REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Nearly 5 million bitten by dogs each year

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Saturday, May 18, 2013 16:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1547
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

WASHINGTON - It's a biting statistic: 4.7 million people -- half of them children under 12 -- are bitten each year by a dog.

The result is costly for both victim and owner. There are 70 million dogs in the United States and, according to the Insurance Information Institute, insurance companies pay out $489 million a year in bite claims.

Add in medical costs for victims not covered by insurance, as well as emotional and physical scars, and biting dogs become more than a simple nuisance.

May 19 to May 25 is National Dog Bite Prevention week, and there are ways to cut down on bite incidents.

Veterinarian Bonnie Beaver from the American Veterinary Medical Association says dogs should never be left near children unsupervised.

"Children do strange things from the dog's perspective and the dog may not necessarily understand what's going on," Beaver says.

She says dogs bite because they are afraid, and advises getting dogs used to people when they are puppies and not isolating the animals.

Some other dog bite statistics:
•There were 2,752 reconstructive procedures in 2012 because of dog bites.
•Of the children bitten, approximately 400,000 every year need medical attention.
• Postal carriers were bitten 5,879 times in 2012, an increase of 274 from 2011.



http://www.wtop.com/1226/3323611/Millions-bitten-by-dogs-each-year

Half of those bitten are under 12. Time for some serious dog control. Think of the children.

Not to mention...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/05/pit_bull_attack_death_littl
erock_palmdale.php


and...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57572965/boy-dies-after-pit-bull-a
ttack-in-wisconsin
/


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:14 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


CDC

Man and woman's best friend bites more than 4.7 million people a year ... Each year, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of these are children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about 16 die.

4.7 million bitten

800,000 seek medical attention

386,000 treated

16 die

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:01 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Over 400,000 who SEEK medical attention don't get treated??

I sure hope Obama-Care fixes THAT discrepancy !

[/sarcasm]

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:20 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Damn, maybe we oughtta register, regulate,control and license dogs...

Oh, yeah, wait, we do, don't we? Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment assuring our right to keep and bear DOGS, before OBAMA confiscates them ALL.
(Watch out , NIki, he's gonna start with Huskies...)

Or maybe we need a leash law for gun owners...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx, NewOld, for putting it in perspective. I didn't need toread the initial thread, it's easy enough to figure this is just another "but SWIMMING POOLS...", "but CARS..." from Geezer. "Desperately seeking...something."

Actually, some breeds won't be covered by insurance companies (Sibes and Mals among them), or the homeowner is charged higher rates because they own them--gawd forbid any such thing should happen with guns!

And yeah, we register dogs, limit the number people can have, require they be kept on a leash, etc., but of course the comparison completely defeats people like him. And of course, yes, only a miniscule fraction of injuries from dogs result in death, but--see above sentence.

It's a game, and a very silly one, nothing more.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Damn, maybe we oughtta register, regulate,control and license dogs...

Oh, yeah, wait, we do, don't we?



Yep. Because dogs can act on their own. They can also contract rabies if not vaccinated. Dogs not under the control and supervision of their owners can be dangerous. Dogs whose owners use them for illegal purposes can also be dangerous, even when they are not with their owners.

Compare and contrast with, say, a chain saw, or a drill, or a gun. When left by themselves, they are a danger to no one.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Dog breeds banned because they pose too much danger to people.
http://listverse.com/2011/08/23/top-10-banned-dog-breeds/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:47 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Dog breeds banned because they pose too much danger to people.
http://listverse.com/2011/08/23/top-10-banned-dog-breeds/



It's not quite confiscation, as I joked about above, but here in L A county, when animal control gets a pit bull or pit bull mix, it gets euthanized routinely as too dangerous to let back out. Not exactly sure what they would do with a licensed stray if the owner tried to reclaim it. Which isn't ALWAYS right-- 2 pit bull mixes are guard dogs at the muffler shop around the corner, and they are the sweetest dogs, if a burglar got in there, they might kill him , but it would be by licking and slobbering all over him, and beating him to death by wagging their tails.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:52 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Damn, maybe we oughtta register, regulate,control and license dogs...

