most dangerous dog breeds, least dangerous dog breeds, and why

[ronburgundy]

The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. Owners are rarely charged with anything unless the dogs kills or severely mauls someone. More minor bites are many times more common. Thus making owners criminally and financially responsible for any and all attacks would go a long way toward reducing breeding and owning of aggressive animals and dog ownership in general, which would be a good thing. IOW, nealy all bites should lead to jail time for the owner, massive fines, and full responsibility for medical costs plus pain and suffering. All owners should be made to feel like dog ownership entails the risk of ruining their own life, if that dog ever harms someone.
Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

I disagree. I don't think the owner should be responsible for a provoked attack, only for unprovoked attacks.

Treat it the same as if the owner had attacked the person. Just like violent responses can be legit to an instigator, so can bites. However, the owner must show that the damage caused by the dog is a warranted level of response to the level of provocation. If it wasn't okay for the owner to have punched the provocateur in that situation, then it wan't okay for their dog to bite the person.
IOW, treat the dog as an extension of the owner. Current law is not being enforced that way. Owners get off with no penalty in most bite cases, even when the attacked person did not initiate physical aggression (thus it wasn't a form of self-defense).

 

[ronburgundy]

It is beyond reasonable to hold someone who chooses to have an animal capable of severely maiming another person criminally responsible for any harm to others caused by that animal. Whether the person tried to but failed to contain the beast does not absolve them of having chosen to even have a non-human carnivorous beast capable of and evolved to rip the throat from animals larger than a human infant.
The law isn't nearly harsh enough. Virtually never is an owner prosecuted when they shouldn't be, but the majority of the almost 1 million dog bites every year should lead to criminal charges but are not prosecuted as such. BTW, that includes criminal charges of child abuse when the dog bites the owner's own child.

It is good to see you back off a bit from "Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant." and that a dog attack might be treated as justifiable self-defense depending on the circumstances.

I'm not backing off of that. I said it should be treated like a case of the owner engaging in physical violence. Thus, obviously when the owner or dog itself is being attacked, then the dog has a "right" to respond. Taking precautions doesn't really apply to a situation where there is a violent attacker that the dog is reacting to. It is in reference to where the dog is the instigator but the owner tried and failed to keep it contained or restrained. IOW, there should be no need to prove negligence on the owners part, rather the owner must prove that the biting was justified self-defense. Precautionary efforts by the owner to keep the dog in his house, yard, or on leash should do little to reduce their culpability if the dog is the aggressor and violence wasn't warranted as a form of self-defense. IOW, you are walking with your dog on a leash past someone on the sidewalk, and all of a sudden the dog bites the person. You are guilty of criminal assault, despite it being on a leash and regardless of whether it was "an accident", because it was not an accident that you brought a potentially deadly animal to a public place.

 

[laughing dog]

It is good to see you back off a bit from "Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant." and that a dog attack might be treated as justifiable self-defense depending on the circumstances.

I'm not backing off of that. ...

You wrote "The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. " which, as written, is unreasonable. At least where I live, police investigate before charging someone with criminal assault. Presumably, that means that people who engage in self-defense are not charged. It is heartening to see you clarify that position to a more reasonable one.

 

[Metaphor]

Not in the USA. Pedestrians legally cross roads and streets.

This has reached parody levels of absurdity. I did not say pedestrians were not allowed to cross roads and streets. I said roads were designed for cars to drive on, not for pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians crossing is a side-effect of having roads for cars. No-one puts in a road just so pedestrians can cross it.

In the USA, in most states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians.

I did not suggest drivers shouldn't stop for pedestrians. If a pedestrian illegally crossed a freeway in front of me while I was driving, I'd brake to avoid her, because I'm not an insane psychopath. That doesn't mean roads are designed for pedestrians to cross.

Owing a car introduces risk into the population: the risk of an accident.

Yes, which is why they are confined to roads and driveways and parents tell their kids not to play on the road. Well, responsible parents do.

No, your poor reasoning and straw men are not funny at all.

Like the strawman you erected and ran with this post? The one where you imply I think it's illegal for pedestrians to cross roads? That kind of strawman?

One absurdity doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.

 

[Metaphor]

Nope. For centuries we've accepted as a society that pets and dogs are necessary.

Ludicrous. Mind-bogglingly ludicrous. Animals involved in primary production are necessary. Pets -- the idea that someone would keep an animal that provides only companionship and is a net cost to the owner -- would have been totally alien to most people that ever lived.

The rest of your argument is poor reasoning. If cars and trucks suddenly disappeared with no notice, there would be a costly adjustment period. But if they disappeared because a better technology arose, then there would be a gradual adjust cost but it would be more than offset by the benefit of the better technology.

If cars and trucks disappeared with no notice, billions would die. Literally billions.

