What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Yet another Pitt Bull attack (4 Viewers)

Chairshot said:
Ralph Furley said:
The only way to change this cycle IMO is to require breeders to be licensed, and therefore have some form of accountability for the placement of their dogs. Breeders should be required by law to do both temperament and genetic (health) testing to ensure their dogs have been fully vetted. Otherwise, we can be sure this trend will continue.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a good idea on paper, in many ways, but it would be terribly difficult to enforce. Any owner who had an un-spayed female that had a little of puppies, even if they weren't a breeder by trade, would be breaking the law.You would basically be requiring everyone who was not a licensed breeder to spay or neuter their animals. I personally believe that any non-breeding pet *should* be spayed or neutered, but it's probably wrong to required people to do so by law.
Click to expand...
True, but you could enforce it on the AKC, who can enforce it on purebreds at a minimum.
 
Zow said:
Chairshot said:
Zow said:
Saw two dogs-at-large this morning. Not surprisingly both were pit bulls. One running the middle of the street on the way to work which lunged at my car. Awesome.
Click to expand...
What do you feel this story proves? Is it your contention that only "pit bulls" chase cars?
Click to expand...
That pit-bulls are dangerous menaces?
Click to expand...
That you have trouble with honesty.
 
Chairshot said:
Zow said:
Chairshot said:
Zow said:
Saw two dogs-at-large this morning. Not surprisingly both were pit bulls. One running the middle of the street on the way to work which lunged at my car. Awesome.
Click to expand...
What do you feel this story proves? Is it your contention that only "pit bulls" chase cars?
Click to expand...
That pit-bulls are dangerous menaces?
Click to expand...
Does it prove the same thing about Yellow Labradors since there is one near my house that does this virtually every time I pass his driveway? Again, do only APBTs chase cars?
Click to expand...
Nope, all big dogs are dangerous menaces when at-large.
 
Zow said:
Chairshot said:
Zow said:
Chairshot said:
Zow said:
Saw two dogs-at-large this morning. Not surprisingly both were pit bulls. One running the middle of the street on the way to work which lunged at my car. Awesome.
Click to expand...
What do you feel this story proves? Is it your contention that only "pit bulls" chase cars?
Click to expand...
That pit-bulls are dangerous menaces?
Click to expand...
Does it prove the same thing about Yellow Labradors since there is one near my house that does this virtually every time I pass his driveway? Again, do only APBTs chase cars?
Click to expand...
Nope, all big dogs are dangerous menaces when at-large.
Click to expand...
So, you don't have a problem with APBTs, just big dogs. Got it. How big must they be to be menaces?
 
My BiLs gf is a dog lover. She owns a grooming shop and boards dogs in her home, has room for 6 at a time in their house with large kennels and separate fenced yards etc. She's always had a rottweiler among other dogs. She spends her free time doing behaviour classes, every minute with the dogs...really doing everything you can imagine for the dogs. Whenever we'd be at my in-laws and she'd have the dog with her (what idiot takes a dog visiting with them anyway?) and when I'd come with the kids, I'd insist she put the dog outside before I'd bring the kids in. She'd always say he's a sweet little puppy, I was overreacting, the dog was perfectly behaved etc. I'd tell her the kids weren't old enough to know not to torment the dog and it wasn't worth the chance. I know she's always been resentful. I do a lot for my in-laws so they've always respected my position on it even though they had no issue with the dog.

Last month the sweet little puppy attacked a little dog she was boarding. The owner of the little dog is suing her, she's already covered the vet bills for some 80 odd stitches and a surgery. I'm just grateful it wasn't one of my kids.

