Monday, April 11, 2016



The connections of dogs causing damage should be facing serious sanctions aligned to assault with a deadly weapon.
There is a law that allows dogs attacking domestic animals to be shot without any due process, just being a threat will see most people taking such action exonerated.

Yes the "uncle" who is alleged to be the owner of the dog that attacked the toddler is remorseful and has shown some evidence of that with his comments on dangerous dogs  since the attack.

Most hunters found to have shot and killed another hunter have similar after the fact remorse.

If "uncle" was facing a much more serious sanction  is it possible that he might not have owned such a poor choice of dog.

Barely Sober's child bride skirted the law in an attempt to reignite the gun ownership debate and police declined to prosecute  as her law breaking was in pursuit of public good'.
I know there is a remote chance of a firearm being discharged from dropping or an inadvertent pull of the trigger of a loaded weapon but guns do not discharge without some outside assistance, almost any canine can attack if triggered by its genetic reactive process, and when it is a large jawed dog the damage can be serious.

It will be of little comfort for those who abhor dog attacks on children even if provoked inadvertently,  from any changes to current dog laws if dogs capable of serious damage are attempted to be sanctioned in any way.  Pit Bull Terriers are currently banned, how much PB do you have in a mongrel to qualify.
However if the owner of a dog found to have attacked anyone in public areas or even in the home environment faced serious jail time similar to that which they would face for assault with a weapon, for that is what such dogs really are,  then merely owning or even possession might be reconsidered.

However after yet another talkfest costing serious money there will be inevitably more stringent dog laws, imposed on the significant majority of responsible dog owners will be the only people to be facing increased costs and more restrictions on their rights to own and enjoy mans best friends.
As with guns, vehicles, boats and rights of association the moronic minority will never have any intention of compliance with any new laws as current legal constraints  just do not apply to them.


Anonymous said...

Everybody has an anecdotal story about good dog/bad dog. The bottom line is there are bad dogs made bad by humans and good dogs made good by humans.

There is no such thing as a bad puppy. We are reaching he stage where we must introduce a licence system for dog ownership and paid for by potential owners, chipping, spot inspections the lot. If the dog is an investment in terms of money then it will be in good home. Same with gun licences. Nobody should be able to own a gun unless they are able to shoot and are members of a registered gun club that has training courses in place. If you are not prepared to pay for your hobbies then you are not a serious gun/dog owner.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

'Barely Sober' ... naughty but nice.

gravedodger said...

Bulsh#t old Egg, heritable behavioral traits have all animals with potential undesirable behaviours.
There are options that can alleviate, mitigate or avoid outcomes, however with pit bull types in the ownership of mongrel owners, the "bad" will soon become dominant.

Cripes man why have different 'breeds' become established, selective breeding for traits might be a possible answer.

Anonymous said...

Mr Dodger. Not Bullshit. Just an opinion based on years of dog and gun ownership, where as yours is not an opinion but fact because it's prefaced by the words bullsht.

Lord Egbut.