Discussion
alabbasi said:
I don't know anything about Killer Kimbo so I had to look it up. A couple of points though;
1) that would put the fault on the breeder and not the breed which is what I said in my first post right?
2) Do you mind sharing the data behind that number? As it's been quantified, I'd like to understand if these dogs were genetically tested or a sample of dogs were used, or if all these dogs come with paperwork
I ask because there's a lot of talk about council flat owners, etc. and dogs with paperwork cost serious money so the two don't typically align. Do you mind sharing the data?
It would also be good to know how closely related or otherwise that statement would be a stretch. Apparently there was a study that found that 16 million men alive today have Genghis Khan's DNA. I know a few Khans and most of them are likeable.
As I understand it, it’s not a recognised breed. It’s about traits, and aggression is a trait that’s bred into them. 1) that would put the fault on the breeder and not the breed which is what I said in my first post right?
2) Do you mind sharing the data behind that number? As it's been quantified, I'd like to understand if these dogs were genetically tested or a sample of dogs were used, or if all these dogs come with paperwork
I ask because there's a lot of talk about council flat owners, etc. and dogs with paperwork cost serious money so the two don't typically align. Do you mind sharing the data?
It would also be good to know how closely related or otherwise that statement would be a stretch. Apparently there was a study that found that 16 million men alive today have Genghis Khan's DNA. I know a few Khans and most of them are likeable.
popeyewhite said:
m3jappa said:
I keep on reading the line that they were 'bred to kill'
Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.
They are highly inbred fighting pitbulls. 50% are directly descended from a single fighting dog 'Killer Kimbo'. Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.
Bighoose said:
The "when will people realise its the owners not the dogs" defense that is being laid down all over Facebook etc is as predictable as night following day.
There a clear pattern of attacks by this breed that is wholly, wildly, disproportionate to their numbers within the overall population of dogs. So factually and objectively it's the specific breed of dog that is the problem, although the type of owner they attract may well be a contributing factor.
It's a bit more than a contributing factor, if someone's mentality is that they want the biggest/nastiest/most intimidating dog they can get, a solution targeting any one particular type of dog isn't going to work, those people will just move on to the next type of dog that fits their wants. You'll end up needing to have the legislation repeatedly following their proclivities, only there'll be a slight time delay for a few attacks to give you the data to make it clear which breed it is now, which isn't really particularly great as a solution.There a clear pattern of attacks by this breed that is wholly, wildly, disproportionate to their numbers within the overall population of dogs. So factually and objectively it's the specific breed of dog that is the problem, although the type of owner they attract may well be a contributing factor.
Something needs to be done about the people who want a dog for status/defence/intimidation rather than a companion animal like a normal person does, not whichever type of dog happens to be their current preference.
(I'm leaving true working dogs like border collies for herding out of it, because it seems fairly clear that we're not talking about people who live in the middle of a bunch of sheep fields here)
m3jappa said:
popeyewhite said:
m3jappa said:
I keep on reading the line that they were 'bred to kill'
Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.
They are highly inbred fighting pitbulls. 50% are directly descended from a single fighting dog 'Killer Kimbo'. Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.
popeyewhite said:
m3jappa said:
popeyewhite said:
m3jappa said:
I keep on reading the line that they were 'bred to kill'
Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.
They are highly inbred fighting pitbulls. 50% are directly descended from a single fighting dog 'Killer Kimbo'. Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.
You're not allowed to own a leopard, either. Sorry, libertarian people. Tough buns.
And before we get the usual "Americans can own stuff as it's a properly free country" argument that we get so often in such threads, well, bully for them. If you wish to live somewhere where you can own an assault weapon or dangerous animal, and get off shooting some random unarmed person because "I thought they were dangerous", well, emigrate there then.
Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
Harry Flashman said:
And before we get the usual "Americans can own stuff as it's a properly free country" argument that we get so often in such threads, well, bully for them. If you wish to live somewhere where you can own an assault weapon or dangerous animal, and get off shooting some random unarmed person because "I thought they were dangerous", well, emigrate there then.
Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
blueg33 said:
As I understand it, it’s not a recognised breed. It’s about traits, and aggression is a trait that’s bred into them.
Ok so that 50% number you stated doesn't have any information to support it? That's what I thought. As you correctly stated, it's not a recognized breed, which means that after this ban is in, any dog with similar physical characteristics could be labelled as one and get put down for no reason.Stupid huh?
Harry Flashman said:
And before we get the usual "Americans can own stuff as it's a properly free country" argument that we get so often in such threads, well, bully for them. If you wish to live somewhere where you can own an assault weapon or dangerous animal, and get off shooting some random unarmed person because "I thought they were dangerous", well, emigrate there then.
Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
That argument always makes me laugh. Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
American's don't even have dominion over their own grass.
As for taking their dogs to anything other than a designated dog park.
alabbasi said:
blueg33 said:
As I understand it, it’s not a recognised breed. It’s about traits, and aggression is a trait that’s bred into them.
Ok so that 50% number you stated doesn't have any information to support it? That's what I thought. As you correctly stated, it's not a recognized breed, which means that after this ban is in, any dog with similar physical characteristics could be labelled as one and get put down for no reason.Stupid huh?
And no its not stupid if dogs with those characteristics are more prone to attack and by virtue of their size and power cause significant injury of death.
blueg33 said:
Where did I state 50 percent?
And no its not stupid if dogs with those characteristics are more prone to attack and by virtue of their size and power cause significant injury of death.