 
Early_10 said:
My BiLs gf is a dog lover. She owns a grooming shop and boards dogs in her home, has room for 6 at a time in their house with large kennels and separate fenced yards etc. She's always had a rottweiler among other dogs. She spends her free time doing behaviour classes, every minute with the dogs...really doing everything you can imagine for the dogs. Whenever we'd be at my in-laws and she'd have the dog with her (what idiot takes a dog visiting with them anyway?) and when I'd come with the kids, I'd insist she put the dog outside before I'd bring the kids in. She'd always say he's a sweet little puppy, I was overreacting, the dog was perfectly behaved etc. I'd tell her the kids weren't old enough to know not to torment the dog and it wasn't worth the chance. I know she's always been resentful. I do a lot for my in-laws so they've always respected my position on it even though they had no issue with the dog. Last month the sweet little puppy attacked a little dog she was boarding. The owner of the little dog is suing her, she's already covered the vet bills for some 80 odd stitches and a surgery. I'm just grateful it wasn't one of my kids.
Click to expand...
Interesting. But anecdotal and not proved out. We might be missing some data:How many years has she boarded dogs? What would be the percentage of dogs the Rott attacked if you took each dog visit over the course of time and called it one unit, then aggregated them and divided by one (presuming this is the only attack...you didn't mention others). Or if you turned into a # of "dog days"; or some other mathematical formula? In short, what percentage of boarding activity resulted in an attack?And was it an attack? Or did the other dog provoke the Rott? And was it just a bite? This might play toward this being something that was justified in the dog rules of self-defense. Were they attended at the time? If not, and if it was only one bite, this would also play to this being a defensive act; because presumably the Rott could have persisted and killed the smaller dog. Did the Rott attack any of the other dogs there at the time; or was it just dealing with this small dog (were there other dogs there at the time). Was your BIL's gf paying attention or was she distracted doing something else?The 80 stitches may be a red herring; a Rott is a large, powerful dog. One bite in anger can do a lot of damage. Was there any history on the other dog? Has it been involved in other issues? Dogs don't always see the world the way we do. A little 40lb dog with a dominant, aggressive, or fearful streak may very well challenge another dog that it has no business challenging. Although it doesn't sound like it; I'm not saying you're "wrong", or that you don't have a point. It's simply that until this scenario is fleshed out a bit more with some argumentation, it seems like it's a story designed to lead us to a very limited number of conclusions without the benefit of supporting information.
 
Well if we're going to play the anecdote game.

Let's talk about Friendship, a dog that would terrify Woz He's in Afghanistan sniffing out mines. Mines which kill four children per day.

Then there's Queenie (I laughed too), who fought off a bear that charged her owner three times.

In the same article you can read about Indiana Jones (a Weimaraner) who saved his family when a fire consumed their home.

And Star (a husky/shephard) who saved her owner from hypothermia.

And Keno (yellow lab) the avalanche rescue dog.

Four more mine sniffing dogs (labradors).

Let's not forget the service dogs.

Or the search and rescue dogs

Or the police dogs.

All medium to large breeds that account for hundreds of saved lives per year, but let's throw the baby out with the bath water and kill 'em all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I particularly like this story about a stray evil Pit Bull wandering the street, who decided for whatever reason to stop a knife wielding man from mugging a woman and her two year old child. When the attacker fled the Pit Bull simply left. I am sure Woz would have expected this stray, wild evil dog to take the two year old as payment for the good deed.