Oh, yeah, wait, we do, don't we? Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment assuring our right to keep and bear DOGS, before OBAMA confiscates them ALL.
(Watch out , NIki, he's gonna start with Huskies...)

Or maybe we need a leash law for gun owners...




" bear DOGS "

Oh man...can you imagine trying to raise one of THOSE ???



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:38 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Legislation that is not without controversy either.

Quote:

A new law was implemented in Victoria, Australia last week that will lead to the seizure and killing of any dog fitting the criteria for an unregistered restricted breed found after the law goes into effect.

Targeted breeds include the American pit bull terrier, perro de presa canario, dogo Argentino, Japanese tosa and fila Brasileiro. Anyone with a look-alike will need will need to show papers or a certificate from a veterinarian as proof.

In addition to registering their dogs, owners will have to prove that their dogs are spayed/neutered, microchipped, kept in an inescapable enclosure, muzzled and leashed off of their property and accompanied by someone at least 17 years old. Owners may also be fined up to $4,885 if they lose control of their dog and $2,442 if their dog escapes, or they move without notifying authorities, according to the AP.

The new law was spurred by recent attacks but has many worried, including the Australian Services Union, that targeting specific breeds will not only be ineffective in preventing attacks, but will also increase the risks to those who are responsible for identifying, seizing and destroying the dogs.

Others, including the union, raised concerns about the legal issues that could arise if a dog was misidentified and destroyed. Take this neat little test to see if you can pick the pit bull.

The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) also spoke out against the legislation, with a “ban the deed, not the breed,” stance.

“Our thoughts go out to anyone who has suffered from a dog attack, and the death of a child is particularly distressing,” said Dr Susan Maastricht, Victorian President of the AVA.

“The AVA believes the legislation proposed in Victoria is not a long term solution. The risk is this could lull the community into a false sense of security and do little to address the overall problem of dog bites. We are very concerned that innocent families and family pets will become scapegoats when they’ve done nothing wrong.”

While this new law is only in Victoria, expansion may be supported by other officials.



Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/new-australian-law-deadly-for-pit-bulls.ht
ml#ixzz2TVcrkSrI




i think the arguments around legislation ARE very similar to gun law debate, with people arguing that its irresponsible owners that are to blame rather than the dogs themselves.

Me, I don't see things in absolutes. Some animals (and guns ;) ) are too dangerous for backyard suburbia and I have no problem with some limits around what you can and can't keep.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:38 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Legislation that is not without controversy either.

Quote:

A new law was implemented in Victoria, Australia last week that will lead to the seizure and killing of any dog fitting the criteria for an unregistered restricted breed found after the law goes into effect.

Targeted breeds include the American pit bull terrier, perro de presa canario, dogo Argentino, Japanese tosa and fila Brasileiro. Anyone with a look-alike will need will need to show papers or a certificate from a veterinarian as proof.

In addition to registering their dogs, owners will have to prove that their dogs are spayed/neutered, microchipped, kept in an inescapable enclosure, muzzled and leashed off of their property and accompanied by someone at least 17 years old. Owners may also be fined up to $4,885 if they lose control of their dog and $2,442 if their dog escapes, or they move without notifying authorities, according to the AP.

The new law was spurred by recent attacks but has many worried, including the Australian Services Union, that targeting specific breeds will not only be ineffective in preventing attacks, but will also increase the risks to those who are responsible for identifying, seizing and destroying the dogs.

Others, including the union, raised concerns about the legal issues that could arise if a dog was misidentified and destroyed. Take this neat little test to see if you can pick the pit bull.

The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) also spoke out against the legislation, with a “ban the deed, not the breed,” stance.

“Our thoughts go out to anyone who has suffered from a dog attack, and the death of a child is particularly distressing,” said Dr Susan Maastricht, Victorian President of the AVA.

“The AVA believes the legislation proposed in Victoria is not a long term solution. The risk is this could lull the community into a false sense of security and do little to address the overall problem of dog bites. We are very concerned that innocent families and family pets will become scapegoats when they’ve done nothing wrong.”

