'Dogs as alternatives to knives'

[nitram55]

***, they've had my pistols, they've made it near impossible to carry my tool of choice and now they're after my dogs.:aargh4:

Whatever they ban be it guns, dogs or whatever you can be sure it will make no difference to the criminals who caused the problem in the first place.

 

[BorderReiver]

Whatever they ban be it guns, dogs or whatever you can be sure it will make no difference to the criminals who caused the problem in the first place.

Of course not and This won't help.



Idiots like that judge make the imposition of pointless laws on law abiding people even harder to stomach.

PS: I know it was a Daily Wail link, sorry.

 

[andybysea]

They bring these laws in, more and more of them affecting the innocent masses.Why? because we put up with it,we always do ,we moan to each other in pubs on here etc, but they know we will tow the line, its easier and more economical for them to target us than to go after those breaking the laws.

 

[helixpteron]

The Pooch Pouch!​

Wet Formed Leather or Kydex pouches to secure your pooch, approved by all Gov'mint and Insurance Agencies!

 

[Adze]

They bring these laws in, more and more of them affecting the innocent masses.Why? because we put up with it,we always do ,we moan to each other in pubs on here etc, but they know we will tow the line, its easier and more economical for them to target us than to go after those breaking the laws.

Makes stuff all difference when you do complain.

At the time, the largest march ever - liberty and livelihood 400k+ march through the centre of London - hunting with dogs still banned.

Within months a million march through London to protest against going to war in Iraq again - still went to War though.

Pity we're not allowed to do politics here innit?

 

[British Red]

Officer to suspect "where did you get that ugly unnatural looking bitch"?

...................

Chihuahua to officer

"no idea - I think she came with the handbag"

 

[nickliv]

That's another policy in the bin then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8570830.stm

 

[tobes01]

That's another policy in the bin then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8570830.stm

So the real question is: what was in the news that day that they were trying to get us to ignore?

 

[andybysea]

GOOD! Totally unfair on the vast majority of decent law abiding dog owners(in my mind)
the people(being polite) who's dogs are used to intimidate and are brought up to attack other people should automatically face a sentence for whatever degree of injury the dog inflicts, in other words your dog kills someone you face a automatic murder charge,may make them think(may) there again after reading recently that the gov does not want to put knife crim's in jail as it costs to much, ive kinda lost all hope in any sense regarding laws.
oh and tobes01 your probably spot on there,swine flu and the expenses scandal spring to mind.

 

[shogun]

This is what the RSPCA have wanted and worked toward's ever since they started making up and leaking their status dog stories to the press. I'm sure no genuine bull breed owner was or is being consulted at any stage. It's just like in 1991 and look at the confusion that has caused ever since, let alone the cost and heart ache for the innocent victim's of the DDA.

I'm certain it's the RSPCA's way of trying to gain control of ALL dog owner's of ALL breed's. In other word's them telling us what to do with our dog's all the time.

The thing with these proposal's is ANY dog protecting your property or even your family from attack could be classed as dangerous. Bet also the costs will rocket for third party dog insurance, insurance companies must be rubbing their hand's at the proposed profit coming their way.

What's needed is the bigoted DDA being scrapped. And a law brought in that's none predijicial against type's and allow's All dog owner's to be responsible for their charges when out in a public place. But the RSPCA and kc etc don't want that or they won't have any control over us the innocent dog owner.

 

[shogun]

Didn't his parents ever tell him don't pat or approach any dog unknown to you?

A dog likely to harm a person should be put down if untrainable. End of.

Folk that have grown up with dogs, know a dog must know his place, for the dog's benefit and everyone else's.

It's usually the owners fault (or previous owner's if a rescued dog) if a dog turns out to be anti social, though some of the smaller breeds are notoriously nippy, yappy and not so easily trained.

Owning a dog is a resonsibility that chavs and inner city scum can't handle and yet we all are tarred by the same brush.

Dog/Owner training should be compulsory when collecting a new dog from kennels, pounds, rescue centres etc. Only after completeing this should the prospective owner be allowed to have the dog on a permanent basis.