If dogs, including guide dogs and working dogs, disappeared tomorrow, the price of food would go up for a while and the blind would have a much lower quality of life. The idea that pets are necessary is as absurd as the idea that gyms are necessary. It's only the extreme wealth of the 20th century that people can pay money to go to a place to exercise, instead of getting their exercise by working from dawn to dusk.

Same thing is true for most dog attacks. You can notice a dog and change directions. Or not try to pet the strange dog. Moreover, the likelihood of death or major injury to a pedestrian from being struck by a car is probably magnitudes larger than that from someone attacked by a dog.

I want to get this straight: do you believe if an unleashed dog is on the sidewalk, the onus is on me to change directions to avoid it? The onus is not on the owner to not have an unleashed dog?

 

[laughing dog]

Ludicrous. Mind-bogglingly ludicrous. Animals involved in primary production are necessary. Pets -- the idea that someone would keep an animal that provides only companionship and is a net cost to the owner -- would have been totally alien to most people that ever lived.

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

If cars and trucks disappeared with no notice, billions would die. Literally billions.

More hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

If dogs, including guide dogs and working dogs, disappeared tomorrow, the price of food would go up for a while and the blind would have a much lower quality of life. The idea that pets are necessary is as absurd as the idea that gyms are necessary. It's only the extreme wealth of the 20th century that people can pay money to go to a place to exercise, instead of getting their exercise by working from dawn to dusk.

More hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

I want to get this straight: do you believe if an unleashed dog is on the sidewalk, the onus is on me to change directions to avoid it? The onus is not on the owner to not have an unleashed dog?

No dog should be roaming free and untended. But the onus is irrelevant. If one sees an unleashed dog on the sidewalk and is worried about one's possible safety, then one should avoid the dog. It really is that simple. This is not about fairness but common sense about personal safety.

BTW, where I live, I am allowed to have my dog unleashed on my property (which includes the sidewalk). And I have had people come across the street to my property while I have been weeding my lawn with my dog lying by my side and tell me that my dog is worrying them - the dog that has taken no notice of them whatsoever. So, if you were walking towards my property and I had my dog unleashed and by my side, and you were worried about your safety, then the onus would be on you to either cross the street, change directions or politely let me know about your worries, so I would hold him by his collar.

 

[laughing dog]

This has reached parody levels of absurdity.

I agree but disagree on the source.

I did not say pedestrians were not allowed to cross roads and streets. I said roads were designed for cars to drive on, not for pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians crossing is a side-effect of having roads for cars. No-one puts in a road just so pedestrians can cross it.

Roads are designed for safety of drives and pedestrians in the USA. Your claim is simply untrue for the USA. I have no idea what is true where you live. You also wrote " The onus is not on a car driver to crawl along at 5km/hr, eyes glued to either side of the road lest a pedestrian blithely walks into traffic". Again, I have no idea what the law or expectations are where you live, but in most US states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians but not expected to crawl along as cited in your absurd example.

Like the strawman you erected and ran with this post? The one where you imply I think it's illegal for pedestrians to cross roads? That kind of strawman?

I made no such implication. I apologize for trying to be clear when refuting your counter-factual claims.

 

[Deepak]

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric indeed. Pray tell what necessity is fulfilled by pets?

Isn't this a parallel to the argument in gun ownership threads where guns once served a societal purpose, but now they're not necessary to modern life?

What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

 

[Deepak]

I agree but disagree on the source.

I did not say pedestrians were not allowed to cross roads and streets. I said roads were designed for cars to drive on, not for pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians crossing is a side-effect of having roads for cars. No-one puts in a road just so pedestrians can cross it.

Roads are designed for safety of drives and pedestrians in the USA. Your claim is simply untrue for the USA. I have no idea what is true where you live. You also wrote " The onus is not on a car driver to crawl along at 5km/hr, eyes glued to either side of the road lest a pedestrian blithely walks into traffic". Again, I have no idea what the law or expectations are where you live, but in most US states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians but not expected to crawl along as cited in your absurd example.

Like the strawman you erected and ran with this post? The one where you imply I think it's illegal for pedestrians to cross roads? That kind of strawman?

I made no such implication. I apologize for trying to be clear when refuting your counter-factual claims.

Drivers are required to stop for pedestrians at designated areas for crossing (ie crosswalks). There's no legal requirement to stop for a pedestrian on uncontrolled sections of the road, and fault in such an accident would be assessed like any other road hazard. Ex https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section11

And to add to that - jaywalking, though rarely ticketed, is an offense.

Now I have no desire to play the part of Joe Viterbo, but I'd be happy if these folks got savaged by a gorilla for about 15 mins or so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. I don't think the owner should be responsible for a provoked attack, only for unprovoked attacks.

