openryan
State Researcher
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Either
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Pit bull encounter...
- Thread starter sv_libertarian
- Start date
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
We expect the general public to be able to tell the difference between a person who is peacefully carrying a firearm and one who is dangerous and warrants alarm. I think we should be held to the same standard for dogs.
sv_libertarian wrote:
You are usually pretty cordial and level headed...so what the hell is this?
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Again, we're getting back to the same arguments that gun-grabbers make. Gun owners should be responsible enough to prevent people from getting shot, but since people get shot, all gun owners must be irresponsible and therefore we have to take away or restrict guns. As we all know, the people who are irresponsible still do what they've always done and the people who are responsible get punished. It's illegal to shoot someone, regardless of all the other laws against guns in the same way it's illegal to let your dog maul someone, regardless of leash laws, fence laws, etc.
The exact same thing is true for EVERY animal and EVERY person that you will ever meet while you are out and about. That is the whole point I'm trying to get across! If you are threatened by a dangerous dog (or person) you are justified in defending your life. Period. It doesn't matter if it's a dog on a leash, a bear off a leash, or a person with a gun.
Agreed. And common sense tells me that a dog that isn't leashed, and that is minding its own business is not a threat. The dog that you came across obviously didn't fit this profile, but that doesn't mean that other dogs and their owners should be punished for it.
I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying here, and getting defensive for no reason. There was no reason for the dogs owner to get beliggerent with you. I'm not excusing that behavior at all, and I never said anything about the owners behavior being okay. If I came across someone who had an unleashed animal, the animal appeared to be a threat, and the owner cursed me for telling them to control their animal, I would call the cops too - not because the dog is not leashed, but because it warrants alarm and because the owner verbally assaulted me.
We expect the general public to be able to tell the difference between a person who is peacefully carrying a firearm and one who is dangerous and warrants alarm. I think we should be held to the same standard for dogs.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Cue-Ball wrote:
Cue-Ball wrote:
Heartless_Conservative
Regular Member
imported post
Great, now I can't get the lyrics from "Kitten is Angry" out of my head...
Great, now I can't get the lyrics from "Kitten is Angry" out of my head...
jonnyjeeps
Regular Member
imported post
Cue, do you really think the that its a minority of dog owners who are irresponsible? Because If you want to have your "sweet little innocent" dogs off their leash than you will have a majority of irresponsible owners. The LEASH IS RESPONSIBLE
What if you used the same logic to the speed limit, and because of the minority of people getting into accidents due to speed should not affect those of us who don't get into accidents then we can all drive as fast as we want. Its called public safety and it is stupid to think of a dog in the same manner as a person, dangerous or not, the persons life and rights are more important than peoples pets/property. My life is worth more than ANY dogs.
It is also amazing to me that anyone could say there is such a thing as excessive force against an attacking dog( well most largeand medium dogs) if hes attacking you, you want him to stop not measure the amount of force used to subdue him.:banghead:
Cue, do you really think the that its a minority of dog owners who are irresponsible? Because If you want to have your "sweet little innocent" dogs off their leash than you will have a majority of irresponsible owners. The LEASH IS RESPONSIBLE
What if you used the same logic to the speed limit, and because of the minority of people getting into accidents due to speed should not affect those of us who don't get into accidents then we can all drive as fast as we want. Its called public safety and it is stupid to think of a dog in the same manner as a person, dangerous or not, the persons life and rights are more important than peoples pets/property. My life is worth more than ANY dogs.
It is also amazing to me that anyone could say there is such a thing as excessive force against an attacking dog( well most largeand medium dogs) if hes attacking you, you want him to stop not measure the amount of force used to subdue him.:banghead:
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
jonnyjeeps wrote:
I never said a dog's life is worth more than yours. I said that people should have the right to leave their dogs off-leash because they are already lawfully obligated to be responsible if that dog causes harm.
jonnyjeeps wrote:
Yes. I definitely think it's a minority. I would leash my dogs around the neighborhood regardless of whether there was a leash law. But there are several people in my neighborhood who's dogs walk off-leash and they are no trouble at all. They mind their owners and are not threatening in the least.
If you want to equate dogs to cars, that's fine with me. A car that is out of control or is obviously a danger is going to cause calls to the police, just as an out of control or dangerous car would. If a dog doesn't attack or threaten anyone, where is the danger to public safety?
I never said a dog's life is worth more than yours. I said that people should have the right to leave their dogs off-leash because they are already lawfully obligated to be responsible if that dog causes harm.
Who said that?
jonnyjeeps
Regular Member
imported post
"I never said a dog's life is worth more than yours. I said that people should have the right to leave their dogs off-leash because they are already lawfully obligated to be responsible if that dog causes harm."
Well then I can do 120 down the interstate because I am already liable fora crashshould it happen. Do yousee the logic here because I do not. These type of laws prevent accidents on the road and in your neigborhood where dogs could otherwise roam free, not that people dont speed or keep dangerous dogs off leashbut if you ticket a speeder enough and everyone sees and knows the law than they are inclined to be responsible. Just as you are inclined to leash the dog.
"I never said a dog's life is worth more than yours. I said that people should have the right to leave their dogs off-leash because they are already lawfully obligated to be responsible if that dog causes harm."
Well then I can do 120 down the interstate because I am already liable fora crashshould it happen. Do yousee the logic here because I do not. These type of laws prevent accidents on the road and in your neigborhood where dogs could otherwise roam free, not that people dont speed or keep dangerous dogs off leashbut if you ticket a speeder enough and everyone sees and knows the law than they are inclined to be responsible. Just as you are inclined to leash the dog.
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
jonnyjeeps wrote:
I find it very ironic that people here are arguing that dogs are dangerous, unpredictable, and threatening so they should be regulated and controlled... yet those same people will speak until they're blue in the face about how a man with a firearm is no cause for alarm unless he demonstrates a clear and specific threat to your safety.
jonnyjeeps wrote:
This all comes down to what you (and society) feel is an obvious threat to public safety and what is not. Some people would say that 120mph is perfectly safe, others would say that even 60mph is not safe. Some people would say that an unlicensed person openly carrying a firearm is perfectly safe, others would say that nobody but police are qualified to carry a weapon (and maybe not even them). Some people think every dog is a potential killer, others realize that most dogs are harmless and not a threat.
I find it very ironic that people here are arguing that dogs are dangerous, unpredictable, and threatening so they should be regulated and controlled... yet those same people will speak until they're blue in the face about how a man with a firearm is no cause for alarm unless he demonstrates a clear and specific threat to your safety.
jonnyjeeps
Regular Member
imported post
Dogs do not get the benefit of the doubt, its not their right. People do get the benefite of the doubt, because it is their right.
Who would say 120 is safe :lol:? Guns are not unpredictable they do exactly what they are told can you say the same for all dogs?
Dogs do not get the benefit of the doubt, its not their right. People do get the benefite of the doubt, because it is their right.
Who would say 120 is safe :lol:? Guns are not unpredictable they do exactly what they are told can you say the same for all dogs?
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
jonnyjeeps wrote:
Plenty of people in Europe think that 120 mph is safe. I've gone that fast before safely (and legally).
Guns are predictable, but the people weilding them are not.
jonnyjeeps wrote:
I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Especially when something is quite obviously not a threat. Would you be intimidated by a Dachschund or a Rat Terrier?
Plenty of people in Europe think that 120 mph is safe. I've gone that fast before safely (and legally).
Guns are predictable, but the people weilding them are not.
expvideo
Regular Member
imported post
jonnyjeeps wrote:
I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't shoot an attacking dog. What I'm trying to explain is that to some people, just because the dog is a pit bull, and it's not on a leash, that means to them "angry attacking dog". It's the same kind of irrational fear that opponents of OC use when they call the cops because of a man with an evil black pistol on his waist.
