Death penalty for owners of mad dogs
 

I am sickened by another death of a little 3 year old boy , because of a crazy dog owned by a mongrel owner.
Mad dogs are owned by mad f_ucking owners.
There is no excuse .
The dog should immediately be put down and the owner should be hung.
There is no excuse for owning a killing animal if you are not able to control it .
The owner is always culpable - They should pay with their life and they would if it was my child.

All dogs are killing animals. All these people who say "my dog wouldent kill a baby" are deluded idiots. A dog is a wild animal at heart and therefore is a hunter. Whether it's a Great Dane or a wiener, it has teeth that are designed to tear flesh.

death penalty maybe slightly too far , imprisonment definitely

What a load of sh*T

All down to the owner,

Like most fuc*ed up humans too, it's all in the up bringing

Sorry you're wrong. Bring it up how you want, it still has animal instincts when all is said and done. That's nature. You cannot compare a dog to a human ffs.

Could leave a dog in a room with a child deliberately starve the dog and i reckon it would die before eating said child,

As long as the dog has been brought up properly

Dead right. It might as well be claimed that tigers in captivity only kill because they've got a poor owner, which is obviously nonsense. I think dogs in public ownership will eventually be as unacceptable as keeping a big cat or a bear, and probably banned altogether.

Yea i forgot we use tigers to pull sleds and round up sheep,

Dog have evolved alongside humans, most domestic dogs would die in the wild

Almost as unacceptable as keeping any cat tbh!

Haha, my cat has never killed anyone but she can dish out a good scratching! :lol1:

What a load of knee-jerk nonsense.
No doubt that dogs are equipped to hunt and kill, and no domestic dog is ever, ever, 100% trustworthy, but that statement is just plain reactionary nonsense.
I may be completely barking (get it :lol1: ), but Peedee have you had a traumatic exerience with a dog in your past? That is such a strong opinion of dogs in general that I'm thinking there has to be a material reason why you feel that way. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
But not about the majority of domestic dogs I'm not.

Spot on, :thumb:

My next door neighbours Rottweiler turned on his own kid that wSs only 3year old and the dog was really freindly and wouldn't hurt a fly I guess pets should have there own place and owners/parents should take full responsibility as they would with there children...end of
My 20p worth

As for dogs being 'wild' animals, when compared to horses as a human companion there is a vast chasm of difference in their association with man.
Estimations and records of domestication do vary, but it seems to be that Horses have been domesticated for anything between 4,000 to 6,000 years. Whether Horses are equipped for hunting and killing or not, you still wouldn't refer to them as 'wild' animals surely.

For dogs the time they have been a domesticated companion is between 27,000 and 40,000 years. So to call them wild animals is incorrect.

That doesn't take account of unwanted character traits being bred back in by Humans though. Nor does it account for the odd rogue dog. But we have rogue Humans as well and we don't kill them systematically.

Absolutely right.

Exactly my point on them evolving alongside us , :thumb:

What utter rubbish. Bring up a dog properly means it is less less likely to attack people, but they are animals. We had some friends who had the softest dog ever, yet it still mauled their baby. Very nasty, luckily no lasting damage, which couldn't be said for the dog!

Only a Fuc*ing idiot would allow a dog near a baby in the first place,

Could be hurt by accident alone,

Fact is just like people some dogs cannot be trusted with children,

It is then up to the owner not to allow such dogs near kids, simple as that,

First you don't know any of the circumstances surrounding that incident, so you are not really in a position to comment on it. Secondly, your last statement beggars belief in the face of your "well brought up dogs" statement, and the fact that the majority of dogs are owned by families! "Such dogs", you mean like the ones idiot dog owners always say "oh it's alright, they won't harm you they're a big softy", you know, like the one that mauled the baby.....

I agree that ultimately the owners should do more to ensure their dogs are kept out of the way children, people, whatever, but that is because they are animals, they are unpredictable, no matter how well you have treated them.

Clearly babies and animals don't mix,

Easily avoided,

Idiots with kids and idiots with dogs is just a recipe for disaster,

Unfortunately you do not need a licence for either,

Dogs do have to be chipped now = licence as far as I'm concerned.

Ah didn't know that, would seam that's been the Law since April '16,


Quite right too, mine was chipped although i suspect there will still be the odd sphincter who doesn't get thiers chipped for all the wrong reasons and my bet is on it being those kind of owners who's dogs run riot in the first place,

The problem is , dogs only have one way of making you know to back the F off , and that's with their teeth. My first dog, a Jack Russell was the softest cuddly dog ever , you could take its treat away , lift its food without it bothering etc. But out in the hallway my toddler neice got it in a headlock and squeezed. It snapped bit her on the hand. As would i if someone did the same to me except I'd use my hands.
Only problem is , some dogs may just go to town on a kid think it's a toy or food. I mean if any owners dog has chased a rabbit or a cat , do you think if it was left to it that it wouldn't completely maul it to death ? I'd say there is a very good chance no matter how well it's trained.

actually if it was the family pet , then they've suffered enough without actual imprisonment .

The issue with problem dogs lies fair and square with the owners. A dog that bites as in the case above cannot really be called a rogue or labelled as dangerous, it's just defending itself as it only knows how to.

The tragedy with the 3 year old killed this week is a different matter entirely. This dog wasn't in its own home and had some history of attacking people and should never have been given back to the owner. If a dog attacks just once it should be put down, it's just too big a risk.

This makes interesting reading.

https://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-stat...likely-to-kill

You've just completely contradicted yourself. In the first two posts you've said that how a dog behaves is up to how it's brought up and that you could leave a dog and a baby in a room and it would die of starvation before it ate the baby, but you then say only a "****ing idiot" would allow a dog near a baby in the first place? Well hang on, according to you, as long as the dog has been brought up properly, it's ok?

There are over 7,000 people hospitalised by dogs in the UK each year, massively more than result from firearms incidents. Yet firearms incidents immediately inspire outcries for more gun controls, while dogs injure and kill with seeming impunity. Something wrong somewhere.

Ive got 2 male dogs a staff and a dolmation I love them like children but I am the pack leader but I wouldnt trust any dog with a toddler any dog can turn if it's miss treated ect

Far more people have dogs than firearms ?