license for deadly weapon (a dog)

[big_bad_buff]

who thinks that people should have to have a license for your bigger and meaner dog(pit-bull, rot, german shepherd etc) have it licensed as a deadly weapon. and if that dog attacks anyone, bites etc, then the owner would be charged the same way as if they attacked someone with a knife or a gun or what not. if it attacked a little kid, then the owner should get 30 years to life no matter what happened.

watched this one hour story last night on the learning channels.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/28/dog.mauling.arrests.01/

 

[bunnymt]

No. These dogs should not be licensed in this way. However, people need to learn to control their animals and pets, as well as their children.
These dogs, the "meaner" ones, are usually trained to be vicious. I have encountered many a "meaner" dog, including rotweilers and german shepherds) that were pleasant animals.

 

[big_bad_buff]

The crime. On January 26, 2001, shortly after 4:00 PM, San Francisco police and paramedics responded to calls from a Pacific Heights apartment building. They found a naked woman lying in blood, barely alive, her body bitten everywhere, bloody handprints covering the walls, and blood extending 4 feet up the walls and 30 feet own the hallway. Bits of clothing littered the floor, and a blood-soaked green nylon leash for a dog was lying nearby. A large dog was running loose, causing the officers to draw their guns. Nobody else could be seen.
Diane Whipple, 33 years old. The victim of this crime was Diane Whipple. She was a lacrosse coach, and lived in an apartment 50 feet from where the dogs lived. Whipple died that night at 8:55 p.m. at San Francisco General Hospital

 

[big_bad_buff]

No. These dogs should not be licensed in this way. However, people need to learn to control their animals and pets, as well as their children.
These dogs, the "meaner" ones, are usually trained to be vicious. I have encountered many a "meaner" dog, including rotweilers and german shepherds) that were pleasant animals.

these dogs should be used for one thing, to attack and kill like they were bred to do. you should not have war machines living with children or anyone else. it's crazy...get a normal dog. not a freakin killing machine

 

[HULKSTER]

First, I would find the person who trained the dog to do that and tie a pork chop around his neck, then let HIS OWN DOG LOOSE ON HIS ASS. Let's see how he likes that shit.

 

[bunnymt]

I know about this story. I saw the special on TLC or Discovery channel last night about it. Those people, as from what I have heard, have received 4 years jail time.
A woman died from these dogs!!! A human life is lost and the owners of the dogs, themselves admittedly in cahoots with people who trained dogs to fight, were punished accordingly. This is not a random attack. These people knew that they had two very vicious ex-fighting dogs in their apartment. I mean, these two dogs ripped Wipple's throat out!!!! Those are not pet dogs, those are monsters!!!!!

 

[big_bad_buff]

In the U.S. from 1979 to 1996, 304 people in the U.S died from dog attacks, including 30 in California.The average number of deaths per year was 17. Most of the deceased were children.

 

[Warik]

Not a license per-say, but rather a permit. If you are going to own an animal that is potentially dangerous (if not cared for properly), then you should at least be able to prove that you are capable of raising the dog properly.

So you'd need a permit to own a pitbull or rottweiler, but not a chihuahua or a lab. I don't think this would be any kind of infringment on civil liberties because all you'd have to do is prove that you're not a fucking retard who would leave a german sheperd chained to a fence where he could easily escape and attack a 10 year-old kid (i.e. me in '92).

Also I think it should be illegal to keep a dog in a backyard at night. The dog is not barking because he's a stupid dog. He's barking because you're a stupid ass who left him outside in the cold, the rain, the heat, etc. My dog sleeps indoors in a clean room on a dog bed with air conditioning. We have not heard a PEEP out of him after bed time in the two years we've had him. My girl's neighbors have had a dog since they moved there and he never shuts the fuck up.

-Warik

 

[HULKSTER]

I know about this story. I saw the special on TLC or Discovery channel last night about it. Those people, as from what I have heard, have received 4 years jail time.
A woman died from these dogs!!! A human life is lost and the owners of the dogs, themselves admittedly in cahoots with people who trained dogs to fight, were punished accordingly. This is not a random attack. These people knew that they had two very vicious ex-fighting dogs in their apartment. I mean, these two dogs ripped Wipple's throat out!!!! Those are not pet dogs, those are monsters!!!!!