You said almost half of this breed carries the gene or a particular dog. In percentages, Half is 50%. You've already damaged your credibility and this isn't helping. I'm still waiting for you to provide any information to support that statistic, even though I know it's made up. And no its not stupid if dogs with those characteristics are more prone to attack and by virtue of their size and power cause significant injury of death.
FYI, it's pretty stupid if a mutt that's a mix of many different breeds gets put down because someone says that it looks a certain banned breed that's not a recognized breed. That's the definition of stupidity. If I have to spell it out for you, it's like charging someone from Vietnam for spying on behalf China on the evidence that they look alike. It's stupid.
Edited by alabbasi on Sunday 17th September 16:06
Years ago in London there was a particularly nasty dog attacking every dog that was walked by. Someone mentioned it to the guy who owned a zoo and had casinos in town, he took a sun adult tiger down there for a walk and it was the last thing that nasty dog attacked.
Edited to add: it was John Aspinal
Edited to add: it was John Aspinal
Isn’t the simple, enforceable answer here muzzles for dogs over a certain weight - the chief vet can work that out. A little staffie or Great Dane might get caught, but tough. All the bickering over breeds, genetics, traits etc is taken out of the enforcement situation for when a dog is in a public place. If owners want to play Russian roulette with their lovely family pet and kids at home that’s fine. However the police can have a simple criteria, backed by robust quick to apply, virtually unappealable sanctions and the general public can get on with their lives a bit more safely.
abzmike said:
Isn’t the simple, enforceable answer here muzzles for dogs over a certain weight - the chief vet can work that out. A little staffie or Great Dane might get caught, but tough. All the bickering over breeds, genetics, traits etc is taken out of the enforcement situation for when a dog is in a public place. If owners want to play Russian roulette with their lovely family pet and kids at home that’s fine. However the police can have a simple criteria, backed by robust quick to apply, virtually unappealable sanctions and the general public can get on with their lives a bit more safely.
Muzzles are not the greatest idea as dog's don't sweat, so they could overheat from being muzzled. It could also lead to a different disaster if a muzzled dog is attacked by an un muzzled dog so that's just not smart thinking. Some sensible solutions include:
1) Enforcing leash laws that require everybody to keep control of their dogs so as to prevent dogs from running up on each other unless both owners want to happen.
2) Placing ordnances within city limits that that require all pets to be spayed or neutered. This will reduce an animals desire to get out and roam around when pumped up and full of hormones and keep uncontrolled breeding under control, prevent them getting hit by cars, etc.
3) Licensing dog breeders so that you can regulate how these dogs are bred to prevent the inbreeding and keeping certain characteristics out of the breed
4) Requiring owners and breeders to take financial responsibility by having insurance to cover for the damages that their dog may cause. In my case, this was covered by my home owners policy and I had t shop around to find one that would cover me and the breeds I kept.
All of the above should apply to all dogs and owners and not just a single breed group, Otherwise no problem is being solved.
If my kid got bitten by a dog I couldn’t care less what insurance was in place. I really don’t get the focus on insurance.
Police and court resources are ridiculously stretched - enforcement needs to be as simple as possible, along the lines of FPNs for going through a speed camera. Make the fines punitive, irrespective of income or circumstances - like 10 grand for a dog off leash or without muzzle - compliance will soon be achieved.
Police and court resources are ridiculously stretched - enforcement needs to be as simple as possible, along the lines of FPNs for going through a speed camera. Make the fines punitive, irrespective of income or circumstances - like 10 grand for a dog off leash or without muzzle - compliance will soon be achieved.
NRG1976 said:
Harry Flashman said:
Thankfully, we live in a society where we regard other people's safety as trumping our own personal right to be a dick.
Should ban alcohol too into that case…Nice whatabouttery argument, by the way. Nice, but not going to win anyone round to your point of view, apart from the guy above trying (and failing) to argue genetics.
abzmike said:
If my kid got bitten by a dog I couldn’t care less what insurance was in place. I really don’t get the focus on insurance.
Yeah you would, because it would cover the medical bills for elective surgery that your child may need in an event they're bitten by any dog, which may not be covered by the NHS. I'm not saying it should absolve anyone from criminal liability, but it does help victims and can also keep irresponsible owners away if they have to pay a larger insurance premium in order to have a dog that they can't take care of. Harry Flashman said:
Almost certainly - if introduced today, it would be banned. But a bit like guns in America, that genie is out of the bottle.
Nice whatabouttery argument, by the way. Nice, but not going to win anyone round to your point of view, apart from the guy above trying (and failing) to argue genetics.
This is called a pivot, it's a cheap trick used by ill informed people when they fail at making their point. We're not talking about guns or America. We're talking about merits of banning a specific breed of dog.Nice whatabouttery argument, by the way. Nice, but not going to win anyone round to your point of view, apart from the guy above trying (and failing) to argue genetics.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of chastising him over whatabouttery when he responded to your what about Americans comment. Amateur
Edited by alabbasi on Sunday 17th September 18:53
alabbasi said:
abzmike said:
If my kid got bitten by a dog I couldn’t care less what insurance was in place. I really don’t get the focus on insurance.
Yeah you would, because it would cover the medical bills for elective surgery that your child may need in an event they're bitten by any dog, which may not be covered by the NHS. I'm not saying it should absolve anyone from criminal liability, but it does help victims and can also keep irresponsible owners away if they have to pay a larger insurance premium in order to have a dog that they can't take care of. Edited by abzmike on Sunday 17th September 19:02
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff