United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Would you like to show the pre and post ban numbers of attacks per breed on that. Because all those very few that happened. Were directlt post several incidents relating to that breed.
i in no way think breed bans are the best solution. But most would be even more uncomfortable with the solution I propose. Any breed known to represent more then average risk during attacks. Should require the same laws and keeping of any other wild dangerouse animal. Just like wolves and tigers. Animals that cannot be shown to be trainable to be safe. Would require safe handleing by skilled staff.
and of course If you cannot rent a property suitable for keeping a dangerouse animal safe. It is not down to opthers to be art risk from your choice.
If you own a pet capable of killing humans. Who but you should face the legal responsibility for housing and careing for that animal.
Any solution that fails to provide that is worse then a ban. So areguing a ban dosent work is just failing.
This is like saying banning Glocks results in less people getting shot with a Glock...
And ignoring that people that want to shoot other just used a different brand and total shootings evened out after a very brief dip.
yeah like glocks and most guns are banned in the UK. Meaning we face much lower gun deaths then nations that dont.
Not really a valid argument obn your part. Of course banning the dogs most likely to kill is an effective way of reducing dog deaths. Where the hell do you live.
The simple fact is we don't need to ban all dogs. Because we have an average of below 1 a year. but when we see a few in one year all related to one new breed that is beyond most owners control. Yes we ban thast breed rather then banning all.
Also it is only when we see deaths related to breeds intentionally bred for attack. Our nation has ever banned them. Even then only once multiple deaths have happened. Most demestic breeds really are not capable of doing seriose damage. Having been attacked by a germon shepard myself at 10 years old. I can assure you the damage from an average dog and one bred for fighting is very different.
Right...
You banned all guns and gun deaths went down...
If you had just banned Glocks, people would have just bought different guns.
Do not disagree. All guns are dangerouse. Hence why guns are limited and restricted to safe areas for use.
Same goes for race cars. We ban them on oen roads due to the risk to others. Privrate roads are fione if the race is run safely. But that dosent stop folks driving a ford fiesta etc. Because in most situations most cars are safe. (ignoring pullution).
But the 4(soon to be 5) breeds of dogs banned. Where bread entirly for fighting. And showed a history or attacking humans and killing. In much higher qty then numbers before the breed was introduced. Most other dog attacks result in injurie. Again can be bad from my own 10yo experience. But at no point was I likely to die. I ended up in hospital for a few days. And the dog was eventually put down. (another attack).
But these breeds are bread to fight. They do not let go when a victim is submited like other dogs.
I have said before it is not perfect. Cross breeds need to be checked. But when you compare it to glocks. You are forgetting that we normally see averages well below once a year of dogs killing. Yet these bans have happened ofter several events in a couple of years. All related top one breed.
Yes another breed may/will come. And again we will ban it. We only have a total of 4 breeds banned. So its far from every couple of years we see a dangerous one. And while Id rather we had a more direct method. I am old enouth to remember the news at each occasion. We avoid cross breeds because the exact breeding that makes pure breeds dangerous is reduced when they are crossed. So like any dog they tend to be judged on actions. It seems to take timer for breeders to come up with new breeds that meet the desire. So evidence indicates it is working if not perfect. Because we see a relative drop in deaths back to normal when a breed is banned.
Well, on one side we have that little ran you just typed and I didn't even bother to read...
And on the other is science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629
Guess which I'm believing?
Except the article do-sent metinon anything about dogs being bread fof fighting. (as I have read it before).
Unles you are going to somehow present evidence that no breed of dog can have certain characteristics of personality enhanced in a majority. It is no more invalid then saying boys dont like trucks, Because sizeable % do not. it is still a fair genraisation.
And given we are discussing a breed of dog sold to appeal to a specific class of buyer. The points are rather invalid.