Bull Breed Again

[Born Hunter 17,907]

A lot of good points here, certainly very hard to police but not impossible.......

 

Always going to be the usual crowd whining about why 'they' should be penalised for others mistakes.......it's like whining about having to get a shotgun licence, because some are irresponsible with guns.....

 

The thing is, all that compulsory insurance does is price the less wealthy out of it. It's a completely unfair means of reducing incidents. Do we see no car accidents with high risk groups because they have insurance? NO.... The sole purpose of insurance is to ensure accidents are resolved not avoided. It has the secondary effect of reducing accidents simply because it prices the less wealthy out completely. Legislation and strict enforcement prevents accidents in the first place in a fair way. It's really this simple, if your dog kills someone you do 30 years, if your dog disfigures someone then you do 15 years. Social attitudes with respect to responsibility will change rapidly after a couple of examples have been made and it will have equal effect across the social spectrum.

[Lab 10,979]

 

 

A lot of good points here, certainly very hard to police but not impossible.......

 

Always going to be the usual crowd whining about why 'they' should be penalised for others mistakes.......it's like whining about having to get a shotgun licence, because some are irresponsible with guns.....

The thing is, all that compulsory insurance does is price the less wealthy out of it. It's a completely unfair means of reducing incidents. Do we see no car accidents with high risk groups because they have insurance? NO.... The sole purpose of insurance is to ensure accidents are resolved not avoided. It has the secondary effect of reducing accidents simply because it prices the less wealthy out completely. Legislation and strict enforcement prevents accidents in the first place in a fair way. It's really this simple, if your dog kills someone you do 30 years, if your dog disfigures someone then you do 15 years. Social attitudes with respect to responsibility will change rapidly after a couple of examples have been made and it will have equal effect across the social spectrum.

Wish it was that easy mate. What happens if your laid back dog grabs a hold of your friends bairn completely out of the blue and out of character? Should you do 15 years??

I think the only way is some kind of license....then atleast you'd have to be vetted.

Make it a harsh penalty for not having insurance and owning a dog. Simples.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

 

A lot of good points here, certainly very hard to police but not impossible.......

 

Always going to be the usual crowd whining about why 'they' should be penalised for others mistakes.......it's like whining about having to get a shotgun licence, because some are irresponsible with guns.....

The thing is, all that compulsory insurance does is price the less wealthy out of it. It's a completely unfair means of reducing incidents. Do we see no car accidents with high risk groups because they have insurance? NO.... The sole purpose of insurance is to ensure accidents are resolved not avoided. It has the secondary effect of reducing accidents simply because it prices the less wealthy out completely. Legislation and strict enforcement prevents accidents in the first place in a fair way. It's really this simple, if your dog kills someone you do 30 years, if your dog disfigures someone then you do 15 years. Social attitudes with respect to responsibility will change rapidly after a couple of examples have been made and it will have equal effect across the social spectrum.

Wish it was that easy mate. What happens if your laid back dog grabs a hold of your friends bairn completely out of the blue and out of character? Should you do 15 years??

I think the only way is some kind of license....then atleast you'd have to be vetted.

Make it a harsh penalty for not having insurance and owning a dog. Simples.

 

 

As with all law, it would have to be taken case by case. There's no simple solution, other than a ban. So, are we willing to give up our dogs to save a dozen babies lives a year? That's the bottom line.

 

The only problem I have with insurance is it basically judges your worthiness of owning a given breed of dog on the size of your wallet. So all the poor idiots get removed but all the rich idiots are still present and dangerous...

Edited July 31, 2014 by Born Hunter

[whippet 99 2,613]

its quite simple , no matter how well you think you know your dog , any dog being that, never take the chance or I don't anyway. you see pics of the bull breeds with toddlers / babies climbing over them like its our soft pet, one bite and its a dead child , personally cant reason with anyone that takes the risk, and that's with any dog

[Accip74 7,112]

 

A lot of good points here, certainly very hard to police but not impossible.......

Always going to be the usual crowd whining about why 'they' should be penalised for others mistakes.......it's like whining about having to get a shotgun licence, because some are irresponsible with guns.....

 

The thing is, all that compulsory insurance does is price the less wealthy out of it. It's a completely unfair means of reducing incidents. Do we see no car accidents with high risk groups because they have insurance? NO.... The sole purpose of insurance is to ensure accidents are resolved not avoided. It has the secondary effect of reducing accidents simply because it prices the less wealthy out completely. Legislation and strict enforcement prevents accidents in the first place in a fair way. It's really this simple, if your dog kills someone you do 30 years, if your dog disfigures someone then you do 15 years. Social attitudes with respect to responsibility will change rapidly after a couple of examples have been made and it will have equal effect across the social spectrum.

So have social attitudes changed towards drug smuggling? Just as much go's on as ever, despite 15 year jail time being common place......

