Compulsory insurance for all dogs proposed by Govt. (Now ruled out)

[DaFoot]

That's a very good point. I think the main difference though, is that you can't really argue that a handgun has much obvious purpose other than killing.

 

Target shooting is a hobby. Pet ownership is a hobby.

 

Anyway, I'd best not take this any further off topic. Don't want it turning into an anti/pro gun fight

[Waldo]

Another law I can't see a need for. Our government seem quite keen on introducing new laws instead of enforcing/tweaking existing laws.

 

Quite agree with you. Certainly seems like a silly idea to me, and there are probably much better ways to address the issue.

 

Slight tangent...how many of the arguments presented in this thread against the idea of requiring registration/insurance of dogs could be applied to handgun laws (prohibition of ownership) that I imagine (yeah, stereotyping ) a lot of 'pet' dog owners fully supported?

 

I'm a dog owner; but I'd like to live in a society, where if I was irresponsible in looking after the dog, or making sure it wasn't a menace to other dogs or people; then I shouldn't be allowed to keep dogs.

[pem123]

If, as you say earlier, you will only accept data from a credible source, such as a vetinary or statistics department of a university, why are you unable to offer any to back up your own argument?

 

Just for old times sake, i'll answer Gordy

 

I have provided evidence by way of opinion from a senior vet. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what more I can do.

 

However, yours so far has been news reports (which don't prove what i'm saying to be wrong, only that incidents have occured, they don't speculate on any root causes) and an aside piece on an unofficial emigration site.

 

Now, when you can find a vet or animal behaviourist to back up your ideas (which if there were any truth in them, should be easy as pie), come back and we can go over them. Till then, toodaloo

 

EDIT: And anyway, the fact that I can't find any such evidence to back me up adds weight to my arguement.

 

That there's apparently no such studies been commisioned suggests that no academics have ever deemed it neccesary. If the sixth most popular dog breed (officially, probably actually 2nd or 3rd numbers wise) in the UK was really such a walking time-bomb, they'd be falling over themselves to study it.

Edited March 9, 2010 by pem123
add info

[Cyclone]

Another law I can't see a need for. Our government seem quite keen on introducing new laws instead of enforcing/tweaking existing laws.

 

Slight tangent...how many of the arguments presented in this thread against the idea of requiring registration/insurance of dogs could be applied to handgun laws (prohibition of ownership) that I imagine (yeah, stereotyping ) a lot of 'pet' dog owners fully supported?

 

I've argued several times against the ridiculous politicised ban on the ownership of handguns. So at least I'm consistently against stupid laws that do nothing to address real problems (but look good as sound bites).

[DaFoot]

I'm a dog owner; but I'd like to live in a society, where if I was irresponsible in looking after the dog, or making sure it wasn't a menace to other dogs or people; then I shouldn't be allowed to keep dogs.

I don't think anyone (sane) will disagree with that. Or were you referring to the handgun thing I mentioned? In which case, same thing applies - punish the bad owners

[pem123]

 

Perhaps with cars, it's just not practical to differentiate, also, the difference in potential harm to a person, when contrasting a Mini with a Range Rover, I would speculate, is not as great as the difference (in potential harm to a person), when contrasting a Poodle with a more aggressive forceful breed of dog.

 

Ok, I think a better analogy is that when an idiot leaves his toddler alone with a big dog he bought in the pub for £25 without knowing it's history and has never walked it and it then attacks the kid, people call for action on dogs.

 

If the same idiot left his kid alone with a chainsaw, society would blame him, not the chainsaw.

 

Pretty much all dog attacks are the result of human stupidity, either poor dog ownership or poor parenting, commonly a bit of both.

 

I say pretty much because dogs can occasionally flip due to mental problems just as we can.

[Cyclone]

That's a very good point. I think the main difference though, is that you can't really argue that a handgun has much obvious purpose other than killing.

 

Target shooting, duh.

[pem123]

Target shooting, duh.

 

Yes, that's why I said 'much' rather than 'any'.

 

Duh!

[ukdobby]

It will never work,how many dog owners had a license for their pets?

[Cyclone]

There is no license required to own a dog.