You're not that smart are you mate?

You stated that certain breeds were less tolerant of humans. I posted evidence that your statement was incorrect.

No one is arguing that big powerful breeds are less likely to be linked with deaths. Of course a full force bite from a Rottweiler will be much worse than a full force bite from a dachshund, but there's a far greater chance of getting bitten by the dachshund.

 

Nearly 7 million hits for "man dies having sex"

What's you point? Is having sex really that dangerous? is it a fools errand too?

Apparently its less risky to try and save your dog than it is to have sex, by your measure.

I do agree though. Stiffer sentences for waste of space owners with dogs that maim and kill people - provided the owner is clearly negligent in terms of care.

What do you do when child climbs over fence into somewhere it should never be, in a good middle class street and gets killed by two dogs who are in their garden wondering what this new play thing is that's just appeared, is likely now screaming and running about in panic, a reaction which will create a seriously heightened sense of excitement in the dogs?

Do you hang the dogs owners for that?

Or do you save that for "chav scum" with trophy dog that cant control their animal whilst out?

 

I don't own a dog or any pet for that matter, so I can't really comment on which of the two I would save in a given hypothetical situation. However, despite the fact I find it hard to comprehend how one could put the life of an animal over a person, evidently it seems that this is not at all uncommon.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rning-building

Given that pets are considered family members and their owners having an emotional attachment to their companion, I can only equate the choice to either saving a member of family over a stranger and obviously family comes first. Also bear in mind that you shouldn't feel hard done by that your wife is more likely to save your pet over you to which I can only put down to them having a stronger or greater emotional attachment to the pet than yourself. Man's best friend is nothing compared to woman's best friend!

 

This could be because the tail wagging pets don't argue back, they're more faithful and trustworthy and way easier to control.

 

But in either case you still have to clear up their mess after them!

 

Just because you think no animal's life is more important than a human life, doesn't mean it's right or everybody should or does feel the same. To call somebody a **** or a fool for having an opinion that's different to yours is ignorant.

Basically, your argument is built on the assumption that no person loves their dog. Is this what you really think? If you can comprehend that people do love their dogs, or other pets, then surely it's obvious that, in the event of an emergency, a person would save a creature they loved before a random stranger for whom they have no personal feelings whatsoever!?

 

It's an argument on Scoobynet, that's basically par for the course.

 

Ere if there's no death penalty for the likes of the scum who killed a soldier in broad daylight why so much Agro over this

 

Nice job there of ignoring pretty much every word of my last post. Since this thread was started on the subject of what criminal penalties should apply for owners of dogs who negligently allow their animals to attack other people, I'll ask you the question again in very simple terms, and you can then decide whether or not to reply. Do you agree that owners of potentially vicious animals should face stiffer sentences than they currently do, if they allow those animals to get out of control and cause serious harm to other people? Yes or no?

 

I never mentioned this. I didn't say you'd been ignorant because of your comments on the 'sentences for dog owners' issue. I said it because you called somebody a **** for stating they'd put their dog first. And I think you now realise it was ignorant, which is why you're trying to shift the focus.

But FWIW... each situation is different, but generally, yes, I think owners of dogs that attack people (or other animals, eg. dogs they encounter whilst out walking) should face stiff sentences.

 

Almost as good as the job you've done of ignoring mine

 

 

What a plonker!

 

Cheers Del Boy

 

Pretty much every year there will be a new crop of stories of people falling through ice or getting swept away in river or sea currents and drowning, when trying to rescue dogs that most of the time end up managing to escape unharmed by themselves. So far as "man dies having sex" stories are concerned, to the extent that these are actually true or current (and not just internet myths or old "news" stories repeated ad-nauseam year after year), the actual cause of death will in 99.99% of cases be a heart attack or some other natural cause, and the fact the victim happened to be having sex at the time is really neither here nor there.

Already answered in an earlier post, the dog owner in this case could obviously not be at fault, since it wasn't them who put the eventual victim in the situation where they were attacked. I'll add though that in practice, the scenario you've described here only accounts for a ridiculously small proportion of total deaths or serious injuries involving dogs, so is largely irrelevant to this discussion.