban the things that caused the damage, else we'd all end up living in empty rooms.

Stop pandering to the lowest standards of societal responsibility, by punishing everyone else for it... or at least let us kick the **** out of those unwilling to behave themselves.

I completely agree when the risk of harm is only to the person being the idiot, but you're essentially suggesting the removal of all controls/rules in society, and reverting to "might makes right".

So sure, lets not ban the dogs, but if your dog approaches my child, then that dog is getting shot before it gets too close, because I don't know your dog and I'm not going to risk it hurting them. Then I'm going to shoot you, because - let's face it - you aren't going to be very happy about me shooting your dog, and I'm not going to take the risk that you're going to try and shoot or otherwise attack me first. At that point I'd probably have to hunt down and kill your family and friends as well, because there's always the risk they'd decide to exact revenge on me and my family. Of course all of this would be perfectly legal, because there would be no gun controls, and murder would be OK in your perfect utopia...

 

[Alice In Wonderland]

A guy has one where I live, it seems well behaved and trained. However I've seen his young daughter with the lead sometimes, there is no way she could keep it under control.

I think there is one near where I live but I have only seen it a handful of times.

It looks a gorgeous light tan colour and the owner always crosses the road when he sees me and my mini sausages; or I do if I see him first. I can always hear him talk to it very sternly so he's at least aware that he's in possession of a very powerful dog and seems to do his best ish, to minimize any potential awful situation.

However, he is a tiny weed of a man and there is absolutely no way he'd be able to stop it, if it decided to run and attack something.

So I always feel quite sick with nerves and can feel my blood run cold whenever I see them, just in case the worst of the worst happened! I'm just grateful that its only been a handful of times so can't begin to imagine how I'd feel if I lived somewhere there were loads of them about.

I'd be a quivering nervous wreck!

 

[ttaskmaster]

I completely agree when the risk of harm is only to the person being the idiot, but you're essentially suggesting the removal of all controls/rules in society, and reverting to "might makes right".

Don't be ridiculous. I said no such thing, nor implied or even hinted at it.
I'm saying don't ban everyone else from something, just because a few people are dickheads.

But if 'harm to people other than the idiot' is the risk you're not willing to take, then ban all cars right now. Ban lorries too - I'll be in favour of that, since it was idiots in those that killed most of the friends I mentioned, and because such idiots kill a hell of a lot more people every year than dogs do.

 

[Haggisman]

Don't be ridiculous. I said no such thing, nor implied or even hinted at it.
I'm saying don't ban everyone else from something, just because a few people are dickheads.

But if 'harm to people other than the idiot' is the risk you're not willing to take, then ban all cars right now. Ban lorries too - I'll be in favour of that, since it was idiots in those that killed most of the friends I mentioned, and because such idiots kill a hell of a lot more people every year than dogs do.

Cars and lorries serve a useful purpose.

Dangerous pet dogs are a "nice to have" for most people, just like guns.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Cars and lorries serve a useful purpose.

Dangerous pet dogs are a "nice to have" for most people, just like guns.

In addition to RTAs, cars and lorries are a major cause of pollution. They also discourage people from walking more often, so contribute to the obesity issue.
Many people don't actually need a car, and reducing lorries on the road would have notable advantages too.

But you're right - You can't see a purpose, so everyone should go without them. I'll be sure to adopt that mindless approach going forward...

 

[Felon]

I wondered how long it would be until someone started comparing dog ownership to cars….

Don't be ridiculous. I said no such thing, nor implied or even hinted at it.

To be honest you did… The fact several people picked up on it a few pages back and again now, sort of proves it.

 

[Haggisman]

But you're right - You can't see a purpose, so everyone should go without them.

Go on then, what's the purpose? Why not share some of your superior knowledge which the rest of us seem to be missing?

I'll be sure to adopt that mindless approach going forward...

"Going forward"? You mean it's going to get worse?!

 

[ttaskmaster]

I wondered how long it would be until someone started comparing dog ownership to cars….

What, like you already did in this very same thread?

To be honest you did… The fact several people picked up on it a few pages back and again now, sort of proves it.

Other people inferred it. I NEVER said it.
Prove me wrong. Quote it. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Go on then, what's the purpose? Why not share some of your superior knowledge which the rest of us seem to be missing?

Not for me to argue. I'm not interested in the dogs themselves, as you'll know from reading the thread.
I'm concerned with the blinkered approach to dealing with the issues.

"Going forward"? You mean it's going to get worse?!

Of course it's going to get worse.
This whole attitude of just banning things instead of addressing the problems is just retarded. But hey, it's what you wanted, right?

 

[Haggisman]

Not for me to argue. I'm not interested in the dogs themselves, as you'll know from reading the thread.
I'm concerned with the blinkered approach to dealing with the issues.

So there isn't one then, and you're just arguing to be obnoxious?

 

[dlockers]

The IQ of our typical XL Bully community presented in a helpful infographic

 

[ttaskmaster]

So there isn't one then, and you're just arguing to be obnoxious?

I can be obnoxious without the need for an argument.
But again, just because you don't think there's a purpose, doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed something. If life were ruled by that level of subjectivity, we'd never get anywhere or have anything.