While this new law is only in Victoria, expansion may be supported by other officials.



Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/new-australian-law-deadly-for-pit-bulls.ht
ml#ixzz2TVcrkSrI




i think the arguments around legislation ARE very similar to gun law debate, with people arguing that its irresponsible owners that are to blame rather than the dogs themselves.

Me, I don't see things in absolutes. Some animals (and guns ;) ) are too dangerous for backyard suburbia and I have no problem with some limits around what you can and can't keep.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Larger context is all.

DOGS

80 million dogs/
4.7 million victims/
800,000 seek medical attention/
386,000 treated/
16 die

GUNS

200 million guns/
180,700 victims/
76,100 seek medical attention/
73,500 treated/
31,076 die


There are approximately 78.2 million owned dogs in the United States http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_owner
ship_statistics.html


There are probably about 1-3 million stray dogs
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_stray_dogs_are_there_in_to_US#page2


The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_United_States_of_Am
erica#page2


In 2009, there were 76,100 ED visits for firearm-related injuries http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb136.jsp ... plus 31,076 fatalities (2010), total victims 180,681

In 2010, 73,505 treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

31,076 fatalities in 2010. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Compare and contrast with, say, a chain saw, or a drill, or a gun. When left by themselves, they are a danger to no one.
Clearly you've never stepped on a carbide drill bit in bare feet!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


One of the reasons I own a dog is for protection. Not that he is a scary dog at all, he just a big bark and is very protective of the property.

That being said, I don't approve of people training their dogs to be guard dogs, they just end up being a savage menace.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


A small NOISY dog is good protection. I had a big dog - not for protection, she was a stray who cozied up to me in a parking lot - but it turned out her bark was so loud it literally made the doorbell chimes in the hallway hum when she barked in the living room. There was no way anyone was going to secretly sneak into the house.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, to address the topic ...

I'm going to admit ignorance of dogs. I honestly don't know if there are types of dogs with such feral tendencies that you can't trust them generally, or if there are merely dogs who are poorly socialized, and/or abused, and/ or trained to be aggressive.

But if you have an animal - a dog, tiger, python, draft horse etc - you are legally responsible for whatever that animal does and whoever it may injure or kill. The reason is that if you did not choose to keep that animal there would be no risk to anyone else. Having made that choice to bring potential risk to the society around you, you are responsible for the outcomes.

The same is true of guns. When you chose to bring that potential risk to the society around you, you are responsible for the outcomes.

Society does have an interest in moderating its members actions so keep one element of society from causing harm to another. That's where dog and gun licensing come in.

I have to say though that at a fatality rate of 16 per year, the dog problem is pretty low on the serious-risk scale.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:17 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


The main factor is what they are bred for. Some dogs breeds have been bred to fight other dogs, or to hunt other viscious animals (American pitbull was bred to hunt feral pigs). Some have been bred to kill people as in the Neopolitian Mastiff. Some have been bred to fight bears, bull baiting.

They are large powerful animals built for aggression and fighting.

They may also be loving, friendly and loyal if trained correctly, but it takes a lot of work to train and exercise and treat these dogs correctly, and if you don't do it, you've got a lot of trouble on your hands, as well as those who live around you.

And let's face it, there are lots of jerks out there, who shouldn't have in their possession a gun, a large dog, a car or anything else that may threaten others wellbeing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:35 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Well, I think there's a balance to strike. As I work through this this is what I come up with -

We do try and regulate people by category - certain felons, those who are too young or too mentally incapable to be responsible, those with significant mental illness. But it's not completely a question of individuals ie people. For one reason we can't regulate specific individuals that much - we can't just say, well that person there is completely irresponsible so they can't have ANY of that stuff.

At the same time, as you pointed out, some things are just too dangerous for anyone at all to have around. Even the most responsible person can have an off moment and do the wrong thing, risking the life and health of many people around - as an example, nitroglycerine. So there are some things in themselves that are too dangerous to take the risk of a slip of judgment.