 
Heavy B said:
Early_10 said:
My BiLs gf is a dog lover. She owns a grooming shop and boards dogs in her home, has room for 6 at a time in their house with large kennels and separate fenced yards etc. She's always had a rottweiler among other dogs. She spends her free time doing behaviour classes, every minute with the dogs...really doing everything you can imagine for the dogs. Whenever we'd be at my in-laws and she'd have the dog with her (what idiot takes a dog visiting with them anyway?) and when I'd come with the kids, I'd insist she put the dog outside before I'd bring the kids in. She'd always say he's a sweet little puppy, I was overreacting, the dog was perfectly behaved etc. I'd tell her the kids weren't old enough to know not to torment the dog and it wasn't worth the chance. I know she's always been resentful. I do a lot for my in-laws so they've always respected my position on it even though they had no issue with the dog. Last month the sweet little puppy attacked a little dog she was boarding. The owner of the little dog is suing her, she's already covered the vet bills for some 80 odd stitches and a surgery. I'm just grateful it wasn't one of my kids.
Click to expand...
Interesting. But anecdotal and not proved out. We might be missing some data:How many years has she boarded dogs? What would be the percentage of dogs the Rott attacked if you took each dog visit over the course of time and called it one unit, then aggregated them and divided by one (presuming this is the only attack...you didn't mention others). Or if you turned into a # of "dog days"; or some other mathematical formula? In short, what percentage of boarding activity resulted in an attack?And was it an attack? Or did the other dog provoke the Rott? And was it just a bite? This might play toward this being something that was justified in the dog rules of self-defense. Were they attended at the time? If not, and if it was only one bite, this would also play to this being a defensive act; because presumably the Rott could have persisted and killed the smaller dog. Did the Rott attack any of the other dogs there at the time; or was it just dealing with this small dog (were there other dogs there at the time). Was your BIL's gf paying attention or was she distracted doing something else?The 80 stitches may be a red herring; a Rott is a large, powerful dog. One bite in anger can do a lot of damage. Was there any history on the other dog? Has it been involved in other issues? Dogs don't always see the world the way we do. A little 40lb dog with a dominant, aggressive, or fearful streak may very well challenge another dog that it has no business challenging. Although it doesn't sound like it; I'm not saying you're "wrong", or that you don't have a point. It's simply that until this scenario is fleshed out a bit more with some argumentation, it seems like it's a story designed to lead us to a very limited number of conclusions without the benefit of supporting information.
Click to expand...
I don't know all the answers as I wasn't there. From the BiLs account, his gf was there and intervened immediately. Had she not, he said the little dog would be dead. She's been boarding dogs for about 12 years, this is her second rottweiler, the first just died last year. She's had this one for at least 5 years. She boards dogs constantly, there are always at least 2 or 3 dogs there besides her own two. The attacked dog she boards once a month for 5 days and once a year for two-three week so the rott has had previous interaction with the little dog and no issues that he knew of. The point is if a little dog challenges, you get a bandaid, maybe a few stitches. If a Rottweiler, pitt bull, etc challenges, someone is off to hospital. I'm not saying ban the breed but I think there should be obvious restrictions on contact with vulnerable targets...be that smaller dogs, children, etc. Common sense. Whoever said not leaving your children alone with such a breed, thats my answer. I feel super justified in having her remove the dog from the presence of my children.
 
Zow said:
Saw two dogs-at-large this morning. Not surprisingly both were pit bulls. One running the middle of the street on the way to work which lunged at my car. Awesome.
Click to expand...
:( Maybe he liked the skirt you were wearing.
 
Chairshot said:
Ralph Furley said:
The only way to change this cycle IMO is to require breeders to be licensed, and therefore have some form of accountability for the placement of their dogs. Breeders should be required by law to do both temperament and genetic (health) testing to ensure their dogs have been fully vetted. Otherwise, we can be sure this trend will continue.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a good idea on paper, in many ways, but it would be terribly difficult to enforce. Any owner who had an un-spayed female that had a litter of puppies, even if they weren't a breeder by trade, would be breaking the law.You would basically be requiring everyone who was not a licensed breeder to spay or neuter their animals. I personally believe that any non-breeding pet *should* be spayed or neutered, but it's probably wrong to required people to do so by law.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could require a license to sell the puppies. That would allow enforcement of professional breeders without criminalizing regular owners.
 
Chaka said:
Well if we're going to play the anecdote game.

Let's talk about Friendship, a dog that would terrify Woz He's in Afghanistan sniffing out mines. Mines which kill four children per day.

Then there's Queenie (I laughed too), who fought off a bear that charged her owner three times.

In the same article you can read about Indiana Jones (a Weimaraner) who saved his family when a fire consumed their home.

And Star (a husky/shephard) who saved her owner from hypothermia.

And Keno (yellow lab) the avalanche rescue dog.

Four more mine sniffing dogs (labradors).

Let's not forget the service dogs.

Or the search and rescue dogs

Or the police dogs.

All medium to large breeds that account for hundreds of saved lives per year, but let's throw the baby out with the bath water and kill 'em all.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. None of those dogs are at-large. Dogs which are trained to provide service have societal benefits which outweigh their potential lethal ability. I don't think too many have any problems with dogs working for the government to do things which require smelling or violence.
 
Zow said:
Chaka said:
Well if we're going to play the anecdote game.