The dog I've got, I rescued from an arrse who couldn't control it. With me it's been fine and is a totally different dog.

I grew up with sheep dogs and around dogs so I've been lucky, not everyone has had a background growing up with dogs, so a course would help.

Don't get me wrong I've been ripped by other's dogs over the years and it isn't pleasant.

i agree with what you have said and a course should be done before you can own the breed of dog you want...

 

[springer5]

In what way are dangerous dogs any different from dangerous people ?

I don't see any suggestions from govt that parents all take out insurance against their kids in case they grow into evil a'holes who mug old ladies (or worse ?).

What's the difference, anyone know ?

 

[zorro]

In what way are dangerous dogs any different from dangerous people ?

I don't see any suggestions from govt that parents all take out insurance against their kids in case they grow into evil a'holes who mug old ladies (or worse ?).

What's the difference, anyone know ?

I think I do.

 

[springer5]

Makes stuff all difference when you do complain.

Just put your cross in a different box - no marches, no protests, no petitions and nothing they can do about it.

The trouble is we spend more time marching, protesting etc than we do just ticking someone else's box on voting day. We say "Isn't the country going downhill", or "It makes me sick" etc, etc, then a few minutes later "Always been a labour man me, my dad was and his dad before him" - what do people expect ???

 

[springer5]

I think I do.

I'm all ears

 

[*Big Beast*]

my dogs are from a rescue centre, both council ran and more like death camps than animal shelters, i payed for the dogs, had them vet checked,chipped,etc. they are pets, they come camping with me, they are great with kids, friendly to adults,great fun and i would not be without either of them. on the other hand if you climb my garden fence,enter my house without permission, or my tent for that matter you will be met by Taz, she`s an 11st Anatolian Shepherd/Kara-bash and guard dog is bred into them as part of the breed. her name was given to her because she can go from gentle giant to tasmanian devil faster than you can blink when she needs to. The other dog is an ankle snapper so while a burglar fights off Taz hanging on to his throat little Toto is in there biting his b*lls. great team work.
when out for walks or camping they are well behaved people friendly dogs who get the attention/strokes/affection from people because of how nice and friendly/cuddly they are and well behaved.
just don`t burgle my tent/house/garden. I have the insurance to cover my dogs but i bet if you had a bite from one of them because you had evil intentions of robbing me the insurance would refuse to pay out.

 

[zorro]

I'm all ears

Reminds me of a Noddy joke.

Dogs don't have a choice, they can only re-act how they have been taught. Most if not all nasty dogs are insecure or scared, it's down to the owner.

People have a choice, regardless of how they were nurtured. They have the option of applying logic to a situation, they can choose to back off.

 

[springer5]

just don`t burgle my tent/house/garden. I have the insurance to cover my dogs but i bet if you had a bite from one of them because you had evil intentions of robbing me the insurance would refuse to pay out.

They sound like great dogs and I'm glad they have a decent life with you now.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who pops over your garden wall to try their luck deserves to get their bottom thoroughly kicked by your dogs because they shouldn't be there and they know it. If they don't know what they're doing because they're too stupid then their parents or some other legal gardian should have them insured against doing dangerous things, or be prosecuted for not keeping better control over them (just like the dogs).

However, the sad fact is that in UK law we all apparently have a "duty of care", even to those who break in to our houses and steal our property - yep, stupid, but true. It's a pathetic state of affairs. There really have been people successfully sued by burglers because they have been injured on their victim's property.

And if you choose to have insurance on your dogs, then that's your right, but it shouldn't be compulsory, any more than it is compulsory to ensure young kids, just in case they pick up a knife and have go at someone. Should the parents of the 2 kids who killed Jamie Bulger have had 3rd party insurance on them, and all parents from now on in case it happens again ??

They can't justify having one set of rules for dogs owners and a totally different set for everyone else who has any other form of dependents who are not mentally developed enough to understand/respect the rules".

Like I said in an earlier post. I can't see a difference between the two groups and I've never seen anyone else come up with one.

