3 ms·
Not only is the linked paper correct in that the ownership of of these kinds of animals is a proxy for deviant behaviours but the ownership itself is a deviant
by Teever 2y ago
Not only is the linked paper correct in that the ownership of of these kinds of animals is a proxy for deviant behaviours but the ownership itself is a deviant behaviour with the owners all too often using their dogs to terrorize their neighbours and assert dominance in their community.
It's really shocking to me that many societies allow people to possess and weaponize intrinsically dangerous animals within city limits.
Like I get why a place like America where little regard is placed on the consequences of the mentally ill or violent owning firearms is overlooked but it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures with little recourse for the people who are chronically victimized by them.
The solution seems straightforward to me:
A) Prohibit the ownership of these kinds of animals in urban environments.
B) Enact laws that hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves.
If you own a particularly aggressive dog that exhibits a pattern of threatening behaviour and it eventually kills someone, you should be charged with manslaughter. There’s no excuse for allowing preventable violence to occur when the warning signs are so clear.
www.reddit.com/r/banpitbulls
- evgen 2y ago> it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures Just for reference, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK imposes strict liability (including criminal liability) for dangerous dogs and maintains a list of breeds that are banned. Recently 'XL Bully' dogs were put on that list, but there is controversy regarding the breed-specific limits. It is always easy to look back and say 'that dog and its owner were the source of a series of problems and should have been detained' but turns out that preventing future problems is harder than you would think...
- beepbopboopp 2y agoWith a .9% serious bite rate, (thats not accounting for the fact that they are most often owned by people who purposefully dont train them) Do you think we should ban these whereve you live too...? Cars: (Accidents Involving Injury - 0.56%) Stairs: (Falling Down To Serious Injury - 0.77%) Eating Chicken: (Food Poisoning - 0.96%) Bicycles: (Serious Accidents - 0.87%) Alcohol: (Injuries (Non-Fatal) - 0.67%) Sources: World Animal Foundation MK Law Group Various studies, e.g., JAMA Study Breed Differences Study DogsBite.org
- puppycodes 2y agodon't forget the completely non 1:1 statistics on banning things vs stopping them from happening.
- Teever 2y agoThis is a classic false equivalence. Comparing the ownership of an inherently aggressive animal to the risks of driving, falling down stairs, or eating food is misleading. The key difference is that cars, stairs, and food are essential parts of our society and and built environment whereas vicious and threatening dogs simply are not. Dogs, especially breeds with a known propensity for aggression, can and do actively attack and maim, often with little provocation. When an aggressive dog attacks, the harm is not an accident — it's a foreseeable outcome of allowing a high-risk animal into an environment where it can threaten others. Cars and other 'risky' activities you mentioned are heavily regulated, with safety standards, licenses, and liability laws in place to mitigate harm. Yet, aggressive dogs often exist in a legal gray area, where irresponsible owners can inflict lasting harm with little consequence.[0][1] The fact that some people choose to neglect or improperly train their animals makes the situation worse, not better. This isn’t about banning all dogs. It’s about preventing preventable violence from animals that have no place in densely populated urban areas. I can't drive a monster truck in a city, why should I be allowed to walk a monster animal? [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pit-bull-attack-calgary-betty-ann-williams-bagaric-sentencing-1.7123101 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pit-bull-attack-calga... [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/boy-11-killed-in-dog-attack-inside-south-edmonton-home-police-1.7161422 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/boy-11-killed-in-dog...
- beepbopboopp 2y agoDogs are highly regulated, do you know how draconian courts are about dog to people attacks? In most cases the dogs dont get a second chance. Monster Animals? Let me ask you this, do you believe that statistics about certain races committing a large percentage of violent crimes should be interrupted as them being innately more dangerous? Would you suggest we ban them from cities? I'd truthfully like to know.