• li10@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    7 months ago

    If my dogs ever tried to kill me, I’d just pin them both down. That’s the benefit of not having insanely powerful dogs.

    IMO you shouldn’t have a dog that you can’t physically restrain. Any dog can snap and you need to be able to physically stop them if that happens.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      7 months ago

      Any dog can snap

      Dishonest statement. That’s like saying “Any ceiling fan can decapitate you”. Technically true, but so extraordinarily unlikely for most breeds that you should be more worried about car crashes if you fear for your life…

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      7 months ago

      Any dog can snap

      any animal can snap.

      I guess you don’t think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I’m not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it’s not the breed, it’s the training and owner.

      • theareciboincident@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        ·
        7 months ago

        breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations

        nooo they just look scary they’re so cuddly noooo you don’t understand

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          7 months ago

          breed is literally bred to increase aggression over hundreds of generations

          absolute bullshit, unless they’re being bred by chuds for dogfights (despicable) this is not a thing

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            67
            ·
            7 months ago

            The term “pit bull” literally refers to a type of dog that has a history of fighting in pits. It’s in their name. They are a despicable breed that people should stop breeding. You’re so close to understanding…

              • yamanii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                7 months ago

                They are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        ·
        7 months ago

        IMHO, it’s not the breed, it’s the training and owner.

        Your humble opinion notwithstanding, Bully dogs are demonstrably more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. It’s not some irrational fear, these dogs make up 66% of all fatal dog attacks. Pick any deceased dog attack victim, and it was a Bully or a Rottweiler that killed them.

        Training is important and can make a difference in outcomes, but the data overwhelmingly points to aggression and lethality between different dog breeds being a matter of nature more than nurture, and that Bully dogs are on the far end of both spectrums leading to the worst outcomes.

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            47
            ·
            7 months ago

            This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don’t work.

            The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people’s pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.

            If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won’t feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.

            And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.

              • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                46
                ·
                7 months ago

                How on earth does anything I said logically conclude to “ban humans”?

                It’s like you don’t even take your own position seriously making arguments like this.

              • njm1314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                7 months ago

                With how unhinged you are and your apparent love of bulldogs I’m guessing we’re going to see a story about you being murdered by one before long.

                • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  bulldogs

                  whole 'nother breed than what’s being discussed here sparky. so uh, whatever. Thanks for wishing me dead, you have a good fuckin night lol.

                  what an asshole…

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death,

          where is this indicated?

          My brother/sister in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn’t developed anecdotally, it’s a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog’s life that humans need to learn. Most training isn’t for the dog, it’s for the family members.

          I’d recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who’s food is who’s etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I’ve had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog’s faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.

          Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn’t trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man/ma’am…

          apply some sense to it all.

          • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            where is this indicated?

            In the fact that this keeps on happening even with experienced owners.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              it’s putting words into my mouth, I never indicated any such thing.

              want to make a point? don’t use me as your sock puppet to do it, be adult enough to make your own assertions sport.

              • h3h3productions@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                My brother in buddy, they weren’t putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.

                Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            The bullshit excuses part was rhetorical I think. You didn’t actually have to answer that part.

      • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree in the sense that some dog breeds aren’t necessary and are actively unhealthy for the animal and the breed should be allowed to die out removing the ability for people to be owners of those breeds, and therefore ownerless

        • morphballganon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          They said only own dogs you can overpower. That means nobody gets a St. Bernard. I don’t think St. Bernard is a breed that should die out.

        • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          This seems nuts. Is this not an insane opinion? You want entire dog breeds to go extinct? What are your thoughts on that one governor lady? lol

          • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes? I am not sure I understand what is making you upset. I am not saying kill all the pitbulls, I am saying stop dog eugenics and let dogs just be dogs and love the animal that comes out. If that means that we stop having access to purebred (inbred) Pugs, so be it. Mutts are just as good doggos.

            • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Idk why you think I’m upset. I’m more shocked than anything.

              I would think most people tend to support conservation of different animals and whatnot, except for maybe mosquitoes (and even then I’d be hesitant). It’s also blowing my mind that you’re heavily upvoted. I had no idea some of y’all thought this way.

              That said, I’m just going to assume I don’t fully understand what you’re saying since it seems so batshit crazy to me. It’s clear this isn’t really an honest, open dialogue anyway, and that’s totally fine

              • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not the OP, but let me step in. Dog breeds are something we have created as humans, they’re not wild species that need to be preserved and don’t have any effect on ecosystems.

                Dog breeding is largely negative at this point as most breeds have outlived their original use and are now seen as designer pets. We continue to breed them as there is continued demand, but quite often these breeds are so inbred that they have genetic health issues. We also oversupply and don’t fix/neuter enough, meaning there are always unwanted dogs without homes.

                I love dogs, but all of mine have been rescues and I would have no problem with the vast majority of breeds being phased out. There are still some niche cases where dogs are actually used for their breed’s purpose (dog sled, search/rescue, hunting, etc) but no, I don’t think a chihuahua or a pug should exist and would not be sad if breeders stopped producing more.

                • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Thanks for sharing your POV. It’s definitely the first time I’ve heard something that radical about dogs, which are basically the most beloved living thing in the US, but I can somewhat understand where you’re coming from.

                  I’d definitely support making it more difficult to own a dog, but mostly because many of the dog owners I’ve met are borderline abusive to their pets (I’m mainly thinking of neglect here). I don’t think I could ever support a ban on entire breeds. That’s where it starts to seem crazy to me. Make it a felony to own a dog that bites someone or something but don’t make it a felony to simply own the dog. We don’t even have such laws for people that own guns or swords and surely those lead to more deaths/injuries than dogs.

                  • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I feel I should clarify that I don’t hold this position because dogs are dangerous or think it should be harder to have a dog. I hold it because I think our breeding programs are creating a lot of animal suffering.

                    From puppy mills where dogs are kept in horrible conditions, to overproduction of animals so that there aren’t enough homes, to propagating breeds that can barely breath so that they have an “adorable” face. Dog breeding is exploitative and re-enforces that dogs are simply a commodity.

                    I’m not sure a law making it more difficult to own a dog would have the effect you intend, as there are already too many dogs in need of homes. I think a more palatable middle ground to elimination would be regulation of breeders to ensure that they are not producing more dogs than can be homed.

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        There’s a difference between that and policies that discourage breeding, etc.

        I don’t see many people advocating to outright kill dogs. There are a ton of pits in every shelter and yet people still run backyard breeding operations or tell everyone to get a pit. The breed would be better served if we told people they were more of an advanced breed that need the right kind of owners and environment.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I noticed my guinea pigs have never tried to murder me. Granted in a home invasion they are pretty useless. Unless I like throw their squeaky bodies at said invader or overpower him and make him drink from the water dish as vengeance.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        They should require a license to own and a reason to be bred

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            7 months ago

            I bet more cows are killed in a year than all shelter dogs on earth.

            So, for most folks, the “no death” argument is silly

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                Dogs aren’t put down for their meat, so the discussion of the acceptability of putting dogs down is not based on their meat.

                Thus, the point is about humans simply killing animals.

                This isn’t about the human imposed utility, it’s about if it’s fine for humans to decide what animals live and die. Humans don’t need beef to live, there are other foods, so humans make a human centric choice to kill cows.

                Since humans are deciding what animals.live, based purely on human wants, why would dogs be free of that assessment?

                • morphballganon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Cow farms supply food for humans. I’m not saying that’s the most ethical thing in the world, but it is done. Would dogs serve the same purpose? They would produce less, lower quality meat per head.