Let's talk about Friendship, a dog that would terrify Woz He's in Afghanistan sniffing out mines. Mines which kill four children per day.

Then there's Queenie (I laughed too), who fought off a bear that charged her owner three times.

In the same article you can read about Indiana Jones (a Weimaraner) who saved his family when a fire consumed their home.

And Star (a husky/shephard) who saved her owner from hypothermia.

And Keno (yellow lab) the avalanche rescue dog.

Four more mine sniffing dogs (labradors).

Let's not forget the service dogs.

Or the search and rescue dogs

Or the police dogs.

All medium to large breeds that account for hundreds of saved lives per year, but let's throw the baby out with the bath water and kill 'em all.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. None of those dogs are at-large. Dogs which are trained to provide service have societal benefits which outweigh their potential lethal ability. I don't think too many have any problems with dogs working for the government to do things which require smelling or violence.
Click to expand...
As always you choose to ignore the ones that don't fit your ideal, or feeds your odd desire to :shrug: There are four in the post above and dozens in the other one I posted, including a stray pit bull who saved a mother and her two year old from a man with a knife, that qualify as "at large" or whatever that means to you.

You're an odd bird. No one should truly care about anonymous personalities on message boards but to go out of your way to be so consistently obtuse to the point of lying to try and demonstrate your point, even in this format, is just weird. Even if you are making up your positions in these threads you still need help.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka said:
Zow said:
Chaka said:
Well if we're going to play the anecdote game.

Let's talk about Friendship, a dog that would terrify Woz He's in Afghanistan sniffing out mines. Mines which kill four children per day.

Then there's Queenie (I laughed too), who fought off a bear that charged her owner three times.

In the same article you can read about Indiana Jones (a Weimaraner) who saved his family when a fire consumed their home.

And Star (a husky/shephard) who saved her owner from hypothermia.

And Keno (yellow lab) the avalanche rescue dog.

Four more mine sniffing dogs (labradors).

Let's not forget the service dogs.

Or the search and rescue dogs

Or the police dogs.

All medium to large breeds that account for hundreds of saved lives per year, but let's throw the baby out with the bath water and kill 'em all.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. None of those dogs are at-large. Dogs which are trained to provide service have societal benefits which outweigh their potential lethal ability. I don't think too many have any problems with dogs working for the government to do things which require smelling or violence.
Click to expand...
As always you choose to ignore the ones that don't fit your ideal, or feeds your odd desire to :lmao: There are four in the post above and dozens in the other one I posted, including a stray pit bull who saved a mother and her two year old from a man with a knife, that qualify as "at large" or whatever that means to you.

You're an odd bird. No one should truly care about anonymous personalities on message boards but to go out of your way to be so consistently obtuse to the point of lying to try and demonstrate your point, even in this format, is just weird. Even if you are making up your positions in these threads you still need help.
Click to expand...
oh lighten up and go drink some lemonade for 30 days
 
Zow said:
Chaka said:
Zow said:
Chaka said:
Well if we're going to play the anecdote game.

Let's talk about Friendship, a dog that would terrify Woz He's in Afghanistan sniffing out mines. Mines which kill four children per day.

Then there's Queenie (I laughed too), who fought off a bear that charged her owner three times.

In the same article you can read about Indiana Jones (a Weimaraner) who saved his family when a fire consumed their home.

And Star (a husky/shephard) who saved her owner from hypothermia.

And Keno (yellow lab) the avalanche rescue dog.

Four more mine sniffing dogs (labradors).

Let's not forget the service dogs.

Or the search and rescue dogs

Or the police dogs.

All medium to large breeds that account for hundreds of saved lives per year, but let's throw the baby out with the bath water and kill 'em all.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. None of those dogs are at-large. Dogs which are trained to provide service have societal benefits which outweigh their potential lethal ability. I don't think too many have any problems with dogs working for the government to do things which require smelling or violence.
Click to expand...
As always you choose to ignore the ones that don't fit your ideal, or feeds your odd desire to :fishing: There are four in the post above and dozens in the other one I posted, including a stray pit bull who saved a mother and her two year old from a man with a knife, that qualify as "at large" or whatever that means to you.