Another example is smoking......people have known for many many years it gives you cancer, but what's really helped to decrease smoking?.....hitting the public where it hurts....in the wallet & of course inconvenience, with public prohibitation.

I do agree with you in some ways, but shock tactics with long sentences don't always work, hitting people on an every day level seems to sink in more, even though it may seem unfair.

The toughest thing would be assessing the levels.......is a cane corso more dangerous than a German Shepard? etc etc it just go's on & on.......it would always seem unfair on someone.

But I think the growing trend in importing pressa's, corso's etc etc & these subsequently being crossed with pit types is a recipe for disaster........the more serious incidents will become more common & I think hitting people financially could help.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Accip74

[dare 1,103]

Have to attend dog classes with your dog? Money spent on that rather than say insurance. I'm not saying we all want our dogs being able to dance with us and what not. Just surprises me how many people go and buy a dog they like the look of without any experience. Have seen women get into such a panic when their ratty dogs have gone at it making noise in the park. God help someone with that mentality owning a bull breed. Remember walking my Stafford and was asked by another person with a Stafford what's the stick for that I dropped. Told her its my vampire stake lol look on her face I didnt even want to bother educating her on what a break stick is. Some people just haven't got a clue and no experience in handling dogs. Dog class teach them the basics and install into them the law and what will happen if they allow their dog to be out of control.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

 

A lot of good points here, certainly very hard to police but not impossible.......

Always going to be the usual crowd whining about why 'they' should be penalised for others mistakes.......it's like whining about having to get a shotgun licence, because some are irresponsible with guns.....

The thing is, all that compulsory insurance does is price the less wealthy out of it. It's a completely unfair means of reducing incidents. Do we see no car accidents with high risk groups because they have insurance? NO.... The sole purpose of insurance is to ensure accidents are resolved not avoided. It has the secondary effect of reducing accidents simply because it prices the less wealthy out completely. Legislation and strict enforcement prevents accidents in the first place in a fair way. It's really this simple, if your dog kills someone you do 30 years, if your dog disfigures someone then you do 15 years. Social attitudes with respect to responsibility will change rapidly after a couple of examples have been made and it will have equal effect across the social spectrum.

So have social attitudes changed towards drug smuggling? Just as much go's on as ever, despite 15 year jail time being common place......

Another example is smoking......people have known for many many years it gives you cancer, but what's really helped to decrease smoking?.....hitting the public where it hurts....in the wallet & of course inconvenience, with public prohibitation.

I do agree with you in some ways, but shock tactics with long sentences don't always work, hitting people on an every day level seems to sink in more, even though it may seem unfair.

The toughest thing would be assessing the levels.......is a cane corso more dangerous than a German Shepard? etc etc it just go's on & on.......it would always seem unfair on someone.

But I think the growing trend in importing pressa's, corso's etc etc & these subsequently being crossed with pit types is a recipe for disaster........the more serious incidents will become more common & I think hitting people financially could help.

 

 

I don't believe you can compare organised crime stats with accidents or careless behaviour. I don't believe serious criminals operate the same as your everyday joe bloggs. Perhaps you're right, has harsher drink drive sentencing improved public responsibility to drink driving? I dunno....

 

But it still doesn't change the fact that you're only legislating against the poor with insurance for dogs. So now we don't have poor babies being mauled in their cots so much but just wealthy babies. And how do you determine the risk catagory of a given dog? Say a cross breed? "My mates mongrel covered my mongrel.... pups kinda look houndy but heavy. What's my premium?"

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

A lot of good points here, certainly very hard to police but not impossible.......

Always going to be the usual crowd whining about why 'they' should be penalised for others mistakes.......it's like whining about having to get a shotgun licence, because some are irresponsible with guns.....

 

The thing is, all that compulsory insurance does is price the less wealthy out of it. It's a completely unfair means of reducing incidents. Do we see no car accidents with high risk groups because they have insurance? NO.... The sole purpose of insurance is to ensure accidents are resolved not avoided. It has the secondary effect of reducing accidents simply because it prices the less wealthy out completely. Legislation and strict enforcement prevents accidents in the first place in a fair way. It's really this simple, if your dog kills someone you do 30 years, if your dog disfigures someone then you do 15 years. Social attitudes with respect to responsibility will change rapidly after a couple of examples have been made and it will have equal effect across the social spectrum.

So have social attitudes changed towards drug smuggling? Just as much go's on as ever, despite 15 year jail time being common place......

Another example is smoking......people have known for many many years it gives you cancer, but what's really helped to decrease smoking?.....hitting the public where it hurts....in the wallet & of course inconvenience, with public prohibitation.

I do agree with you in some ways, but shock tactics with long sentences don't always work, hitting people on an every day level seems to sink in more, even though it may seem unfair.

The toughest thing would be assessing the levels.......is a cane corso more dangerous than a German Shepard? etc etc it just go's on & on.......it would always seem unfair on someone.

