Boy, 4, mauled to death by dog in his NYC home

[BnZs]

stop it now.....I can argue all day long about being forced to live a certain way..which leads to the "statistical evidence"......but that would be a huge NO NO here in a political free forum.

Well...I think if all it takes to convince people to accept totalitarianism is a "good reason", the good reason will be manufactured, hence my remark about principles, but you are right, that is straying off topic.

[dedalos]

So, I can have my lion?  Woot!!!! 

[ink]

So, I can have my lion?  Woot!!!! 

I would rather have a Siberian Tiger, I pet one once that was over 800 lbs

I was looking for a place to give my gators to, and heard about a guy in Greenville NH that had a small zoo, so went to see if he wanted my gators, he brought me around the park and let me pet "Thunder" wow you don't realize how big these cats are until you are up close and personal, they make a Lion look small.

but ya you could if you have enough money.

[dedalos]

I would rather have a Siberian Tiger, I pet one once that was over 800 lbs

I was looking for a place to give my gators to, and heard about a guy in Greenville NH that had a small zoo, so went to see if he wanted my gators, he brought me around the park and let me pet "Thunder" wow you don't realize how big these cats are until you are up close and personal, they make a Lion look small.

but ya you could if you have enough money.

LOL, my kids pet one in the Milwaukee zoo I think (not sure about location).  It was a baby and they held the bottle for it.  I don't think they realized back then how big they get cause they wanted to adopt one 

[Vudak]

YG, you realize that there are people who are hysterically afraid of you having a firearm in your possession? Often enough they are the same people who would ban some dogs. Something to think about. This "there oughtta be a law!" knee-jerkism is a very bad trend, IMO.

Considering there is ample evidence that we live in a "me-first" society where no one gives a damn about anyone else, I am comfortable seeking a law that would require people to buy insurance that will cover damages inflicted upon me by their property.

Ideally, there shouldn't need to be a law, but it is obvious that need exists. 

I'm sick and tired of judgment-proof people walking all over those who work, save, and make something of themselves.  If my dog attacks you and I haven't insured for that, then you might take my house to cover your medical expenses.  If a judgment-proof citizen's dog attacks you, well gee, my mortgage gets a little harder for me to pay, because I still have to (help) cover your medical expenses.

That's not right. 

The bottom line is that various types of insurances will cover (for a song, usually) most types of dogs.  A few select breeds command high premiums, and can be very difficult to insure.  If he can't afford to insure it, then a poor man has no more business with a high-premium breed than he has driving a Lamborghini down the city streets.

[Dago]

Comparing owning a dangerous breed like a Pit Bull to owning a firearm is beyond ridiculous.  Makes a comparison that isn't even close to valid as those are two entirely different things.  One, an inanimate object without a will or ability to act own it's own, the other a living creature capable of taking action without, or in direct defiance of human command.

I have never heard of a firearm running loose, jumping a fence, attacking people, including small children by itself, of it's own accord.  Way too many accounts of dangerous dogs doing just that, leaving containment, yards, breaking ropes and chains, attacking without provocation. 

To compare the two, to attempt to justify owning a dangerous breed just because guns are dangerous when handled or used by idiots, well, as an argument it just fails.  How about comparing owning a Pit Bull to owning a car, cars kill too you know.   Maybe we should be able to keep grizzly bears in our backyards?  Why not, hey, what right does the gov't have to say we can't?  Or lions?  How about keeping coral snakes in your yard?  We have rights, right?   

I would go along with this, you can keep a dangerous breed of dog, but if it ever attacks someone, you go to prison for life, no possibility of parole.  Why not, surely owners of dangerous breeds should do everything in their power to make sure it never hurts anyone.  This would guarantee their vigilance.  Works for me, but of course I don't need to own a Pit Bull.  I don't care if anyone thinks I am a bad-ass or not, and don't need a dog to try to prove something like that.

[morfiend]

                     



Dago,

  you make a valid arguement,you cant compare guns and dogs or cars for that matter! unfortunately the dog that committed the attack wasnt a pitbull but that doesnt stop people from blaming a dog not involved simply because they know no better.

  The correct thing to be upset about are dangerous dogs,not pitbulls,yes a pitbull/pitmix can be a dangerous dog as can a Lab or shepard but that doesnt mean they all are. I for 1 dont think just anyone should own this type of dog,and I mean dogs that come from the Molloser family.Most of them with the exception of the pitbulls were bred as gaurdians/watchdogs and or herding,as a result these dogs are large,powerful and not good with strangers. The pits were bred for another purpose but thats been corupted and other breeds mixed into them and it's caused the issues we have today.

  To outright say that all pits are vicsous or dangerous in a ignorant statement simply because it isnt true!  I've owned over a dozen Bullterriers and Staffies over the past 30 years and never have I had an issue with an agressive dog.

 I've owned some other breeds that were much more agressive and I didnt want the responsibility of owning such a dangerous dog so I went to the bullterriers because the "look" of the dog was enough to keep my house and family safe.


  My house is one of the few homes in my area thats never been broken into,Hmmmmm I wonder why.

  Now if you hapen to enter my house,the dogs will show you to the fridge and offer a beer,so long as you give them a treat!!.......... dont tell anyone this because I prefer that people dont know they're actually friendly.