So, I can see how regulating these things has to be a two-prong effort: one to disallow certain individuals the privilege of accessing the ... whatever it is. While the other to regulate the things in themselves.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 4:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

I'm going to admit ignorance of dogs. I honestly don't know if there are types of dogs with such feral tendencies that you can't trust them generally, or if there are merely dogs who are poorly socialized, and/or abused, and/ or trained to be aggressive.

There are no dogs with feral tendencies (wolf hybrids don't count); your second assumption is the correct one, from everything I've ever read, learned, observed or experienced.

What Magons said,
Quote:

Some dogs breeds have been bred to fight other dogs, or to hunt other vicious animals (American pitbull was bred to hunt feral pigs). Some have been bred to kill people as in the Neopolitian Mastiff. Some have been bred to fight bears, bull baiting.

is true, BUT it doesn't mean they are innately dangerous. And what dogs were originally bred for has changed with many breeds, so that said breeding has changed as well. Pit Bulls continue to be bred by some(usually illegally) for fighting, but all legitimate Pit breeders do so now to breed other characteristics; same with Mastiffs and other breeds whose original intent is no longer viable. Rhodesian Ridgebacks were originally created as a hunting dog, to bay lions and hunt other big game; along the way, they were one of the breeds that went into the making of the Boerboel; both breeds were bred as guard dogs in South Africa and trained to be aggressive toward Black people in the days of apartheid. All that is long gone; would you then assume that Rhodies would "genetically", or "instinctively", or whatever, attack African Americans?

Certainly some breeds can produce individual dogs who are more territorial, dominant, or whatever, but that varies as much with each individual dog as it does from breed to breed. Many huskies have a strong prey drive; many don't. I would say MOST terriers have an even stronger one, but not all do. It comes down to what happens to them once they are born, not just breeding. Some breeds can have a tendency toward a more aggressive or dominant nature (Akitas come to mind), but it still comes down vastly more to how they are RAISED. Pit bulls are some of the best dogs in the world, I've never known a single aggressive one, and I've spent my life at dog parks and around dogs and dog people.

The problem, as with guns, is the people. But dogs are NOTHING like as dangerous, accidentally especially, as guns, so a foolish person can own dogs all their lives and those dogs would never be involved in biting someone. A foolish person can own a gun for a very short time and have something deadly happen; the woman at Starbucks who didn't even remember WHICH PURSE HER GUN WAS IN is a prime example of both that and the fact that we have a problem with the MENTALITY around guns.
Quote:

it takes a lot of work to train and exercise and treat these dogs correctly, and if you don't do it, you've got a lot of trouble on your hands, as well as those who live around you.

I disagree. It takes a certain amount of training, regular exercise and decent treatment to have a decent dog of any breed, but I have, again, known many, many pit bulls, some of which never go beyond being taken to the dog park a few times a week, and they're fine. Certainly one should expect difficulty if one doesn't exercise a breed which requires exercise, but that difficulty usually involves damage to furniture, etc., rather than other humans; certainly any dog should have socialization in its formative months, and any dog that is abused becomes unpredictable. Beyond that, I know of no BREED which is inately dangerous and requires a "lot" of work to train and exercise. And all of this becomes less after three or four years; aside from possibly labradors (I'm joking, mostly), most breeds calm down a LOT once they mature and don't need as much exercise; even with labs, the biggest danger remains that damned TAIL...!

Huskies are a prime example; if we didn't exercise them daily, they'd drive us nuts, but it would be by bugging us, digging, chewing stuff up, escaping, etc., it wouldn't make them a danger to others. Their prey drive is so strong that I lost two of my pet dwarf rabbits to them--not out of aggressive meanness, Tashi was just "playing" with what he thought of as a toy in one case, and actually STEPPED ON his best bud and broke her neck by accident. Once they matured and managed to catch a couple of moles when hiking, however, it's now truly "prey" and they've killed (and eaten) rats and a couple of squirrels. At the same time, they're absolutely no danger to anyone's cat as long as the cat stands its ground and hisses at them; they back away in terror and cut a wide swath around the cat from then on.

