When is this going to stop?
- Thread starter Brigadier
- Start date
Same with their dogs too, I say.
Ya can't say that, Bruv..........
That is the point...
All dogs are capable of inflicting a large amount of damage/kill a person...
But even human 'bullies' Tyson and Suarez (XL and M) could only muster a little nip!
Don't confuse Secure; he's going for the chip-and-lead solution.............followed by "thoughts and prayers" ...........
But the majority of dog attacks are on the owners/family members...
Does the owner think that's ok?
Muzzled only in public or muzzled at all times?
Talking of 'leads', what about those 'long line' friction leads...
How the hell are owners going to be able to instantly control their dog when it goes berserk for whatever reason?
Not to mention the bloody trip hazard!
Oh, and pets are apparently consuming up to 20% of the planet's meat/fish produce...
But hey, let the poor of the world starve whilst some can pamper their pooches
Were they also starving and gasping for oxygen when you were travelling to all those countries you bragged of visiting? 70, wasn't it? Were you doing humanitarian work or something?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
I think it's your misunderstanding, not mine!I said "no big feggin' dogs" in #1.
So what are you prattling on about, 12 pages in, if you're making an argument out of actually agreeing with me?
FWIW, all I've seen you post is about licensing, training, insurance, and muzzling when in public.
Oh, and some false-equivalence about banning vehicles.
You disagreed with what I said, then told me I was agreeing with you!!
And as for the car analogy, you must know what I'm saying about laws and rules being there to minimise injuries and deaths by people abusing those laws and rules.
But hey-ho, if you think I'm talking gibberish, fine.
I'm done with this now.
Don't forget to gloat and say you've won the argument!
It's not about winning an argument.
It's about my totally disagreeing with any of your solutions.
The only safe dog is a non - existent one.
Failing that, small enough to stand a chance against.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
I think I got the gist of what you said. I know dogs aren't cars, aren't guns etc, but, in the round, I don't disagree.
No they aren’t
A very small dog can’t kill a fully grown man
A very small dog would be able to kill a defenceless baby but not much else
You don’t have a dog so you have zero clue what a wonderful addition they make to a family
Luckily most people aren’t narrow minded like you.
The problem with this though is that, by definition, the law is only observed by decent folk.
You only have to look at the owners in the recent attacks to see that, in the main, they don't fit that description.....
And guns are, effectively, banned anyway.
Cars are not, because they have an overriding primary function, that is not to threaten, maim, or kill.
What is the primary purpose of a dog that an able - bodied adult cannot realistically defend themselves against?