     

[Dago]

To label a dog breed as a dangerous breed, in my opinion requires more than just a consideration of the number of attacks, but rather must include a consideration of the violence, damage done by the attack.  A Chihuahua might attack, and pesky little bastards can nip, but you're not usually going to see anyone seriously injured or die.  A Pit Bull attacks, serious damage is done, every time, and too often someone dies.  So, don't just discuss which is most likely to attack, but consider the whole picture, to include propensity to attack and the result on people or other animals of the attack.  Haven't heard too many incidents of a Pit Bull just nipping a person and running away.   (I did have a German Shepard bite me when I was 14, he clamped on to my leg, I yelled, he let go and ran, pretty sure a yell wouldn't have dissuaded a Pit Bull).

[morfiend]

 That's just it Dago,you cant label a "breed" but you can look at individual dogs and determine wheter that dog is dangerous or not!

  Again the topic has gone from an unfortunate death to a small child by a dog that is not a pitbull,the Cane Corso is a large Italian Mastif that is bred to be a gaurd and shouldnt be around small children without supervision. No child should be around any dog without supervision,we dont think of Pomeranians as dangerous but 1 killed a child!



  But your intitled to your opinion and I wont try to diswade you!



     

[BnZs]

I'm sick and tired of judgment-proof people walking all over those who work, save, and make something of themselves.  If my dog attacks you and I haven't insured for that, then you might take my house to cover your medical expenses.  If a judgment-proof citizen's dog attacks you, well gee, my mortgage gets a little harder for me to pay, because I still have to (help) cover your medical expenses.

I'm kind of sick of artificial "problems" being used as an excuse to add to the millions of regulations already in existent. We pay for a criminal justice system to discourage such things as "negligent homicide".

Hey, I've got it! Make gun insurance mandatory! If your gun can kill say, 6 people without reloading, make it a legal requirement that you carry enough insurance on it to pay damages and replace 6 incomes. Although I am not quite sure what to do about the high-powered rifles, popular for deer hunting...one of those could theoretically kill 2-3 people per round, if you catch them lined up. Oh well, I'm sure the insurance people will work out the details once gun insurance becomes mandatory.

[BnZs]

See Rule #4

[Vudak]

I'm kind of sick of artificial "problems" being used as an excuse to add to the millions of regulations already in existent. We pay for a criminal justice system to discourage such things as "negligent homicide".

Dog bites are not an artificial problem.  Granted, this is definitely a biased site, but consider this:

The most recent official survey, conducted more than a decade ago, determined there were 4.7 million dog bite victims annually in the USA. A more recent study showed that 1,000 Americans per day are treated in emergency rooms as a result of dog bites. In 2010 there were 34 fatal dog attacks in the USA. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with over $300 million paid by homeowners insurance.

To heck with the fatalities (I do not understand why people bring all these threads down to fatalities...  They aren't the major problem)...  What about the people injured yearly?  Do you see that last statistic right there?  $1 billion per year, 3/10 of it paid by homeowners insurance.  Where is the other 7/10 coming from?

Throwing a guy in jail may be great for vengeance but it does absolutely nothing to pay your medical bills.  

(For the record - I'm arguing for necessary insurance in Connecticut only.  If you like paying for the mistakes of others feel free to argue against it for your home state).

Edit- here's the link (again, it is biased, but I'm just using it for the dog bite numbers, which should be fairly accurate): http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/dog-bite-statistics.html

[ink]

See Rule #4

[BnZs]

Throwing a guy in jail may be great for vengeance but it does absolutely nothing to pay your medical bills. 

I could come up with similar agitprop statistics against guns, beer, or motorcycles.

The point is not to pay my medical bills. To quote the philosopher, ***** happens. If a large tree branch falls and hits me in the head, that is no more my fault or "fair" than a dog bite, but I still have to pay my own bills.

The point is punishing and discouraging irresponsible behavior. Giving someone a harsh sentence for death/injury caused by their negligence is just. Effectively *fining* someone for owning what may be a gentle dog and which they may in fact be keeping responsibly and which poses 0 threat to anyone is NOT just.

[Vudak]

I could come up with similar agitprop statistics against guns, beer, or motorcycles.

The point is not to pay my medical bills. To quote the philosopher, ***** happens. If a large tree branch falls and hits me in the head, that is no more my fault or "fair" than a dog bite, but I still have to pay my own bills.

The point is punishing and discouraging irresponsible behavior. Giving someone a harsh sentence for death/injury caused by their negligence is just. Effectively *fining* someone for owning what may be a gentle dog and which they may in fact be keeping responsibly and which poses 0 threat to anyone is NOT just.

You are only half-right with your analogy.  If a tree branch falls on your head in some unowned woods, then yeah, it's your problem.  If you come into my yard and that tree branch I own drops a branch on you, then it's my problem.

You have a right to own property.  You have NO right to--unlawfully--inflict damages upon another individual with your property.  A dog is your property.

If your property unlawfully injures another person, then it becomes YOUR responsibility to make things right.  Not the injured party, not the state, not the hospital, not all your neighbors paying higher prices for services and higher taxes to make up for your negligence.

If you think your dog is some omnipotent, infallible creature capable of being the next Pope, then you should be able to opt out of insurance, but ONLY if you can demonstrate that YOU YOURSELF can make things right out of your OWN pocket.

You should not be allowed to drive around on the streets without insurance just because you think you're a great driver, and you should not be allowed to walk your dog around on the streets without the ability to cover any damages your dog may inflict.