To me, one part is that guns, like cars, and some types of dogs, are mentally connected to machismo, so that some people will collect guns, or own certain types of guns, just as some will deliberately get a pit bull because of their rap. The other is that nowadays and in many places guns are only thought of as one more "thing", not something unique which needs to be dealt with accordingly. Unfortunately so are dogs sometimes; mostly just as a "possession" to have "for the kids" or something, stuck in the back yard and not dealt with, but in relation to what we've been discussing, also AS a weapon by some people, and as protection by others. Guns and dogs both require attention--the remark about the woman at Starbucks never having cleaned her gun or maintained it again being a perfect illustration. That's one of the things that bothers me about it, that the mentality in this country has robbed guns of the RESPECT they deserve by too many who own them.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 5:15 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
A small NOISY dog is good protection. I had a big dog - not for protection, she was a stray who cozied up to me in a parking lot - but it turned out her bark was so loud it literally made the doorbell chimes in the hallway hum when she barked in the living room. There was no way anyone was going to secretly sneak into the house.



My dad was in the post office for over 30 years, much of it as a letter carrier. He got bit by dogs several times. Always by one of those little noisy ones. The big dogs he encountered were almost always well-mannered and confident enough in themselves to be friendly. 'Course that was then. Now-a-days, bozos get a big dog, abuse it, turn it mean, use it to bully folks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 6:23 AM

STORYMARK


Hilarious. He gets called out over and over for false equivalence, so he starts a thread dedicated to it. At least he owns his idiocy.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 17, 2013 12:20 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Niki, what I mean is that a powerful dog in the hands of a jerk is a dangerous beast.

Some men own these dogs and train them as weapons. It's the same as the gun mentality and people who own arsenals of weapons.

'I'm dangerous, don't fuck with me'

When actually they are SCARED, I'd guess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
The problem, as with guns, is the people.



EXACTLY!!!!!

Would you have the authorities round up and euthanize all pit bulls, or prohibit their sale, because some folks breed and train them improperly - to make them aggressive and dangerous? Is it the dog's fault, or the owner's?


Quote:

But dogs are NOTHING like as dangerous, accidentally especially, as guns, so a foolish person can own dogs all their lives and those dogs would never be involved in biting someone. A foolish person can own a gun for a very short time and have something deadly happen; the woman at Starbucks who didn't even remember WHICH PURSE HER GUN WAS IN is a prime example of both that and the fact that we have a problem with the MENTALITY around guns.


Depends on how you define 'dangerous'. As Kiki1 noted earlier...

"DOGS

80 million dogs/ 4.7 million victims/ 800,000 seek medical attention/ 386,000 treated/ 16 die

GUNS

200 million guns/ 180,700 victims/ 76,100 seek medical attention/ 73,500 treated/ 31,076 die"

Of course that includes purposeful injuries by both. If only unintentional injuries were counted, the numbers for dogs would remain about the same, but guns would go down to 14,675 injuries and 606 deaths (per CDC WISQARS data for 2011)

So dogs are way more likely to hurt or require you to get medical treatment, you but guns more likely to kill you.







"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:28 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


I'm so bored by these car/dog analogies. It's surely an argument that only people who are already strongly pro-gun find convincing.

A gun is a tool for killing human beings.

That's its purpose - what it was invented for, and what it's designed to do. Comparing it to other dangerous objects in society that are not specifically designed for killing humans, is of questionable value.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:44 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

a gun is a tool for killing human beings.



It also does work on rattlesnakes, lions, bears, and deer, and cattle or hogs at butchering time.

There are some natural threats or resources for which it is a valid tool.

I will acknowledge that it doesn't get USED for those valid purposes very often, and is most commonly used, as you state, for killing other people, either wholesale in wars, or one on one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


If we were having the actual discussion about dogs, what Magons said:
Quote:

a powerful dog in the hands of a jerk is a dangerous beast.

Some men own these dogs and train them as weapons. It's the same as the gun mentality and people who own arsenals of weapons.

'I'm dangerous, don't fuck with me'

When actually they are SCARED, I'd guess.


