4 ms·

With 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 sho

With 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 ago
don't forget the completely non 1:1 statistics on banning things vs stopping them from happening.
Teever 2y ago
This 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 ago
  Dogs 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.
  - Teever 2y ago
    I don't think that purpose bred animals are comparable to human beings, and won't be entertaining that odious notion. Do you support regulations that would 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? Why or why not?
    - beepbopboopp 2y ago
      First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently. Second of all this is an argument about the fallacies of correlation and causation when reading data and how hardcore emotional takes like yours tend to be from a misunderstanding of the data. Also, the part that makes me the most disappointed is you are on here trying to regulate other peoples things and dont even bother to do a quick google search or educate yourself on the fact that all the things you are crying about already exist. //// Under California Penal Code Section 399 PC, a person may be criminally liable if a dangerous animal he or she owns injures or kills another person. While this offense typically applies to dangerous dogs, it can apply to any animal owned or kept by a person. ///// Also the civil liability is off the chart. The most liberal state in the whole US even has the laws you claim dont exist. Your fear is understandable, but your crusade without even spending a second on the issue is beneath the spirit of this website.
      - Teever 2y ago
        According to this site[0] the maximum penalty for breaking this law is a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine. I'm suggesting something far different from what this law implements. I'm suggesting that people who own a high-risk dog that maims someone should be charged with assault, and if that animal kills someone they should be charged with manslaughter. [0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/
happytoexplain 2y ago
Comparing some risk/danger people are upset about to car accidents is a red flag. Concepts like risk-return and self-determination and dignity are fundamental to these topics, and the "look at car accident numbers" line almost always implies a minimization to the easiest thing to "win an argument" with: Statistics. Numbers. Anybody who believes they can ignore numbers is a fool, but on the other side, anybody who believes they only need numbers is just as detached from reality.

puppycodes 2y ago

don't forget the completely non 1:1 statistics on banning things vs stopping them from happening.

Teever 2y ago

This 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 ago
Dogs 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.
- Teever 2y ago
  I don't think that purpose bred animals are comparable to human beings, and won't be entertaining that odious notion. Do you support regulations that would 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? Why or why not?
  - beepbopboopp 2y ago
    First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently. Second of all this is an argument about the fallacies of correlation and causation when reading data and how hardcore emotional takes like yours tend to be from a misunderstanding of the data. Also, the part that makes me the most disappointed is you are on here trying to regulate other peoples things and dont even bother to do a quick google search or educate yourself on the fact that all the things you are crying about already exist. //// Under California Penal Code Section 399 PC, a person may be criminally liable if a dangerous animal he or she owns injures or kills another person. While this offense typically applies to dangerous dogs, it can apply to any animal owned or kept by a person. ///// Also the civil liability is off the chart. The most liberal state in the whole US even has the laws you claim dont exist. Your fear is understandable, but your crusade without even spending a second on the issue is beneath the spirit of this website.
    - Teever 2y ago
      According to this site[0] the maximum penalty for breaking this law is a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine. I'm suggesting something far different from what this law implements. I'm suggesting that people who own a high-risk dog that maims someone should be charged with assault, and if that animal kills someone they should be charged with manslaughter. [0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/

happytoexplain 2y ago

Comparing some risk/danger people are upset about to car accidents is a red flag. Concepts like risk-return and self-determination and dignity are fundamental to these topics, and the "look at car accident numbers" line almost always implies a minimization to the easiest thing to "win an argument" with: Statistics. Numbers. Anybody who believes they can ignore numbers is a fool, but on the other side, anybody who believes they only need numbers is just as detached from reality.