Dogs should be Banned

[Reploid Productions]

by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Been bit by dogs, scratched up and bruised by dogs (admittedly, that's what happens when a fuzzy bundle of cuddles decides to launch from your lap,) scratched by cats (and being allergic, those were NEVER fun!), outright attacked by a possum once, and I still love dogs, cats... and... well, okay, I tolerate possums, but point stands.

And dogs are incredibly valuable work animals as well. While it is true that perhaps urban society doesn't need dogs, they still serve irreplaceable roles as guard animals, shepherds, bomb/drug detectors, guide animals, search and rescue, and so on. Your idea that they need to be banned would not make society safer, but it would no doubt make it far less safe.

[Americanada]

How do you ban dogs?

I remember Keith Olbermann once answering that question. You shoot them and leave out poisoned meat. As he explained, the process prioritizes the killing of the most friendly dogs since those most trusting of humans will be most likely to see them leaving food around and approach those with such a deficiency of altruism to betray dogs.

[Roski]

6 years old.
Bit in the face by a dog.
u wot m8.

Don't you even DARE go there.

[Viritica]

In that case, just ban all pets. Because birds have bird flu, cats bite and scratch, and basically every pet can bite, scratch or something. Then the only viable pet is a pet fish

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

>"If you've played Call of Duty"



I can't... I... I just can't.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You can span it out all you want and sugar-coat it, you're still calling for the genocide, extermination, however you want to put it, of an entire species. Just because they have the potential to be dangerous.

they are still allowed to survive in the wild...

also, we could carve out some exceptions for specialized purposes (ex for military applications) but they will just no longer populate the domestic front (to minimize the public hazard issues).

You're still ignoring the fact that dogs aren't a public threat hazard or threat.

[Wisconsin9]

When you're using a video game as evidence you're doing something very wrong. And most of us use leashes. And my cat goes outside almost every day, sometimes two or three times.

Leashes are an imperfect mechanism of control.

In fact, two of the times I was attacked by dogs the animal had a leash and a collar. But the owner was distracted or just didn't care much for my safety.

Important part is underlined.

[Infected Mushroom]

by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

I've been bitten, and I still love dogs more than certain "personalities" I have made acquaintance with. Because, when a dog bites, it's because it's an animal - you can't blame an animal for doing shit, it just acts according to natural evolutionary instincts.

Would you like to see people banned ? Because they bite too, and not entirely out of instinct.

this is not about assigning blame.

Dogs are not morally culpable; they aren't really free agents in the same way humans are.

The only objective is to maximize social safety at a reasonable cost. Its not about trying dogs for their crimes...

[Atlanticatia]

When you're using a video game as evidence you're doing something very wrong. And most of us use leashes. And my cat goes outside almost every day, sometimes two or three times.

Leashes are an imperfect mechanism of control.

In fact, two of the times I was attacked by dogs the animal had a leash and a collar. But the owner was distracted or just didn't care much for my safety.

Why are you being attacked by dogs so often?

[Tulacia]

In that case, just ban all pets. Because birds have bird flu, cats bite and scratch, and basically every pet can bite, scratch or something. Then the only viable pet is a pet fish

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

You're seriously using CoD as your reasoning? CoD and most FPS games are unrealistic. OP, you are seriously insane. I have a 3-month-old Chocolate Lab. Are you suggesting that one day he's going to up and bite the hell out of someone simply because he's a dog? That is absolute bullcrap.

[Constaniana]

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

When you're using a video game as evidence you're doing something very wrong. And most of us use leashes. And my cat goes outside almost every day, sometimes two or three times.

If Kefka wants to use the video game line of thinking then he should want to ban tortoises too, because they might suddenly get six feet tall and have cannons poking out of their backs that they blast other animals with.

[Norstal]

How do you ban dogs?

I remember Kieth Olbermman once answering that question. You shoot them and leave out poisoned meat. As he explained, the process prioritizes the killing of the most friendly dogs since those most trusting of humans will be most likely to see them leaving food around and approach those with such a deficiency of altruism to betray dogs.

Eh, that sounds like it would take too long. Not to mention that dog breeds can mellow out over time or replace the dead dogs.

[Roski]

Leashes are an imperfect mechanism of control.

In fact, two of the times I was attacked by dogs the animal had a leash and a collar. But the owner was distracted or just didn't care much for my safety.

Why are you being attacked by dogs so often?

He keeps provoking dogs.

[Infected Mushroom]

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

>"If you've played Call of Duty"



I can't... I... I just can't.

why do you think the military has used many specialized attack dog units both in the present and in the past?

Dogs are a carnivorous species. Their teeth have not evolved to eat grass, they are sharp and strong, good for tearing through flesh.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

You can do the same thing you do with assault rifles when you outlaw them. You would allow some kind of grandfather clause.

So the law would say that existing dogs won't be allowed to reproduce but that the existing dogs will be allowed to stay with their current owners. However, to disincentivize dog ownership there would be a tax against dog owners. All imports of dogs would be banned immediately, exporting dogs to other countries would be encouraged with tax deductions.

Then you would take the lifespan of the longest dog (I don't know, I'm not an expert, let's say it was 30 years) and then in the law you would say:

''in 30 years since under this law no dog is allowed to reproduce all dogs should have died in this country, therefore in 30 years from the date of this bill all dogs found in the nation will put to rest by the relevant authorities.''