Treat it the same as if the owner had attacked the person. Just like violent responses can be legit to an instigator, so can bites. However, the owner must show that the damage caused by the dog is a warranted level of response to the level of provocation. If it wasn't okay for the owner to have punched the provocateur in that situation, then it wan't okay for their dog to bite the person.
IOW, treat the dog as an extension of the owner. Current law is not being enforced that way. Owners get off with no penalty in most bite cases, even when the attacked person did not initiate physical aggression (thus it wasn't a form of self-defense).

I disagree--humans can judge what's appropriate far more than dogs can. If a reasonably-trained dog would have likely reacted to the provocation I don't feel that the level of force the dog uses has any bearing on the situation.

 

[Metaphor]

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

No. You are simply wrong on the facts. Companion animals that were a net economic cost would have been literally inconceivable to the vast majority of humans who ever lived. Please tell me in what sense pets are necessary. Or are you backing away from that self-evidently ludicrous claim?

More hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

No. I don't know how you think food gets from the farm to you, but I guarantee you transport is involved.

More hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

Where's the hyperbole? What am I handwaving away?

No dog should be roaming free and untended. But the onus is irrelevant. If one sees an unleashed dog on the sidewalk and is worried about one's possible safety, then one should avoid the dog. It really is that simple. This is not about fairness but common sense about personal safety.

And if a woman sees a man on the sidewalk and is worried about her possible safety, then she should avoid the man. It really is that simple.

BTW, where I live, I am allowed to have my dog unleashed on my property (which includes the sidewalk). And I have had people come across the street to my property while I have been weeding my lawn with my dog lying by my side and tell me that my dog is worrying them - the dog that has taken no notice of them whatsoever. So, if you were walking towards my property and I had my dog unleashed and by my side, and you were worried about your safety, then the onus would be on you to either cross the street, change directions or politely let me know about your worries, so I would hold him by his collar.

So your first piece of advice is to avoid the dog, and your second piece of advice is to come up to the dog.

In Australia, owners do not own the sidewalk in front of their house. The sidewalk and nature strip belong to the government.

I have a neighbour who has his dog unleashed on the sidewalk while he is cleaning his car. The dog never fails to come bounding up to me. The owner calls the dog off -- eventually -- after the requisite line that the dog likes me. Like all caninephiles, the owner was oblivious to the idea that some humans want to get to the bus stop unmolested.

 

[Metaphor]

Roads are designed for safety of drives and pedestrians in the USA.

No, roads are designed for cars to drive on. That is the purpose of a road. Pedestrians need to cross roads but that's a side effect of having a road.

Your claim is simply untrue for the USA.

So in the USA, roads are designed for pedestrians to cross, but not for cars to drive on?

I didn't realise there was a special mania in the US for crossing roads. In Australia, you have to cross roads as a consequence of the roads being there, but no highway was ever built whose purpose it was for pedestrians to cross.

I've never been to the US. What a strange place it seems!

Again, I have no idea what the law or expectations are where you live, but in most US states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians but not expected to crawl along as cited in your absurd example.

In kindergarten, we were told to look left, look right, look left again, and keep looking as you cross. Cross at pedestrian lights or zebra crossings.

In kindergarten, I understood this was because roads were for cars and crossing roads was an unavoidable side effect of having roads.

What were you taught in kindergarten? Was it that roads were designed for pedestrians to cross? Sue your school.

I made no such implication. I apologize for trying to be clear when refuting your counter-factual claims.

Of course you made the implication. You said it was untrue that roads were designed for cars to drive on. Among other errors of logic, you implied that the fact that car drivers may be legally required to stop for pedestrians means the purpose of a road is for pedestrians to cross. This is rather like claiming that the purpose of pianos is so that piano tuners can have gainful employment.

I'd prefer not to pursue your failed road crossing analogy, frankly.

If your unleashed dog mauled a child who went on to your property, would you feel any responsibility?

 

[laughing dog]

Drivers are required to stop for pedestrians at designated areas for crossing (ie crosswalks). There's no legal requirement to stop for a pedestrian on uncontrolled sections of the road, and fault in such an accident would be assessed like any other road hazard. Ex https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section11

It depends where you live. Most of the states where I have lived except one, drivers were required to stop for pedestrians even if they were not in designated areas.

 

[Metaphor]

Drivers are required to stop for pedestrians at designated areas for crossing (ie crosswalks). There's no legal requirement to stop for a pedestrian on uncontrolled sections of the road, and fault in such an accident would be assessed like any other road hazard. Ex https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section11

It depends where you live. Most of the states where I have lived except one, drivers were required to stop for pedestrians even if they were not in designated areas.

Does that mean roads are designed for pedestrians to cross?

 

[laughing dog]

So in the USA, roads are designed for pedestrians to cross, but not for cars to drive on?

While I understand my statement had a typo, I still find it hard to believe anyone who read "Roads are designed for safety of drives and pedestrians in the USA" with even basic reading comprehension would come up with such a straw man question.