You're an odd bird. No one should truly care about anonymous personalities on message boards but to go out of your way to be so consistently obtuse to the point of lying to try and demonstrate your point, even in this format, is just weird. Even if you are making up your positions in these threads you still need help.
Click to expand...
oh lighten up and go drink some lemonade for 30 days
Click to expand...
It was 48 days and is that really the direction you want to go Woz?I'll give you some time to think about it.

 
Chaka said:
Zow said:
Chaka said:
Zow said:
Chaka said:
Well if we're going to play the anecdote game.

Let's talk about Friendship, a dog that would terrify Woz He's in Afghanistan sniffing out mines. Mines which kill four children per day.

Then there's Queenie (I laughed too), who fought off a bear that charged her owner three times.

In the same article you can read about Indiana Jones (a Weimaraner) who saved his family when a fire consumed their home.

And Star (a husky/shephard) who saved her owner from hypothermia.

And Keno (yellow lab) the avalanche rescue dog.

Four more mine sniffing dogs (labradors).

Let's not forget the service dogs.

Or the search and rescue dogs

Or the police dogs.

All medium to large breeds that account for hundreds of saved lives per year, but let's throw the baby out with the bath water and kill 'em all.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. None of those dogs are at-large. Dogs which are trained to provide service have societal benefits which outweigh their potential lethal ability. I don't think too many have any problems with dogs working for the government to do things which require smelling or violence.
Click to expand...
As always you choose to ignore the ones that don't fit your ideal, or feeds your odd desire to :fishing: There are four in the post above and dozens in the other one I posted, including a stray pit bull who saved a mother and her two year old from a man with a knife, that qualify as "at large" or whatever that means to you.

You're an odd bird. No one should truly care about anonymous personalities on message boards but to go out of your way to be so consistently obtuse to the point of lying to try and demonstrate your point, even in this format, is just weird. Even if you are making up your positions in these threads you still need help.
Click to expand...
oh lighten up and go drink some lemonade for 30 days
Click to expand...
It was 48 days and is that really the direction you want to go Woz?I'll give you some time to think about it.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks
 
eoMMan said:
Grahamburn said:
Tecumseh said:
proninja said:
By the way, these are fun - who's up for starting the thread next month?
Click to expand...
Allow me to get an early start.
Click to expand...
As she entered the room, she was shocked to find the family pet on top of her daughter's bassinet.I guess the five day old girl provoked this thing from her crib?
Click to expand...
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this was the dumb owner's fault, but we can't really put any of this on the vicious animal that climbed up to attack the infant.Newsflash: these owners are only dumb because they own vicious killing mammals as pets. HTH

 
Otis said:
eoMMan said:
Grahamburn said:
Tecumseh said:
proninja said:
By the way, these are fun - who's up for starting the thread next month?
Click to expand...
Allow me to get an early start.
Click to expand...
As she entered the room, she was shocked to find the family pet on top of her daughter's bassinet.I guess the five day old girl provoked this thing from her crib?
Click to expand...
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this was the dumb owner's fault, but we can't really put any of this on the vicious animal that climbed up to attack the infant.Newsflash: these owners are only dumb because they own vicious killing mammals as pets. HTH
Click to expand...
Lame, brah.
 
eoMMan said:
Grahamburn said:
Tecumseh said:
proninja said:
By the way, these are fun - who's up for starting the thread next month?
Click to expand...
Allow me to get an early start.
Click to expand...
As she entered the room, she was shocked to find the family pet on top of her daughter's bassinet.I guess the five day old girl provoked this thing from her crib?
Click to expand...
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Other than by owning a pit bull, how was the owner dumb?
 
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
Grahamburn said:
Tecumseh said:
proninja said:
By the way, these are fun - who's up for starting the thread next month?
Click to expand...
Allow me to get an early start.
Click to expand...
As she entered the room, she was shocked to find the family pet on top of her daughter's bassinet.I guess the five day old girl provoked this thing from her crib?
Click to expand...
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Other than by owning a pit bull, how was the owner dumb?
Click to expand...
Leaving a 5 day old baby alone in a room with a dog?
 