Now if the dog is attacking, fine. Buta lot of people have a phobia of dogs, or specific breeds of dog, that makes the mere presence of the dog a threat in their mind. That is not a threat, and you have no right to shoot a dog just because it is there and you are affraid of it.
I never suggested that a dog barking and running at you with raised lips and exposed teeth is not a threat. I am saying that just because it is a pit bull and it is in your presence, it is not necessarily a threat, and you have no right to shoot it if it isn't attacking you.
jonnyjeeps wrote:
I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't shoot an attacking dog. What I'm trying to explain is that to some people, just because the dog is a pit bull, and it's not on a leash, that means to them "angry attacking dog". It's the same kind of irrational fear that opponents of OC use when they call the cops because of a man with an evil black pistol on his waist.
Now if the dog is attacking, fine. Buta lot of people have a phobia of dogs, or specific breeds of dog, that makes the mere presence of the dog a threat in their mind. That is not a threat, and you have no right to shoot a dog just because it is there and you are affraid of it.
I never suggested that a dog barking and running at you with raised lips and exposed teeth is not a threat. I am saying that just because it is a pit bull and it is in your presence, it is not necessarily a threat, and you have no right to shoot it if it isn't attacking you.
gregma
Regular Member
imported post
Cue-Ball wrote:
man with a gun. Ok, sticking with your dog/firearm analogy.
I find a man with a gun in his hand waving it around wherever he pleases to be just as dangerous, unpredictable and threatening as I do a dog off a leash.
A *man* with a gun in it's holster is just the same as a man with a *dog* on a leash. A *man* with a gun out of it's holster would be just as threatening as a *dog* off it's leash.
Keep the dog on a leash, and keep the gun in the holster. Why is this unreasonable?
Cue-Ball wrote:
No more ironic that trying to equate a dog to a
man with a gun. Ok, sticking with your dog/firearm analogy.
I find a man with a gun in his hand waving it around wherever he pleases to be just as dangerous, unpredictable and threatening as I do a dog off a leash.
A *man* with a gun in it's holster is just the same as a man with a *dog* on a leash. A *man* with a gun out of it's holster would be just as threatening as a *dog* off it's leash.
Keep the dog on a leash, and keep the gun in the holster. Why is this unreasonable?
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
gregma wrote:
Unlike a gun, a dog that isn't leashed is relatively easy to assess as a threat (if it doesn't run at you, it's obviously not a threat. If it doesn't give the classic attack cues - bared teeth, for instance - it's not a threat). Unlike a small gun, a small dog is
not dangerous. Nobody is going to get mauled by a Yorkie, but you can damn sure get killed by a .22. Unlike a gun, a dog cannot harm you from a distance, and any threat to your safety would be easy to see coming. You can't see a bullet coming.
There is absolutely no reason to punish responsible dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible, just as there is no reason to punish responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals.
gregma wrote:
A gun that is out of its holster is more of a threat than a dog that is not on its leash. If you have a gun in your hand there is no way for a person to know if it is loaded or not, there's no way for a person to know your intentions, even a small gun can be deadly, and you can harm someone with it from a distance.
Unlike a gun, a dog that isn't leashed is relatively easy to assess as a threat (if it doesn't run at you, it's obviously not a threat. If it doesn't give the classic attack cues - bared teeth, for instance - it's not a threat). Unlike a small gun, a small dog is
not dangerous. Nobody is going to get mauled by a Yorkie, but you can damn sure get killed by a .22. Unlike a gun, a dog cannot harm you from a distance, and any threat to your safety would be easy to see coming. You can't see a bullet coming.
There is absolutely no reason to punish responsible dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible, just as there is no reason to punish responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals.
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
Yikes, people. Cue-Ball is advocating that people should be more responsible. I think we can all agree with that position. He's already stated multiple times that if you feel threatened by a dog it's your right to deal with the threat and that it's the dog owner's responsibility that the threat occurred in the first place.
Yikes, people. Cue-Ball is advocating that people should be more responsible. I think we can all agree with that position. He's already stated multiple times that if you feel threatened by a dog it's your right to deal with the threat and that it's the dog owner's responsibility that the threat occurred in the first place.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
jonnyjeeps wrote:
I have to go with Cue-Ball on this. A dog is not dangerous in and of itself. It is up to a person to make the decision based on clues as to whether or not that dog is posing a danger to the person. It's not the fault of all dog owners if a person is irresponsible enough to proceed unarmed through a hostile and dangerous world. If a dog comes running at you snarling, then shoot it/mace it/stab it/kick it... do what's necessary to stop it. As for "dangerous" dog breeds, in my experience I've come close to being attacked by almost as many "safe" breeds of dogs as I've had "dangerous" breeds of dogs run up to me and try to snuggle with me. It depends on how a dog is raised, and as long as most people have the impression that "dangerous" dog breeds are meant for fighting, they will raise those dogs in a manner where they will be aggressive.
Maybe they should pass an "Assault Dogs Ban" where dogs are banned from ownership if they have two or more scary-looking characteristics...
jonnyjeeps wrote:
Me. 120 is safe in this country given the proper driver experience and the proper vehicle. The speed limits we have now are based on cars with drum brakes and antiquated suspensions. On a dry, straight, highway with a wide median, 150mph+ is perfectly safe with a vehicle that can handle those speeds and with an attentive driver who knows how to drive it. But I digress.
I have to go with Cue-Ball on this. A dog is not dangerous in and of itself. It is up to a person to make the decision based on clues as to whether or not that dog is posing a danger to the person. It's not the fault of all dog owners if a person is irresponsible enough to proceed unarmed through a hostile and dangerous world. If a dog comes running at you snarling, then shoot it/mace it/stab it/kick it... do what's necessary to stop it. As for "dangerous" dog breeds, in my experience I've come close to being attacked by almost as many "safe" breeds of dogs as I've had "dangerous" breeds of dogs run up to me and try to snuggle with me. It depends on how a dog is raised, and as long as most people have the impression that "dangerous" dog breeds are meant for fighting, they will raise those dogs in a manner where they will be aggressive.
Maybe they should pass an "Assault Dogs Ban" where dogs are banned from ownership if they have two or more scary-looking characteristics...
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
expvideo wrote:
I should not have to be put in a position to deal with an unknown and unpredictable animal, nor am I a horrible person for demanding the owner take control of his dog, which should have been under complete control at all times.
My gun isn't going to leap out of it's holster and start shooting people. I have to control it. A dog running around off leash is capable of anything, and is no longer under the direct control of it's owner. I'm not so sure what is hard to grasp that. Therefore it is a potential threat. Only an irresponsible or arrogant dog owner would allow an off leash dog in a public area. That dog violated my personal space. Until it violated that space I was fine with it. When it got too close to me, then there were problems. The dog should have been called when it started running at me, not when I had to tell it's idiot owner to call it off. There is nothing in common with an out of control dog and lawful OC.
expvideo wrote:
I never said that the pit bull was attacking me. It ran up to me, something I do not appreciate, regardless of the breed. I told the man to call his dog off, which he did. He got verbally abusive and put the dog on a leash.
I should not have to be put in a position to deal with an unknown and unpredictable animal, nor am I a horrible person for demanding the owner take control of his dog, which should have been under complete control at all times.
My gun isn't going to leap out of it's holster and start shooting people. I have to control it. A dog running around off leash is capable of anything, and is no longer under the direct control of it's owner. I'm not so sure what is hard to grasp that. Therefore it is a potential threat. Only an irresponsible or arrogant dog owner would allow an off leash dog in a public area. That dog violated my personal space. Until it violated that space I was fine with it. When it got too close to me, then there were problems. The dog should have been called when it started running at me, not when I had to tell it's idiot owner to call it off. There is nothing in common with an out of control dog and lawful OC.
