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

• lemonflavoured@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      While the data proves that banning breeds fails.

      Unfortunately recent data dose indicate an increase in fatal attacks when rgis new breed became available.

      That is harder with older breeds because data is less available in the past.

      But yes your point is valid. Breed is not really a valid method. Characteristics. And or personality would be better. But harder to police.

      But I’m also of the opinion that bans even then are not the best method. If defining characteristics is possible. Then requiring owner to be qualified and required to keep the dogs in a safe manner is also reasonable.

      Any dog with an uncontrollable prey drive. Is generally safe from fatal attacks if muzzled. Add to that a requirement to be able to control the dog.

      If you want to keep a leopard. You are required to do so with the right qualifications and enviroment to do so. While dividing dogs is a lot more complex. No one sane wants to require owners of a chihuahua to be qualified for dangerous animals. As doing so would remove companion animals from lots of loving responsible owners.

      But as you indicate. If someone is looking for a violent dog. Then increasing the effort and checks they must comply with. Will put the desire out of reach for all but the most dedicated/ responsible.

      source

      • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yeah I tried to summarise that in the what would prevent fatal attacks paragraph. I try to see through a “what effective measures have we done to regulate things that can cause harm” lense.

        Cars can cause harm, we demand training, licencing, registering, insurance, stoppages by police to provide proof of the above, etc etc. There are still fatalities though. I would accept every one of those measures being applied to dog ownership, you’re right it sucks for the peeps owning chihuahua’s, their insurance will likely be low though.

        That said, after engaging with the dog foster system, I have other reasons for wanting to limit access to dogs. I weigh the harm done to families that lose an opportunity Vs the harm prevention what I think the above will do to the number of homeless dogs as I would add all animals are neutered at the earliest possible convenience unless owned by a registered breeder, that registration being an absolute bastard to get, perhaps requiring yearly inspections to curb puppy mills too. I love dogs, I don’t see their ownership as a right but a responsibility first and a privilege second.

        I did think about banning characteristics, which then lead me on to blades as we regulate blades by characteristic. I have absolutely no idea if it was effective though, and didn’t care to check, so I didn’t include it. But how to apply it to dogs, weight maybe, biting force are objectively measurable but what happens if some family just lands an absolute chonk. As you say, the actual relevent characteristics are functionally impossible to police.

        source