But I think the growing trend in importing pressa's, corso's etc etc & these subsequently being crossed with pit types is a recipe for disaster........the more serious incidents will become more common & I think hitting people financially could help.

I don't believe you can compare organised crime stats with accidents or careless behaviour. I don't believe serious criminals operate the same as your everyday joe bloggs. Perhaps you're right, has harsher drink drive sentencing improved public responsibility to drink driving? I dunno....

 

But it still doesn't change the fact that you're only legislating against the poor with insurance for dogs. So now we don't have poor babies being mauled in their cots so much but just wealthy babies. And how do you determine the risk catagory of a given dog? Say a cross breed? "My mates mongrel covered my mongrel.... pups kinda look houndy but heavy. What's my premium?"

Ok maybe not the best comparison.........what about working class young drivers? I don't know the stats born.....but are there less on the road? since average insurance for the young has more than quadrupled in recent years.......I know there's certainly more driving schools than ever, the point being, mandatory insurance doesn't necessarily exclude working class people.....

I'm not sure a long term risk is more effective than an every day tax....

Edited July 31, 2014 by Accip74

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

Ok maybe not the best comparison.........what about working class young drivers? I don't know the stats born.....but are there less on the road? since average insurance for the young has more than quadrupled in recent years.......I know there's certainly more driving schools than ever, the point being, mandatory insurance doesn't necessarily exclude working class people.....

I'm not sure a long term risk is more effective than an every day tax....

 

 

How many working class young drivers can afford anything more than a ten year old 1lt fiesta/corsa though? Then how many multi millionaires kids get a 200+bhp BMW as their first motor? The only difference is money, you're not taking the risk away by charging a huge sum, you're just reducing the number of potential accidents waiting to happen by pricing out the less wealthy. So no more poor babies being mauled just those from wealthy families.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

This insurance argument to me is the same as the argument for big price tags on pups "it prices out the idots!"....... no it doesn't, it prices out the less wealthy.

 

The wealthy idiots crack on as usual....

[treecreeper 1,136]

why would anyone want another insurance premium to pay? There has always and will always will be knob heads, lining insurance companies pockets wont change anything.

Edited July 31, 2014 by treecreeper

[Accip74 7,112]

 

Ok maybe not the best comparison.........what about working class young drivers? I don't know the stats born.....but are there less on the road? since average insurance for the young has more than quadrupled in recent years.......I know there's certainly more driving schools than ever, the point being, mandatory insurance doesn't necessarily exclude working class people.....

I'm not sure a long term risk is more effective than an every day tax....

 

How many working class young drivers can afford anything more than a ten year old 1lt fiesta/corsa though? Then how many multi millionaires kids get a 200+bhp BMW as their first motor? The only difference is money, you're not taking the risk away by charging a huge sum, you're just reducing the number of potential accidents waiting to happen by pricing out the less wealthy. So no more poor babies being mauled just those from wealthy families.

But their still paying over a £1000 a year regardless of the model, & will pay it regardless of background..........insurance on dogs won't price out the poorer or anyone else........but it may make people think more about what their getting.

There's no definitive answer & maybe no solution.......do we just have to learn to live with it?

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

 

Ok maybe not the best comparison.........what about working class young drivers? I don't know the stats born.....but are there less on the road? since average insurance for the young has more than quadrupled in recent years.......I know there's certainly more driving schools than ever, the point being, mandatory insurance doesn't necessarily exclude working class people.....

I'm not sure a long term risk is more effective than an every day tax....

How many working class young drivers can afford anything more than a ten year old 1lt fiesta/corsa though? Then how many multi millionaires kids get a 200+bhp BMW as their first motor? The only difference is money, you're not taking the risk away by charging a huge sum, you're just reducing the number of potential accidents waiting to happen by pricing out the less wealthy. So no more poor babies being mauled just those from wealthy families.

But their still paying over a £1000 a year regardless of the model, & will pay it regardless of background..........insurance on dogs won't price out the poorer or anyone else........but it may make people think more about what their getting.

There's no definitive answer & maybe no solution.......do we just have to learn to live with it?

 

 

So what exactly have you achieved if you are not putting high risk dogs out of the reach of the average joe? You're saying nothing will change other than everyone has to pay insurance? So babies still getting mauled because everyone can still afford their high risk dogs.... only now we hav insurance companies earning off of this situation! Why will paying affordable insurance suddenly make high risk individuals think harder about the risks, after all they have insurance to pay out damages?

[AKA-BRINDLE 879]

more nails than wood in that thar bull breed coffin...

yokel

 

The streets are full of more pitbulls than poodles...they better get a bigger coffin!

[stabba 10,745]

I'll say it again. Muzzle all dogs in a public area. if shit happens in the privacy of your own property then that's summat you'll have to live with for the rest of your days. 3 strikes and out on the muzzle in public scenario.