Bang on. If not actually scared of whatever it is they want defense AGAINST, scared of not being "top dog" in their social spectrum...or something equally ridiculous.

But of course we're not, or at least Geezer's not; he's playing his same false-equivalency game and will never stop.

As far as that's concerned, "What KPO said":
Quote:

It's surely an argument that only people who are already strongly pro-gun find convincing.

A gun is a tool for killing human beings.

That's its purpose - what it was invented for, and what it's designed to do. Comparing it to other dangerous objects in society that are not specifically designed for killing humans, is of questionable value.


It's a silly "debate", and 16 injuries versus OVER 600 is no argument at all. And it matters not what "accidental" deaths are, it matters that people DIE who don't need to, and dogs have nothing to do with the issue.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:03 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

It also does work on rattlesnakes, lions, bears, and deer, and cattle or hogs at butchering time.

There are some natural threats or resources for which it is a valid tool.


Some guns are designed for hunting animals, and I would say there's a valid argument for them. They're not as effective at killing humans as the guns that are designed for that purpose, and nobody really is talking about banning them.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"... but guns more likely to kill you."

And that's the point. Some things IN THEMSELVES are far more dangerous than others.

Would you consider regulating stuffed bunny rabbit toys - requiring bunny rabbit toy registration, lessons in bunny rabbit toy safety, demonstration of bunny rabbit toy proficiency, bunny rabbit toy background checks?

How about nitroglycerin? Should people need to prove they know how to store and use it safely, and have no documented criminal or psychological issues before they can get it - or should any old bubba be able to get and keep as much as they want, whenever they want it? How would you feel if that crazy old crank, or worse, a Muslim living next door to you, had three tons in their sweltering garage?

If you want to use that equivalency, I say BRING IT. And make your case that dogs are just as serious a problem as guns. If you can.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:30 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
ound checks?

How about nitroglycerin? Should people need to prove they know how to store and use it safely, and have no documented criminal or psychological issues before they can get it - or should any old bubba be able to get and keep as much as they want, whenever they want it? How would you feel if that crazy old crank, or worse, a Muslim living next door to you, had three tons in their sweltering garage?





I carry it around with me, or have it within arms reach, 24/7. Not 3 tons worth, that would be too heavy to carry, but in a 40 milligram dose, it's a life-saving heart medication. ALL I had to do get a prescription from my doctor.


Which is, of course, not your point. You're right. My usage is the exception, and the quantity trivial.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


If you are medically in need of 'nitro' you have my sympathies ... and fyi maybe you should stay off the board? It could place too much of a demand on your heart.

So, were you able to buy that nitro on the street? Are you allowed to buy as much as you want? Can you use as much as you want without danger? Or is 'nitro' dangerous, even medically, and therefore regulated?

BTW - is this pertinent to the discussion?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:58 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

EXACTLY!!!!!

Would you have the authorities round up and euthanize all pit bulls, or prohibit their sale, because some folks breed and train them improperly - to make them aggressive and dangerous? Is it the dog's fault, or the owner's?





Re Pit Bulls in my state

"Councils across Victoria have the right to seize unregistered restricted breed dogs. Where dogs are deemed by the council to meet the Standard, they will be declared as a Restricted Breed Dog and may be subject to euthanasia. Owners have the right to appeal the Council's decision through VCAT."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"And it matters not what "accidental" deaths are ..."

I'm not even going to argue numbers. The problem is that Geezer ASSUMES that the dog-related deaths are accidental. How does he know? Maybe they're 'accidental', maybe the dog/dogs was/were let loose on someone in the hopes of causing injury or death, maybe the dog/dogs was/were trained and commanded to attack - for all we know a person could use dogs to commit suicide.

The point is you can't ASSUME the deaths are accidental and then start using that assumption to parse the numbers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 09:40 - 638 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:22 - 52 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, November 5, 2024 08:04 - 418 posts
More men contract and die from Covid-19
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:57 - 17 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:52 - 30 posts
All things Space
Tue, November 5, 2024 07:23 - 258 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:48 - 4514 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 5, 2024 06:17 - 7422 posts
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL