• HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    yeah like glocks and most guns are banned in the UK. Meaning we face much lower gun deaths then nations that dont.

    Not really a valid argument obn your part. Of course banning the dogs most likely to kill is an effective way of reducing dog deaths. Where the hell do you live.

    The simple fact is we don’t need to ban all dogs. Because we have an average of below 1 a year. but when we see a few in one year all related to one new breed that is beyond most owners control. Yes we ban thast breed rather then banning all.

    Also it is only when we see deaths related to breeds intentionally bred for attack. Our nation has ever banned them. Even then only once multiple deaths have happened. Most demestic breeds really are not capable of doing seriose damage. Having been attacked by a germon shepard myself at 10 years old. I can assure you the damage from an average dog and one bred for fighting is very different.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah like glocks and most guns are banned in the UK. Meaning we face much lower gun deaths then nations that dont.

      Right…

      You banned all guns and gun deaths went down…

      If you had just banned Glocks, people would have just bought different guns.

      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do not disagree. All guns are dangerouse. Hence why guns are limited and restricted to safe areas for use.

        Same goes for race cars. We ban them on oen roads due to the risk to others. Privrate roads are fione if the race is run safely. But that dosent stop folks driving a ford fiesta etc. Because in most situations most cars are safe. (ignoring pullution).

        But the 4(soon to be 5) breeds of dogs banned. Where bread entirly for fighting. And showed a history or attacking humans and killing. In much higher qty then numbers before the breed was introduced. Most other dog attacks result in injurie. Again can be bad from my own 10yo experience. But at no point was I likely to die. I ended up in hospital for a few days. And the dog was eventually put down. (another attack).

        But these breeds are bread to fight. They do not let go when a victim is submited like other dogs.

        I have said before it is not perfect. Cross breeds need to be checked. But when you compare it to glocks. You are forgetting that we normally see averages well below once a year of dogs killing. Yet these bans have happened ofter several events in a couple of years. All related top one breed.

        Yes another breed may/will come. And again we will ban it. We only have a total of 4 breeds banned. So its far from every couple of years we see a dangerous one. And while Id rather we had a more direct method. I am old enouth to remember the news at each occasion. We avoid cross breeds because the exact breeding that makes pure breeds dangerous is reduced when they are crossed. So like any dog they tend to be judged on actions. It seems to take timer for breeders to come up with new breeds that meet the desire. So evidence indicates it is working if not perfect. Because we see a relative drop in deaths back to normal when a breed is banned.