Of course you made the implication.

Nope.

You said it was untrue that roads were designed for cars to drive on.

No, I did not.

Among other errors of logic, you implied that the fact that car drivers may be legally required to stop for pedestrians means the purpose of a road is for pedestrians to cross.

No, I did not.

I'd prefer not to pursue your failed road crossing analogy, frankly.

You have been pursuing a set of bizarre straw men of your creation. You have not touched my road crossing analogy at all.

If your unleashed dog mauled a child who went on to your property, would you feel any responsibility?

Of course. I don't think that is a likely worry because if I my dog exhibited the least bit of that type of aggressiveness or instability, the dog would be on a leash if it was outside of our fenced in backyard.

- - - Updated - - -

It depends where you live. Most of the states where I have lived except one, drivers were required to stop for pedestrians even if they were not in designated areas.

Does that mean roads are designed for pedestrians to cross?

Where I live, roads are designed for the safety of drivers and possible pedestrians.

 

[laughing dog]

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric.

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric indeed. Pray tell what necessity is fulfilled by pets?

Isn't this a parallel to the argument in gun ownership threads where guns once served a societal purpose, but now they're not necessary to modern life?

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

 

[laughing dog]

No. You are simply wrong on the facts....

We disagree.

No. I don't know how you think food gets from the farm to you, but I guarantee you transport is involved.

Finally, a statement that corresponds to reality. Unfortunately, you think it somehow substantiates your claim about a hypothetical world in which all automobile transport mysteriously disappears thereby causing billions to die.

And if a woman sees a man on the sidewalk and is worried about her possible safety, then she should avoid the man. It really is that simple.

Yes. It may not be fair, but you either avoid the potential danger or you don’t in that situation. Do you have a reality-based alternative?

So your first piece of advice is to avoid the dog, and your second piece of advice is to come up to the dog.

You have 2 choices - avoid the dog or ask the owner to restrain the dog in order to assuage your concerns. Do you have any reality-based alternatives to add?

I have a neighbour who has his dog unleashed on the sidewalk while he is cleaning his car. The dog never fails to come bounding up to me. The owner calls the dog off -- eventually -- after the requisite line that the dog likes me. Like all caninephiles, the owner was oblivious to the idea that some humans want to get to the bus stop unmolested.

Fascinating that you believe you know can read the minds of all caninephiles.

 

[Deepak]

Hyperbolic handwaving rhetoric indeed. Pray tell what necessity is fulfilled by pets?

Isn't this a parallel to the argument in gun ownership threads where guns once served a societal purpose, but now they're not necessary to modern life?

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

Ipse dixit.

I don't because this is a false analogy for multiple reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, we've accepted as a society that automobiles are necessary to life in the modern world. If we imagined a world where cars and trucks one day disappeared there would be serious structural changes to our society that would need to be made in order to prevent a host of serious problems. No such case can be made for dogs. One is a necessary evil, and the other is an unnecessary evil.

Nope. For centuries we've accepted as a society that pets and dogs are necessary. The rest of your argument is poor reasoning. If cars and trucks suddenly disappeared with no notice, there would be a costly adjustment period. But if they disappeared because a better technology arose, then there would be a gradual adjust cost but it would be more than offset by the benefit of the better technology.

If you're not claiming they're comparable then this is the loosest definition of 'necessary' I've ever encountered. (And for the record your alluding to an alternate technology was a case of handwaving as you were dodging the actual measure of necessity being posed by the hypothetical).

 

[laughing dog]

No.

[
What critical role do pets serve which makes them comparable to vehicles? It was your analogy after all - so you can't then dismiss any responses to it as rhetoric as if you're pulling a Jedi mind trick.

Who said pets are comparable to vehicles? I can dismiss any and all straw men.

Ipse dixit.

An example of meta-irony squared.

If you're not claiming they're comparable then this is the loosest definition of 'necessary' I've ever encountered.

I have no idea what you think you have encountered. I think it is obvious that there are varying degrees of necessity. For example, between motor vehicles and safe water, which is a greater necessity to people?

(And for the record your alluding to an alternate technology was a case of handwaving as you were dodging the actual measure of necessity being posed by the hypothetical).

No, I was delineating between the two general types of "disappearance". In one case, your claim was valid, but in the other case it was not.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course. I don't think that is a likely worry because if I my dog exhibited the least bit of that type of aggressiveness or instability, the dog would be on a leash if it was outside of our fenced in backyard.

You realise, of course, that that is always the claim of owners whose dogs bite others, right? I've never heard an owner claim 'my dog's pretty vicious, so a bite was bound to happen sooner or later'.

Where I live, roads are designed for the safety of drivers and possible pedestrians.

That is a design feature of roads. It is not the purpose of roads. The purpose of any road has never been for pedestrians to cross.