Comment

Comment on American bully XL dogs to be banned by end of year - Sunak

Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Of course, the people who abuse their dogs to the point of become dangerous will just move on the next breed.

Playing whack-a-mole isn’t ever effective policy. Before this breed it was pitbulls, after this breed it’ll just be something else.

Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs, stop people who abuse animals to the point of of being dangerous from owning dogs, or stop people from wanting to abuse animals to the point of being dangerous.

That said, this isn’t a harmful policy, just an ineffective one. If you want to own a dog, for good or ill, there are plenty of other breeds out there.

source

Sort:hotnew top

lemonflavoured@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
The difference is that other breeds aren't quite as dangerous, and so won't kill or maim as many people.

source
- Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I’m not sure this is a reply to me. Difference in what is that?
  
  source
  - lemonflavoured@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    You were arguing that if you ban one breed the shitty owners will move on to another one. My point was that that other breed will (probably) not be quite as dangerous as this one, so it's a net positive.
    
    source
    Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Nice argument, I showed you the data the proves it wrong though.
    
    But beyond that the argument is flawed fundamentally, dog breeds aren’t static and the gog abusers don’t have to start with dachounds.
    
    My argument stands and is supported by the data.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Why not just keep banning them?

source
- Chariotwheel@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Germany looks at patterns. Bully XL isn't even accepted as a distinct race and you don't need to ban it, it just needs to hit certain traits and it will be considered a dangerous dog breed regardless.
  
  source
- Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I think I answered that. Or I don’t understand your question. Just keep banning what?
  
  I suppose I assumed the aim of the policy is “to stop fatal dog attacks in the UK”. I also assumed that was the reasoning behind the Pitbull ban too and look where we are. We could learn from history, or we could just keep banning them. This is all just repetition of my previous comment though.
  
  I guess if the aim is to ban breeds of dogs then sure, why not keep banning them.
  
  source
  - Mr_Blott@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    and look where we are
    
    Um, a bit safer with fewer mental dogs running about
    
    source
    Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    This would go a lot easier if you would please read my initial comment. Both of your comments are answered in there.
    
    source
HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs

This’s is where I issue my standard challenge to find the statistics on fatalities cause by dachshund attacks

source
- Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Once again, someone didn’t read my first two paragraphs.
  
  source