Logistically this would be how I would do it if I were in charge. This way, all dogs can be eliminated from society in 30 years (either they die naturally, are exported, or get hunted down when the time is up). The neat thing about this law is that we know for a fact that after those years are up (maybe its not 30), all existing dogs are illegal.

And obviously you would be breaking the law if you still keep a dog by that time (I expect you would be fined and if you don't surrender the dog or ship it out of the country, perhaps stricter measures will be taken). All dogs should be registered too.

What a fucking joke.

Systematically exterminating an entire species; and for what? For the sake of preventing a couple of injuries? Ridiculous, I say; utterly ridiculous.

Besides, even if this were an even remotely good idea, it would be impossible to enforce. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Iran all try to get rid of homosexuality by executing homosexuals; let me assure you, their tactics aren't working, and doing the same thing but with dogs wouldn't work either. There are millions of dogs in the world, and trying to stop them from breeding just by putting down a few lines of text in a law book is absolutely ridiculous; a few lines of text in a law book doesn't stop people under twenty one from drinking, it isn't going to stop dog owners from letting their dogs reproduce.

And, again, back to the problem of why the hell would you want to do this in the first place? Dogs do much more good than harm, considering the use of drug-finding dogs by the police, rescue dogs by emergency forces, guard dogs by homeowners, and the dogs blind people use to get around; isolated incidents don't justify getting rid of all dogs entirely, especially when a lot of dogs do good things.

I dare say that your anti-dog ideas are an unenforceable waste of time that will only hurt people who use them for good while barely putting a dent in dog related accidents.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

When you're using a video game as evidence you're doing something very wrong. And most of us use leashes. And my cat goes outside almost every day, sometimes two or three times.

If Kefka wants to use the video game line of thinking then he should want to ban tortoises too, because they might suddenly get six feet tall and have cannons poking out of their backs that they blast other animals with.

There goes my dream of being the very best that ever was. POKEMON, gotta catch 'em all!!

[Sun Wukong]

In that case, just ban all pets. Because birds have bird flu, cats bite and scratch, and basically every pet can bite, scratch or something. Then the only viable pet is a pet fish

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

That's right, OP just proved how dangerous dogs are by referencing Call of Duty.

[Viritica]

When you're using a video game as evidence you're doing something very wrong. And most of us use leashes. And my cat goes outside almost every day, sometimes two or three times.

If Kefka wants to use the video game line of thinking then he should want to ban tortoises too, because they might suddenly get six feet tall and have cannons poking out of their backs that they blast other animals with.

He also might want to ban mushrooms. Those things are quite deadly in Mario, I tell you what.

[Dracoria]

Leashes are an imperfect mechanism of control.

In fact, two of the times I was attacked by dogs the animal had a leash and a collar. But the owner was distracted or just didn't care much for my safety.

Why are you being attacked by dogs so often?

Good judges of character.

[Norstal]

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

You're seriously using CoD as your reasoning? CoD and most FPS games are unrealistic. OP, you are seriously insane. I have a 3-month-old Chocolate Lab. Are you suggesting that one day he's going to up and bite the hell out of someone simply because he's a dog? That is absolute bullcrap.

Hey now. CoD had somewhat realistic reloading animations.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

I've been bitten, and I still love dogs more than certain "personalities" I have made acquaintance with. Because, when a dog bites, it's because it's an animal - you can't blame an animal for doing shit, it just acts according to natural evolutionary instincts.

Would you like to see people banned ? Because they bite too, and not entirely out of instinct.

this is not about assigning blame.

Dogs are not morally culpable; they aren't really free agents in the same way humans are.

The only objective is to maximize social safety at a reasonable cost. Its not about trying dogs for their crimes...

Dogs see humans as pack leader

[Roski]

>"If you've played Call of Duty"



I can't... I... I just can't.

why do you think the military has used many specialized attack dog units both in the present and in the past?

Dogs are a carnivorous species. Their teeth have not evolved to eat grass, they are sharp and strong, good for tearing through flesh.

The military doesn't use dogs the same way CoD does dogs.

[Washington Resistance Army]

>"If you've played Call of Duty"



I can't... I... I just can't.

why do you think the military has used many specialized attack dog units both in the present and in the past?

Dogs are a carnivorous species. Their teeth have not evolved to eat grass, they are sharp and strong, good for tearing through flesh.

And you're a primate, chances are you could have killed said dog chasing with you ease if you had to. Dogs are not a public threat Kef.

[Bulgar Rouge]

I've been bitten, and I still love dogs more than certain "personalities" I have made acquaintance with. Because, when a dog bites, it's because it's an animal - you can't blame an animal for doing shit, it just acts according to natural evolutionary instincts.

Would you like to see people banned ? Because they bite too, and not entirely out of instinct.

this is not about assigning blame.

Dogs are not morally culpable; they aren't really free agents in the same way humans are.

The only objective is to maximize social safety at a reasonable cost. Its not about trying dogs for their crimes...

Dogs are no threat to society whatsoever. Not even to individuals.

[72o]

Some breeds should be banned imo, like bulldogs and poodles.

[United States of Cascadia]

I hope this is satire... but in case its not:

Seriously? dogs? they are pets, and mans best friend. they have been tamed for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years. Nobody was complaining then. besides, only wild dogs or dogs trained to be vicious are vicious. and owners are legally supposed to pick up the droppings, at least here in America. seriously, your argument is insane.

To be fair, who actually does that? Now, on the OP's point, no, this is a retarded idea. I'd be game for requiring dogs to be trained, that's exceptible to me, but an outright ban? Hell no.