Actually, it was a married man and woman who had been training "killer attack dogs" for the KKK.

 

[bunnymt]

Actually, it was a married man and woman who had been training "killer attack dogs" for the KKK.

Actually, it was two white supremicists (your KKK reference) in jail who were pulling the strings on the operation through some fat woman who was training the dogs at her home. Then the dogs were seized by this married couple and taken to their apartment after a legal battle over the dogs.

 

[Imnotdutch]

In that case shouldn't cars also be registered as lethal weapons?

I see you are also overstating your case again. There are few dogs that are bred to kill.......even then few are born killers. Good care and proper training will make most dogs very amenable.

Why did you put German Shepherds and Rotts on your list??? Do you actually know anything about this subject? or just what you read in the scaremongering press?

these dogs should be used for one thing, to attack and kill like they were bred to do. you should not have war machines living with children or anyone else. it's crazy...get a normal dog. not a freakin killing machine

 

[Warik]

In that case shouldn't cars also be registered as lethal weapons?

I see you are also overstating your case again. There are few dogs that are bred to kill.......even then few are born killers. Good care and proper training will make most dogs very amenable.

Why did you put German Shepherds and Rotts on your list??? Do you actually know anything about this subject? or just what you read in the scaremongering press?

Cars are inanimate objects that are not intended to be weapons as a firearm would be. Cars do, however, require licenses for operation (as do firearms).

I doubt the whole "natural born killer" media conception of dogs is true, but I don't have enough information to base that on; however, a dog is an animal and an animal responds to stimulus. My dog is the nicest litttle guy around my family, but he absolutely hates strangers and would probably try to bite one despite his small size. He's not a natural born killer, nor was he bred as one... but the fact remains that even if your german shepherd is a great family dog, he is capable of severely harming a stranger.

My mentioning of shepherds has nothing to do with the press. It has to do with first hand experience.

-Warik

 

[bunnymt]

Cars are inanimate objects that are not intended to be weapons as a firearm would be. Cars do, however, require licenses for operation (as do firearms).
-Warik

True. Cars and firearms are inanimate objects. However, cars are in some instances intended as weapons (as in the case where the woman ran over her husband several times with her car). Nonetheless, there are many things that we use in everyday life that could be used as a weapon...do we need licenses to utilize these things, or even to own them??

 

[big_bad_buff]

FIRST OF ALL LITTLE WUSSIE BUFFLESS THOSE DOGS WERE NOT PITS, ROTS, OR G SHEPHERDS. THEY WERE A MASTIFF HYBRED THAT IS BREAD TO ATTACK AND KILL PEOPLE. MASTIFFS WERE ORIGINALLY USED TO TAKE DOWN PEOPLE BY THE ROMANS. THE PRES. MASTIFF HYBRED IS A SUPER HUMAN KILLER BREED. YOU SHOULD NOT LUMP OTHER DOG BREEDS WITH THEM. PLEASE GET RID OF YOUR SWIRLY FACE AVATAR OF A ALMOST BUFF DUDE! YOUR MAKING THAT GUY LOOK LIKE A WUSSIE PUSSIE.

great, and you must be puc, or some other stupid ass that doesnt't know anything. what were pitbulls raised for? what are german shepherds raised for? rots? do you know? or are you just acting like a complete idiot for fun?

 

[Imnotdutch]

I've been on the wrong side of German Shepherds too........my uncle used to train them as security dogs. However, they tend to be scared off easily with a good hard slap......at least in my experience. And they needed training to respond aggressively. From what I hear, Pits and Ridgebacks are a different story though.

Maybe owners should be expected to follow a basic course before owning a dog.

Cars are inanimate objects that are not intended to be weapons as a firearm would be. Cars do, however, require licenses for operation (as do firearms).

I doubt the whole "natural born killer" media conception of dogs is true, but I don't have enough information to base that on; however, a dog is an animal and an animal responds to stimulus. My dog is the nicest litttle guy around my family, but he absolutely hates strangers and would probably try to bite one despite his small size. He's not a natural born killer, nor was he bred as one... but the fact remains that even if your german shepherd is a great family dog, he is capable of severely harming a stranger.

My mentioning of shepherds has nothing to do with the press. It has to do with first hand experience.

-Warik

 

[big_bad_buff]

Cars are inanimate objects that are not intended to be weapons as a firearm would be. Cars do, however, require licenses for operation (as do firearms).

I doubt the whole "natural born killer" media conception of dogs is true, but I don't have enough information to base that on; however, a dog is an animal and an animal responds to stimulus. My dog is the nicest litttle guy around my family, but he absolutely hates strangers and would probably try to bite one despite his small size. He's not a natural born killer, nor was he bred as one... but the fact remains that even if your german shepherd is a great family dog, he is capable of severely harming a stranger.

My mentioning of shepherds has nothing to do with the press. It has to do with first hand experience.

Dont even bother man. Imnotdutch runs searches everyday for threads i post or post in. then he tries to argue with me, even though he knows i'm right. it's kind of this thing we have going i guess.

-Warik

Don't even bother man. Imnotdutch runs searches everyday for threads i post or post in. then he tries to argue with me, even though he knows i'm right. it's kind of this thing we have going i guess.

Hey Imnotdutch, do you know the difference between a car and a dog? I hope your not that stupid, but i don't doubt that you are. what about house cats? if these things were 120 pounds, would we allow them to roam were they please? my point is, that they are all animals, and they all have their basic instincs, we dont bother with the smaller nice dogs. but i think we should with the huge attacks dogs

 

[Warik]

True. Cars and firearms are inanimate objects. However, cars are in some instances intended as weapons (as in the case where the woman ran over her husband several times with her car). Nonetheless, there are many things that we use in everyday life that could be used as a weapon...do we need licenses to utilize these things, or even to own them??

Yes but cars are not built to be weapons. A gun is built to be an instrument of death and destruction. A car is built to be a method of transportation.

Pencils, golf clubs, and boxcutters can be used as lethal weapons of death and destruction, but that's not what they're made to be.

Now, a dog is not "built" to be a weapon of death and destruction. It's "built" to be a loyal companion and friend. A dog, however, is not a machine. It's a living organism capable of responding to stimuli and thinking to a certain extent. I'm not proposing that people should have to jump through hoops to own a larger dog. They should just be able to prove to a reasonable degree that they aren't complete idiots when it comes to animals. Have they owned large dogs in the past? Are they new owners who have done lots of research? Are they buying a puppy or an adult dog? etc... You wouldn't give an adult pitbull to a newbie dog owner, but a puppy to someone who has searched high and low for info about pitbulls is NOT a big risk.

-Warik

 

[big_bad_buff]

TYPICAL IMNOTDUTCH MAKES LITTLE WUSSIE BUFFLESS CRY AGAIN.

I can see why you have grey karma there bubs. oh sorry, i mean IhateOsama

 

[bunnymt]

Warik, I see your point. However, if I am not mistaken, regarding the mauling and death of Wipple in San Francisco, these dogs were licensed dogs. Despite the fact that this couple had a license to own these dogs, or presumably even if they did not have a license, they certainly had some experience with handling bigger and "meaner" dogs, an innocent woman was killed. Will licensing prevent gruesome attacks, such as the one forementioned, from occurring in the future?

 

[big_bad_buff]

Warik, I see your point. However, if I am not mistaken, regarding the mauling and death of Wipple in San Francisco, these dogs were licensed dogs. Despite the fact that this couple had a license to own these dogs, or presumably even if they did not have a license, they certainly had some experience with handling bigger and "meaner" dogs, an innocent woman was killed. Will licensing prevent gruesome attacks, such as the one forementioned, from occurring in the future?

what about the other 304 people in the U.S that die each year from dog attacks? licensing probably would prevent gruesome attacks. people might start to think: hey i better keep my dog chained up, or keep it inside. or even better, they might not buy the dog if they can't take care of it correctly. strict laws make people think. believe me.

 

[Imnotdutch]

You flatter yourself........I just respond to dumbass comments.

I find it quite funny that you consider German Shepherds to be big and mean. You obviously have met very few.........and prob handled it badly when you did meet them. They prob smelt you shitting your daiper and decided to have some fun with you huh.

Don't even bother man. Imnotdutch runs searches everyday for threads i post or post in. then he tries to argue with me, even though he knows i'm right. it's kind of this thing we have going i guess.

Hey Imnotdutch, do you know the difference between a car and a dog? I hope your not that stupid, but i don't doubt that you are. what about house cats? if these things were 120 pounds, would we allow them to roam were they please? my point is, that they are all animals, and they all have their basic instincs, we dont bother with the smaller nice dogs. but i think we should with the huge attacks dogs

 

[bunnymt]

what about the other 304 people in the U.S that die each year from dog attacks? licensing probably would prevent gruesome attacks. people might start to think: hey i better keep my dog chained up, or keep it inside. or even you can't take care of it right, maybe they wont even get the dog.

True. Yet however, who is to decide which dogs will have to be licensed and which will not??? Potentially all dogs can be viewed as lethal weapons, in this sense....

 

[Imnotdutch]

This is a very good point........where exactly do you draw the line? Perhaps the best move would be to insist all dog owners have licenses. Afterall, even small dogs could cause problems for kids.

True. Yet however, who is to decide which dogs will have to be licensed and which will not??? Potentially all dogs can be viewed as lethal weapons, in this sense....

 

[big_bad_buff]

i think all larger dogs should require some sort of license of this sort, and dogs that were bred to be attack dogs like the pit-bull, rot, mastiff etc. it's pretty obvious that no dogs should roam free. but i do think that these bigger and sometimes meaner dogs, should have qualified owners, that will be held accountable for anything this dog does.

let me as you this, which of these dogs would you feel more comfortable meeting one on one in a ally way, or in a park by yourself? better yet, say you are walking along your naborhood with your small child, 5 feet away their is a 190 pound rot walking your way, what do you do? you quickly grab your child and proceed to shit your pants and hope it is a nice dog. would you feel the same way, and act out the same way, if it were a medium sized dog, say a golden retriever? no you wouldn't because you know these dogs can rip you apart and you can't do shit about it.


could you even defend yourself against these dogs ?
http://www.fila.org/images/fila_mastiff_bodhi_ragnar.jpg
http://rottweiler.chiensderace.com/imagesbis/rottweiler_dressage.jpg
http://cyberechos.creteil.iufm.fr/cyber9/Actualite/pitbull/Pitbull2.jpg

how about I own a lion as a pet!! about the same thing. if it was up to me, i would outlaw these huge monsters. no one within 10 miles of a city or town could own one.

 

[bunnymt]

i think all larger dogs should require some sort of license of this sort, and dogs that were bred to be attack dogs like the pit-bull, rot, mastiff etc. it's pretty obvious that no dogs should roam free. but i do think that these bigger and sometimes meaner dogs, should have qualified owners, that will be held accountable for anything this dog does.
how about I own a lion as a pet!! about the same thing. if it was up to me, i would outlaw these huge monsters. no one within 10 miles of a city or town could own one.

But where do you draw the line? Some terriers, although not the biggest of dogs, could potentially really harm someone..
I am 100 percent sure that for lions and other "exotic" creatures, such as some lizards, frogs, etc, you need to possess a licence, as it should be.

 

[theoak01]

makes sense because the owner is the reason the sog acts the way it does

 

[big_bad_buff]

I am 100 percent sure that for lions and other "exotic" creatures, such as some lizards, frogs, etc, you need to possess a licence, as it should be.

as it should be for larger dogs that are known for being violent. exactly, like terriers, and pit bulls. pitbulls aren't that big, but they have lock jaws and can be very violent. just like weapons, why is there laws against different size knife blades? they are all dangerous, and all can kill, but bigger knifes and even more so guns, are more dangerous.

 

[KAYNE]

DUMB IDEA. VERY DUMB IDEA. VERY VERY DUMB IDEA. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE KIDS AND THEY ATTACK SOMEONE WITHOUT CONSULTING THEIR PARENTS FIRST? SHOULD THE PARENTS BE CHARGED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON CHARGE>>>




KAYNE

 

[KAYNE]

That is why you are THE MOTHER FUCKING MAN KAYNE.

THE SECRET IS OUT.

 

[big_bad_buff]

DUMB IDEA. VERY DUMB IDEA. VERY VERY DUMB IDEA. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE KIDS AND THEY ATTACK SOMEONE WITHOUT CONSULTING THEIR PARENTS FIRST? SHOULD THE PARENTS BE CHARGED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON CHARGE>>>

KAYNE

So are you implying that humans and dogs are on the same intellect level? very big difference there. there is a very big difference in kids and dogs, there is a very big difference in having a child and owning a dog. do you know the difference between a dog and human?

 

[KAYNE]

So are you implying that humans and dogs are on the same intellect level? very big difference there. there is a very big difference in kids and dogs, there is a very big difference in having a child and owning a dog. do you know the difference between a dog and human?

I'M NOT IMPLYING SHIT. I AM A LITTLE FUZZY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A DOG THOUGH. YOU MAY HAVE TO FILL ME IN.

COME ON MAN, LETS GET REAL HERE. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THIS YOURSELF??? ANYWAY, IF A PERSON IS PROVED TO HAVE INFLUENCED THE DOG TO ATTACK SOMEONE, THAT PERSON CAN BE CHARGED.

NO SENSE IN CHARGING THE OWNERS OF A DOG UNLESS THEY MADE THE DOG ATTACK. THIS REMINDS ME OF ALL THE FAT FUCKS WHO ARE SUING MCDONALDS FOR BEING FAT. AND THE IDIOTS WHO SMOKE SUING THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.





KAYNE

 

[big_bad_buff]

so wouldn't it be the owners fuilt if they let there dog roam free were ever it pleased, and it attacked a young child?

 

[KAYNE]

so wouldn't it be the owners fuilt if they let there dog roam free were ever it pleased, and it attacked a young child?

LETTING THE DOG ROAM FREE (ESP. IF THEY KNOW IT IS AGGRESSIVE) IS ONE THING. WHEN SHIT JUST HAPPENS IS ANOTHER.

I'VE GOT TWO ROTTS AND A PIT. ACTUALLY, ONE ROTT IS MINE. THE OTHER DOGS ARE FOR MY BROTHER. NONE OF THEM ROAM FREE. NOR WILL THEY.





KAYNE

 

[Kalashnikov]

Cars are inanimate objects that are not intended to be weapons as a firearm would be. Cars do, however, require licenses for operation (as do firearms).

Yes but cars are not built to be weapons. A gun is built to be an instrument of death and destruction. A car is built to be a method of transportation.

Now, a dog is not "built" to be a weapon of death and destruction. It's "built" to be a loyal companion and friend. A dog, however, is not a machine.



-Warik

I don't think you need a license to operate a firearm. All you need is a clean record for the NICS background check.

Also, I object to your calling guns devices of death and destruction. When someone protects their family from a home invader, it becomes a life preserver and a tool for survival. There are many more deaths caused by negligent use of an automobile than there are caused by misuse of guns.

A dog can be "built" to be a weapon if properly trained. A gun is an inanimate device which is contolled by a human. Humans should be held responsible for the acts they commit, whether they be the misuse of a firearm or the lack of control of their animals. The firearms are not responsible nor are the dogs.

P.S. Your quotes above were taken from two different posts.

 

[Imnotdutch]

190lb rotts????????!!!!!!!!! huh since when was this the norm? Slightly out on your numbers there.

You also implied that terriers are big in another post........since when? Terriers on the whole are considered small dogs......they are just tenacious. Shit I've seen a Yorkshire Terrier that was under 9 inches at the shoulder try to shake a German Shepherd.

Like I said, this is more complicated than labelling all big dogs aspotential problems.

i think all larger dogs should require some sort of license of this sort, and dogs that were bred to be attack dogs like the pit-bull, rot, mastiff etc. it's pretty obvious that no dogs should roam free. but i do think that these bigger and sometimes meaner dogs, should have qualified owners, that will be held accountable for anything this dog does.

let me as you this, which of these dogs would you feel more comfortable meeting one on one in a ally way, or in a park by yourself? better yet, say you are walking along your naborhood with your small child, 5 feet away their is a 190 pound rot walking your way, what do you do? you quickly grab your child and proceed to shit your pants and hope it is a nice dog. would you feel the same way, and act out the same way, if it were a medium sized dog, say a golden retriever? no you wouldn't because you know these dogs can rip you apart and you can't do shit about it.


could you even defend yourself against these dogs ?
http://www.fila.org/images/fila_mastiff_bodhi_ragnar.jpg
http://rottweiler.chiensderace.com/imagesbis/rottweiler_dressage.jpg
http://cyberechos.creteil.iufm.fr/cyber9/Actualite/pitbull/Pitbull2.jpg

how about I own a lion as a pet!! about the same thing. if it was up to me, i would outlaw these huge monsters. no one within 10 miles of a city or town could own one.

 

[Imnotdutch]

how about I own a lion as a pet!! about the same thing.

again..........huh??

 

[big_bad_buff]

190lb rotts????????!!!!!!!!! huh since when was this the norm? Slightly out on your numbers there.

it is very normal for a rot to be in the high hundreds. 150-200, the 4 that different people i'v known in the past owned were all over 150. so your saying rots are not very big dogs?

You also implied that terriers are big in another post
........since when? Terriers on the whole are considered small dogs......they are just tenacious. Shit I've seen a Yorkshire Terrier that was under 9 inches at the shoulder try to shake a German Shepherd.

what different post? I did no such thing, i said terriers and pit bulls are smaller like who ever that, that i was quoting. terriers are obviously smaller dogs, you just wrote all that for nothing, you need to stay up later next time studying my post to find something wrong, some sort of error. you should just try correcting me on my spelling for now on, much easier for you to find errors. trying to argue against things i say just for fun is becoming quit pointless is it not?

Like I said, this is more complicated than labeling all big dogs as potential problems.

yeah, i know it is! your catching on. a little slow though.

 

[Imnotdutch]

So you didnt type this (?):

"as it should be for larger dogs that are known for being violent. exactly, like terriers, and pit bulls." ??

Speaks for itself.

You then admit that pitts are a bit smaller but say nothing about terriers in general.

"pitbulls aren't that big, but they have lock jaws and can be very violent."

BTW a 200lb dog is a huge dog............ridgeback size. You do realise that most owners exaggerate about size right?

At what point did I say Rotts aren't considered big dogs? I only said that you have exaggerated on the numbers to justify your opinion. you are good at exaggerating in order to justify what you say.

Perhaps the problem here is that you never say what you think you are saying.........or you expect everybody to trawl through all the crap that you write to find one worthwhile point.

190lb rotts????????!!!!!!!!! huh since when was this the norm? Slightly out on your numbers there.

it is very normal for a rot to be in the high hundreds. 150-200, the 4 that different people i'v known in the past owned were all over 150. so your saying rots are not very big dogs?

You also implied that terriers are big in another post
........since when? Terriers on the whole are considered small dogs......they are just tenacious. Shit I've seen a Yorkshire Terrier that was under 9 inches at the shoulder try to shake a German Shepherd.

what different post? I did no such thing, i said terriers and pit bulls are smaller like who ever that, that i was quoting. terriers are obviously smaller dogs, you just wrote all that for nothing, you need to stay up later next time studying my post to find something wrong, some sort of error. you should just try correcting me on my spelling for now on, much easier for you to find errors. trying to argue against things i say just for fun is becoming quit pointless is it not?

Like I said, this is more complicated than labeling all big dogs as potential problems.

yeah, i know it is! your catching on. a little slow though.

 

[big_bad_buff]

So you didnt type this (?):

"as it should be for larger dogs that are known for being violent. exactly, like terriers, and pit bulls." ??

notice the period after "violent" meaning the start of a knew sentence. I admit that it doesn't make much since just looking at the new sentence, so i should have put this quote that i was referring to by bunnmt "Some terriers, although not the biggest of dogs" (and then my reply) exactly, like terriers.

get it now? this was for her, not for you to nit pick through

 

[Imnotdutch]

Well ok...........if you include that section the whole meaning is changed to what you meant to say.

notice the period after "violent" meaning the start of a knew sentence. I admit that it doesn't make much since just looking at the new sentence, so i should have put this quote that i was referring to by bunnmt "Some terriers, although not the biggest of dogs" (and then my reply) exactly, like terriers.

get it now? this was for her, not for you to nit pick through

 

[Drifter]

Here is something you should be taking a look at. It tells you what breeds bite more often and gives the severity of the bite.

http://www.nt.net/~drifter/Facts.html