Dog violence is a problem is some cases, and it needs to be dealt with better than it is at the moment, but it shouod be dealt with in the same way as any other violent crime. If the dog was provoked beyond reason, then the initial "assault" lies with the person who provoked the dog. If it's the dog's fault depite the owner's best efforts then the dog must be destroyed and the owner found blameless (as long as they can prove that they trewated the dog correctly and ad the dog well trained up to that time), if the attack was the result of a t##sser deliberately raising a dangerous dog then throw the book at the guy - insurance should be unnecessary in any case.

They also need to keep in mind that dogs are not machines. they can be trained yes, and a good owner will hav an obedient dog in 99% of cases, but ulitimately if the dog has mind to do something, there may in some cases be nothing even a good owner can do to stop it. The old shobiz saying "never work with children and animals" came about for a reason, because ultimately they are unpredictable, and have thie rown minds, just like people do.

Life is dangerous - get over it.

 

[springer5]

Reminds me of a Noddy joke.

Dogs don't have a choice, they can only re-act how they have been taught. Most if not all nasty dogs are insecure or scared, it's down to the owner.

People have a choice, regardless of how they were nurtured. They have the option of applying logic to a situation, they can choose to back off.

Sorry mate. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. What about people with learning disabilities and major psychological problems. What about kids who are mentally underdeveloped. They are not always in control of themselves, in fact some are completely out of control.

Many kids grow up in insecure or frightening envronments and behave violently as a result without really understanding why they do it, or being able to stop - ask any inner-city social worker. I work in a mental health hospital and many of our "clients" are incapable of any more rational decision than any of my dogs, sadly. It may sound harsh to put it so directly, but it's just a simple fact nevertheless. And there are others who have more rational control then some of my dogs , but less than the others, and so on. There is no "one size fits all".
Just suppose one of our clients who had a good upbringing with good parents had been submitted with depression (purely biological - no sign of being caused by a lifestyle problem) and who was allowed to come and go on an open basis, having (never shown any signs of violence), one day encountered somethng in the street that triggered a violent episode out of all character with his previous behaviour. How are they different from the dog (i.e. not behaving with any rational responsibility for themselves), and should his parents have had insurance when he was first diagnosed, just in case? - of course not. But his rational capabilities turned out to be no different from a dog's (i.e. more dangersously unpredictable than at first thought despite good parents - or good dog owner in the dog's case). With great respect, lumping individuals into groups based on assumed pre-conceptions is an all-too-easy trap to fall into, and that's what the govt are doing with dogs and their owners in this case.

Some dogs are more rationally aware and more intelligent than some people, or put anther way, some people are less rationally aware than some dogs, hence the stupidity of bringing out laws that deal with "dogs" and laws that deal with "people". There are average people who are more rationally in control than average dogs, but there are not clear boundaries between "all dogs" and "all people". Such is the basis of speceisism which, if you stand right back and think objectively, has no more logical defence than racsim or sexism (i.e. tarring individuals with same brush based on the group name we've abitrarily given them, and our prejudicially-based "average" pictures) In fact it is, ironically, a very good example of irrational behavioiur in itself.

 

[zorro]

Sorry mate. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there.

That's ok chap, we're just shooting the breeze.

I'm getting on for 60 years old, I was brought up with dogs (my dad was a poacher ), I've owned dogs all my adult life and I've come up against more than my fair share of emotionally disturbed people.

You make a good point regarding how some folk have psychological problems, but most of the time you can reason with people and diffuse a potentially dangerous situation.

You can't have a meaningful discussion with a dog, it's only got plan A, and if that plan is to attack you then that's what will happen.

There have been a couple of posts about guard dogs biting which I don't agree with.

My current dog is a staffy cross, I rescued her five years ago when she was two.

She was scared of her own shadow, alternately cowed or aggressive. It took a while to bring her around, but she has made a cracking dog, brimming with confidence, 100% loyal to me and the missus.

She is a marvellous guard dog, got a terrifying bark and she looks the part, but she is daft as a brush, once I have let a stranger through the gate she tries to lick them to death.

She doesn't bark because she is scared, far from it, she is making the rest of the pack ( me and our lass ) know that we have visitors. She only needs a word of acknowledgement then she's quiet, job done.