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Other than by owning a pit bull, how was the owner dumb?
Click to expand...
Leaving a 5 day old baby alone in a room with a dog?
Click to expand...
If you have both a baby and a dog in the house, how do you go about ensuring that the dog and the baby are never in a room alone together? I don't see how that is practical.
Click to expand...
I don't see it being that hard with doors and all. :goodposting:
 
eoMMan said:
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Other than by owning a pit bull, how was the owner dumb?
Click to expand...
Leaving a 5 day old baby alone in a room with a dog?
Click to expand...
If you have both a baby and a dog in the house, how do you go about ensuring that the dog and the baby are never in a room alone together? I don't see how that is practical.
Click to expand...
I don't see it being that hard with doors and all. :goodposting:
Click to expand...
I suspect most parents don't leave their 5 day old child in a room with the doors closed.
 
At least the loss is that of the dog owner and not someone who has no role in the decision making.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's tragic.

Back in the day when we had cats, we were nervous allowing them near our newborn. I can't imaging having a Pit in the house with a newborn - or any child for that matter.

 
People that own these "animals" are idiots, plain and simple. They are playing a daily game of Russian Roulette...it's just a matter of time. But hey, the owners are so tough because they own these beasts!!!

 
I suspect most parents don't leave their 5 day old child in a room with the doors closed.

I think most in fact do leave newborns in their room with the door closed. Fire safety and keeping the kid from waking up when you're putzing around elsewhere in the house. No pets should be left alone with a baby, ever.

 
eoMMan said:
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Other than by owning a pit bull, how was the owner dumb?
Click to expand...
Leaving a 5 day old baby alone in a room with a dog?
Click to expand...
If you have both a baby and a dog in the house, how do you go about ensuring that the dog and the baby are never in a room alone together? I don't see how that is practical.
Click to expand...
I don't see it being that hard with doors and all. :goodposting:
Click to expand...
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here (from the article posted) to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was solely because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
:obc: Directly analogous to having a small child and an unlocked gun cabinet in your house. Both parents are at best negligent if not reckless.
 
Zow said:
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
:tinfoilhat: Directly analogous to having a small child and an unlocked gun cabinet in your house. Both parents are at best negligent if not reckless.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's more like leaving a loaded gun next to your child's bed. I don't understand people who keep big dogs inside anyway. Dogs are outside animals, cats are inside animals.
 
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here (from the article posted) to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was solely because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying but why can't you just keep the dog in another room, crate, outside, etc. while the baby is present? I don't think that THIS is that impratical. I don't care if it was a friggin' chihuahua, I'd feel uncomfortable about it being in the same room as my baby alone.We agree on it being a tragedy.
 
TexanFan02 said:
Zow said:
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
:tinfoilhat: Directly analogous to having a small child and an unlocked gun cabinet in your house. Both parents are at best negligent if not reckless.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's more like leaving a loaded gun next to your child's bed. I don't understand people who keep big dogs inside anyway. Dogs are outside animals, cats are inside animals.
Click to expand...
You sir are exactly right.
 
bigbottom said:
eoMMan said:
Grahamburn said:
Tecumseh said:
proninja said:
By the way, these are fun - who's up for starting the thread next month?
Click to expand...
Allow me to get an early start.
Click to expand...
As she entered the room, she was shocked to find the family pet on top of her daughter's bassinet.I guess the five day old girl provoked this thing from her crib?
Click to expand...
Exactly, another dumb owner. Still tragic, though.
Click to expand...
Other than by owning a pit bull, how was the owner dumb?
Click to expand...
Correct answer from BB, as per usual.
 
Zow said:
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
:tinfoilhat: Directly analogous to having a small child and an unlocked gun cabinet in your house. Both parents are at best negligent if not reckless.
Click to expand...
Not even, because a gun won't one day decide on its own to get up and shoot your child. I don't even agree with regular folks owning guns, but I think owning a pit bull is far more stupid/irresponsible.
 
