Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

XL Bully dog - discussion

Fucksake 8Ball. What are you aiming for here? For me to say “Yep, you’re right, I’m wrong. In light of your experience I now re-evaluate my own and I’ve changed my mind”

You: big strong nice dog not let go of ball!

Me: yeah, nice dogs hold ball hard sometimes. not let go. dogged. me do pun lol.

You: but with big strong dog - it really hard!

Me: big strong dog hold ball harder. not so strange. even if nice dog.

You: me take ball home now. not play with mean person!
 
I was talking of the last time this happened and then no one was bitten by a dog ever after.

Yeah that’s what they say about gun laws in America. e.g. New York state bans most gun ownership, yet criminals still carry guns and kill people with them, therefore the gun laws shouldn’t have been passed.

What’s your solution to the ownership of dogs which frequently kill and maim people and which can only easily be stopped by certain weapons? Do you think we should tighten up and improve the laws on dangerous dogs, or just say “whoa dude, media panic alert, let’s not ban anything”?
 
I saw this dog being arrested by the police.

She was wandering around the streets, obviously worrying people cos she was a bull breed. She was really friendly, wiggling at her arrester and hopped into the van when asked.

She looked like she had lots of scars though :( hope she didn't get put down IMG_20220721_191728537.jpgIMG_20220721_191745761.jpgIMG_20220721_191733573.jpg
 
Yeah that’s what they say about gun laws in America. e.g. New York state bans most gun ownership, yet criminals still carry guns and kill people with them, therefore the gun laws shouldn’t have been passed.

What’s your solution to the ownership of dogs which frequently kill and maim people and which can only easily be stopped by certain weapons? Do you think we should tighten up and improve the laws on dangerous dogs, or just say “whoa dude, media panic alert, let’s not ban anything”?

Big dogs, guns, crocs. All bad. Ban them! :mad:
 
For those of restricted memory, one of the issues with the bans on dog breeds is that there is no simple way of determining a dog’s breed.

This issue then gets exacerbated by Government, who start writing laws of the “chiefly characterised by a series of repetitive beats” variety.

The law is based entirely on what a dog looks like.

This has led to mongrels of unrelated heritage being destroyed, among other innocent dogs.

Also, the dangerous dogs act completely failed in reducing the number of injuries from dog attacks.

Extending a failed law doesn’t look like the way to go to me.
 
I can guarantee my dog would never attack anyone but then he’s a ridiculously soppy spaniel. I wouldn’t be so confident if I owned one of the more ‘dangerous’ breeds.

I could pretty much guarantee that the white dickhead would never attack anyone but he’s still kept firmly attached to me in public if there are people around. It only takes one mistake to change someone’s life.
 
I could pretty much guarantee that the white dickhead would never attack anyone but he’s still kept firmly attached to me in public if there are people around. It only takes one mistake to change someone’s life.

What kind of dog is he?

(I assume we’re talking about a dog)
 
Ah I knew someone was gonna make the argument about you can't identify the breeds. How come people buy them on the basis it's a particular breed then. I know it looks like a Yorkie but seriously mate it is a mini Japanese Toza.

Full moon was last night.

This thread is a day late.
 
What’s your solution to the ownership of dogs which frequently kill and maim people and which can only easily be stopped by certain weapons? Do you think we should tighten up and improve the laws on dangerous dogs, or just say “whoa dude, media panic alert, let’s not ban anything”?
That's not what you said though. Your solution is to round up and destroy all dogs belonging to a certain breed, which is a sledgehammer/nut affair. I agree some dogs should have a more stringent vetting process before ownership and possibly reduction of numbers imported. I didn't say "do nothing" at all. So you've not only claimed something different to what you did originally, you've attributed to me something I didn't say
 
That's not what you said though. Your solution is to round up and destroy all dogs belonging to a certain breed, which is a sledgehammer/nut affair. I agree some dogs should have a more stringent vetting process before ownership and possibly reduction of numbers imported. I didn't say "do nothing" at all. So you've not only claimed something different to what you did originally, you've attributed to me something I didn't say

That's my solution, yes. Yours was "media panic", so I suggested something half-way I thought you might reasonably agree with. I certainly didn't attribute to you something you didn't say.

How is a stringent vetting process going to tackle the issue of dangerous dogs though? That's straight out of the "guns don't kill people, people do" playbook, only it's even less true when applied to dogs.
 
For those of restricted memory, one of the issues with the bans on dog breeds is that there is no simple way of determining a dog’s breed.

This issue then gets exacerbated by Government, who start writing laws of the “chiefly characterised by a series of repetitive beats” variety.

The law is based entirely on what a dog looks like.

This has led to mongrels of unrelated heritage being destroyed, among other innocent dogs.

Also, the dangerous dogs act completely failed in reducing the number of injuries from dog attacks.

Extending a failed law doesn’t look like the way to go to me.
I thought they do DNA tests on the dogs now, to see if they are a banned breed?
 
I thought they do DNA tests on the dogs now, to see if they are a banned breed?

I don’t know about over the pond, and I wasn’t aware of any decent genetic markers that could be used, but in the UK, if the State decides a dog is a banned breed, it is the owner’s responsibility to prove otherwise.
 
Yeah that’s what they say about gun laws in America. e.g. New York state bans most gun ownership, yet criminals still carry guns and kill people with them, therefore the gun laws shouldn’t have been passed.

What’s your solution to the ownership of dogs which frequently kill and maim people and which can only easily be stopped by certain weapons? Do you think we should tighten up and improve the laws on dangerous dogs, or just say “whoa dude, media panic alert, let’s not ban anything”?
Solution. Like there’s a solution that I or anyone else here is going to come up with. The answer is I dunno. Ask an expert.
 
Solution. Like there’s a solution that I or anyone else here is going to come up with. The answer is I dunno. Ask an expert.

If you don’t know what the solution is and would rather defer to experts, why did you twice say that banning dogs is a bad idea? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom