http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/12/13/news/doc457eceddcdc66840620937.txt
"BOSSIER CITY, La. -- A pit bull puppy chewed off four of a baby girl's toes while the child's parents slept, police here said Monday. The parents were booked on charges of child desertion and criminal negligence and were being held in the Bossier Parish Jail pending an initial court appearance.
Police said the parents were sleeping on a mattress in the living room of their residence and the month-old girl was in an infant seat beside them when the puppy began chewing on their baby's toes.
Mary Shannon Hansche, 22, and Christopher Wayne Hansche, 26, told police they woke up to the sound of the baby crying, found her mangled foot and took her to the hospital about 8:30 a.m. Sunday....."
Dogs are obviously dangerous and need to be banned completely. If we cannot guarantee that dogs will not be misused, abuse and harm people they must be banned. Just banning "Assault Dogs" like Pitbulls is not enough, all dogs from the smallest Toy breed to the largest Mastiff must be done away with. This most recent example is just the tip of the iceburg, think of the horror we face from Dogs in the hands of criminals... none of us are safe from this dog menace.
Originally posted by Frank BurnsEven if you subscribe to the old axiom that 'your are what you eat' dogs aren't children. I would suggest you edit your post to read 'the real problem is puppies having children'.
I know this is you having a little fun with the world around you Hand but the real problem is children having children.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateYour's will require an edit as well. To "puppies having children for nourishment".
Even if you subscribe to the old axiom that 'your are what you eat' dogs aren't children. I would suggest you edit your post to read 'the real problem is puppies having children'.
😉
I am strongly in favor of greater restrictions on dog ownership and availability for the following reasons:
- There is no fundamental right to own dogs.
- Dogs represent a much more dangerous situation than other varieties of pets, and their elimination would lower rates of death and injury.
- Dog control legislation will reduce violent crime.
- Most dog related deaths are a result of deliberate violence, accidents, poor/aggressive training and irresponsible owners; thus, dogs are more dangerous to the owners than to others.
- In incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is often more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon; also, criminals may act in groups. Thus, dogs are of little use as self defense for the typical owner.
- The presence of a dog serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence.
- Citizens have no need to own dogs to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation.
- Citizens need to protect themselves against crime, but owning a dog(s) is not a good way to accomplish this.
- Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they they threaten to use dogs to confront government malfeasance before violence is necessary. Moreover, even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to put dogs against the modern military that a government would bring to bear.
-Dogs, being devices designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people.
- Dog control, properly and judiciously applied, lessens (though cannot eradicate) the possibility that criminals will obtain dogs.
- Fewer dogs means fewer homicides(canineicides) and unintentional deaths.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI think you're getting dogs confused with women again.
I am strongly in favor of greater restrictions on dog ownership and availability for the following reasons:
- There is no fundamental right to own dogs.
- Dogs represent a much more dangerous situation than other varieties of pets, and their elimination would lower rates of death and injury.
- Dog control legislation will reduce violent crime. ...[text shortened]... s will obtain dogs.
- Fewer dogs means fewer homicides(canineicides) and unintentional deaths.
Originally posted by rwingettSome dogs are OK, such as those being used by law enforcement, our military and/or search & rescue operations. Its only private dog ownership that I'm concerned with.
I generally agree with Hand of Hecate, except he doesn't go nearly far enough. I think dogs are the species most deserving extinction. I would therefore advocate an aggressive program of canicide (dog genocide).
I'd also like to see lawsuits filed against the breeders for any harm or potential harm their dogs are responsible for.
For the sake of the children, we must ban dogs.
The post that was quoted here has been removedExactly the point I was making above. What is in this thread is utterly stupid. It is true that many people lack the a sense of responsibility to keep a pet. But the same irresponsible people drive cars, and in some places even own guns!
Originally posted by Mephisto2Don't even get me started on guns... still, in the US you have the right to bear arms and you don't have the right to own dogs.... ban dogs and then focus on the people and guns.
Exactly the point I was making above. What is in this thread is utterly stupid. It is true that many people lack the a sense of responsibility to keep a pet. But the same irresponsible people drive cars, and in some places even own guns!
As far as people go, we need to target anyone that is different from us first.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecatewhat about the benefits dogs provide to us ?
[b]I am strongly in favor of greater restrictions on dog ownership and availability for the following reasons:.....
on rescue missions, their abilities to detect explosives, illegal drugs, & recently to detect cancer on urine samples !