Otis said:
Zow said:
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: Directly analogous to having a small child and an unlocked gun cabinet in your house. Both parents are at best negligent if not reckless.
Click to expand...
Not even, because a gun won't one day decide on its own to get up and shoot your child. I don't even agree with regular folks owning guns, but I think owning a pit bull is far more stupid/irresponsible.
Click to expand...
I was thinking exactly that, but trying to be nice to the dog owners here. You're exactly right though in that the dog would kill for no reason with no action by the child whereas with the gun the child has to actually get to it (but I don't see how you fault a young child here which is why I think for the most part it is analogous as both deadly weapons can kill the child through no fault of the child but through the reckless behavior of keeping a deadly weapon so easily accessible to a child). Clearly the answer is to just eliminate this breed.
 
Zow said:
Otis said:
Zow said:
bigbottom said:
Instead of being flippant, why don't you give the question some serious thought. Say your child is in his jumper watching Baby Einstein and you have to go to the bathroom. Do you take the child with you to go pee? Do you bring the dog into the bathroom with you while you pee? Or your child is playing in his playpen and the doorbell rings. Do you go find your dog who is napping in the bedroom and secure it before you go answer the door? I'd be willing to bet you that 100% of people who have a baby and own a dog have been in another room at some point when the dog was free in the house. I think it's a tragic situation. But I don't see enough facts here to lead me to the conclusion that the cause of the tragedy was because the owner was dumb. I think it's impractical to have both a baby (or a small child) and a dog living in a house and believe that the child and the dog will never have the opportunity to be in a room alone together.
Click to expand...
:brush: Directly analogous to having a small child and an unlocked gun cabinet in your house. Both parents are at best negligent if not reckless.
Click to expand...
Not even, because a gun won't one day decide on its own to get up and shoot your child. I don't even agree with regular folks owning guns, but I think owning a pit bull is far more stupid/irresponsible.
Click to expand...
I was thinking exactly that, but trying to be nice to the dog owners here. You're exactly right though in that the dog would kill for no reason with no action by the child whereas with the gun the child has to actually get to it (but I don't see how you fault a young child here which is why I think for the most part it is analogous as both deadly weapons can kill the child through no fault of the child but through the reckless behavior of keeping a deadly weapon so easily accessible to a child). Clearly the answer is to just eliminate this breed.
Click to expand...
If you eliminated the breed, a new breed would pop up and you'd see similiar statistics and then people would be calling for the elimination of that breed.
 
eoMMan said:
If you eliminated the breed, a new breed would pop up and you'd see similiar statistics and then people would be calling for the elimination of that breed.
Click to expand...
First they came for the pit bulls but I wasn't a pit bull so I didn't say anything......
 
Zow said:
I was thinking exactly that, but trying to be nice to the dog owners here. You're exactly right though in that the dog would kill for no reason with no action by the child whereas with the gun the child has to actually get to it (but I don't see how you fault a young child here which is why I think for the most part it is analogous as both deadly weapons can kill the child through no fault of the child but through the reckless behavior of keeping a deadly weapon so easily accessible to a child). Clearly the answer is to just eliminate this breed.
Click to expand...
People will also shoot kids for no reason, apparently. Although I'm not sure if the answer is to eliminate guns or eliminate people.
 
CBusAlex said:
Zow said:
I was thinking exactly that, but trying to be nice to the dog owners here. You're exactly right though in that the dog would kill for no reason with no action by the child whereas with the gun the child has to actually get to it (but I don't see how you fault a young child here which is why I think for the most part it is analogous as both deadly weapons can kill the child through no fault of the child but through the reckless behavior of keeping a deadly weapon so easily accessible to a child). Clearly the answer is to just eliminate this breed.
Click to expand...
People will also shoot kids for no reason, apparently. Although I'm not sure if the answer is to eliminate guns or eliminate people.
Click to expand...
I was thinking something similar regarding the statistics of violent crimes committed by certain races of the population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
2K
GregR
GregR
Bull Dozier
Bull Dozier stops hijacking threads and start talking MILs
Replies
41
Views
1K
Johnny Rock
Johnny Rock
SHIZNITTTT
The Rise and Fall of a Fox News Fraud
Replies
29
Views
2K
sho nuff
sho nuff

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top