Heartless_Conservative
Regular Member
imported post
I think the gist of the disagreement is whether the simple state of being off-leash qualifies a dog as 'out of control.' I'm going to argue that itdoes not (well, I'll state it, I don't really care enough to actually argue with anyone, too lazy). And this from the perspective of someone who had a phobia of even small dogs for the better part of childhood and early teens (when I was a kid one of our neighbors had a large dog that liked to jump their puny, not-at-all secure fence and chase people that happened to be out walking at the time; shortly after we moved I beleive that the neighborhood signed a petition that they either had to get teh beastie under control or animal control would be involved). In the case I just alluded to, that would be an example of an out of control dog (as in actually going after people, not this 'its there, therefore it must be a threat' stuff I've been hearing in this thread).
I think the gist of the disagreement is whether the simple state of being off-leash qualifies a dog as 'out of control.' I'm going to argue that itdoes not (well, I'll state it, I don't really care enough to actually argue with anyone, too lazy). And this from the perspective of someone who had a phobia of even small dogs for the better part of childhood and early teens (when I was a kid one of our neighbors had a large dog that liked to jump their puny, not-at-all secure fence and chase people that happened to be out walking at the time; shortly after we moved I beleive that the neighborhood signed a petition that they either had to get teh beastie under control or animal control would be involved). In the case I just alluded to, that would be an example of an out of control dog (as in actually going after people, not this 'its there, therefore it must be a threat' stuff I've been hearing in this thread).
jonnyjeeps
Regular Member
imported post
No one said the dogs mere presence is a threat, the onlysimilarity between the guy waving the gun around and the dog running around off leash is: if the guy unholsters his weapon he is a POSSIBLE threat. Maybe he just shot someone who was mugging him, maybe he has a legitamate reason for his actions. You dont know, but he is deemed a POSSIBLE threat. I consider the dog off his leash the same: POSSIBLE threat. Maybe the dog got away from his owner, maybe the dog is super friendly, or maybe the owner knows the animal might hurt someone and doesnt care, wouldnt you err on the side of caution in both cases?
Everyone believes that the majority of people are responsible, hard working, loving, caring citizens. This is NOT the case, the majorityof people are lying, stealing, selfish,immoral, careless,ignorant consumers. Just because you are responsible doesnt mean most are, its common to believe that others parallell you values, its human nature , but this is not the case if you are a responsible accountable person. Its been said before" common sense is not common" and while you say you know your liability in the situation, the reason we have such a letigious society is that people dont want to be accountable for their actions. I see this every day
No one said the dogs mere presence is a threat, the onlysimilarity between the guy waving the gun around and the dog running around off leash is: if the guy unholsters his weapon he is a POSSIBLE threat. Maybe he just shot someone who was mugging him, maybe he has a legitamate reason for his actions. You dont know, but he is deemed a POSSIBLE threat. I consider the dog off his leash the same: POSSIBLE threat. Maybe the dog got away from his owner, maybe the dog is super friendly, or maybe the owner knows the animal might hurt someone and doesnt care, wouldnt you err on the side of caution in both cases?
Everyone believes that the majority of people are responsible, hard working, loving, caring citizens. This is NOT the case, the majorityof people are lying, stealing, selfish,immoral, careless,ignorant consumers. Just because you are responsible doesnt mean most are, its common to believe that others parallell you values, its human nature , but this is not the case if you are a responsible accountable person. Its been said before" common sense is not common" and while you say you know your liability in the situation, the reason we have such a letigious society is that people dont want to be accountable for their actions. I see this every day
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Cue-Ball wrote:
Cue-Ball wrote:
People bite more people than dogs do. But if your town has a leash law you should obey it or take the consequences. My wife on the other hand only wears a leash when she is in that special mood! Just kidding...or am I?