Why do westeners (particularly americans and canadians) think they have the right to own pets? 4...

why do westeners (particularly americans and canadians) think they have the right to own pets? 4.5 million bites a year all so your wife can have her dog lick her lips

Attached: AVMA-DogBite-Infographic.jpg (722x2520, 878K)

Why is it any of your business what pets people have?

go home zhang

it becomes my business when your dog bites me and i have to mace it
>t. MY dog would never do that

oh and i don't think pets should be banned, i just think that people should have to get a license first

No, he wouldn't, because he's not a pit bull and he's trained not to.

If your dog bites someone, it's not the dog's fault, it's your fault for not training it properly and/or mistreating it.

If a dog is attacking you, you are of course entirely within your rights to defend yourself. If you get bitten, you can of course sue for damages. It's still none of your fucking business what pets people own.

It's none of the government's fucking business either.

>If your dog bites someone, it's not the dog's fault, it's your fault for not training it properly and/or mistreating it.
if 4.5 million dogs a year are biting that means according to your logic that means each year 4.5 million people are dog owners.
if your logic is correct, shouldn't those 4.5 million owners not be allowed to own dogs/pets because they trained the pets wrong or "mistreated" them

right so i need a license to go fishing but I can own a 200 lb dog that could maul a child or small adult to death without one

Attached: pepe annoyed.jpg (499x481, 28K)

It's entirely up to the 4.5 million people who got bit whether to not sue them or not. If it turns out that those people have treated their animals inhumanely, THEN the government should get involved. And only then.

>if 4.5 million dogs a year are biting that means according to your logic that means each year 4.5 million people are dog owners.
Did you not read your own stats? 4.5 million dogs a year are not biting people, but rather 4.5 million people are being bitten by dogs. I think we can safely assume that at least some of those bites are being carried out by the same dogs.
But that's irrelevant anyway. If your dog is consistently aggressive then sure, it should be taken away and you shouldn't be able to own a pet for a set period of time, but the number of people being bitten by dogs is pretty low given that some 38% of houses have a dog. Why punish everyone else for a few retards not taking the time to train they're dog?

>whataboutism
You absolutely should not need a license to go fishing, only the landowner's permission.

and take it on walks without a leash in public. depending on the area.
>because it's a "good dog" which would "never harm anyone",
thinking about buying a gorget or something similar to just protect myself from these fucking giant pitbulls I see roaming around.

I mean I'd also want CC-gun but a gorget could be better as there's generally no real restrictions against what is essentially an article of clothing.

that's like saying a drunk drivers should get his license taken away only after he hits someone.
If we know we can stop a problem preemptively, we should. when someone gets a dui, he immediately faces is consequences, but only after someones dog bites a kid does something happen.
IMO, if you live on a farm or something, yeah go ahead and buy all the pets you want. but if you live in a city, you should at least need to get a license first.

>Police! This man is letting his dog bite children!

Attached: 1554557141711.jpg (1200x800, 61K)

Sure it is thats why we ban exotic pets. We background check if the animal goes to a good home not some crazy incel thatll fuck it

Dogs are just like dumb children, they only learn if you beat them. But they do learn.

>that's like saying a drunk drivers should get his license taken away only after he hits someone.
Absolutely correct.
>If we know we can stop a problem preemptively, we should
Wrong.
>when someone gets a dui, he immediately faces is consequences, but only after someones dog bites a kid does something happen.
One of these is wrong, one is right.
>IMO, if you live on a farm or something, yeah go ahead and buy all the pets you want. but if you live in a city, you should at least need to get a license first.
None or your or your government's fucking business.

No, you ban exotic pets because you're a draconian shithole with no concept of individual rights and responsibilities. Don't worry, we are too.

You are retarded. Dogs are domesticated but they are still animals outside of your complete control. Some dogs will bite regardless of how well you’ve trained them, training minimizes that likelihood, it does not eliminate it. Dogs should require a licensing fee and a mandatory obedience training course. Too many fucking idiots out there who think their dogs are so lovable and incapable of acting out to complete strangers.

None of your or your government's fucking business.

Reminder that any dog who bites a human should be put down.

No you mong, if you train your dog well then there is more or less no chance of it randomly deciding to attack someone.

> training minimizes that likelihood, it does not eliminate it. Dogs should require a licensing fee and a mandatory obedience training course.
Well what the fuck is the point if (by your logic) they're still going to bite people anyway

Besides, we already have enough licences here and dogs actually doing any severe damage to anyone is enough to make the news.

If you really believe drunk drivers should only have their license taken away after they hit someone, you and I just have different world views.

They can make it their business if they want. Which i am in favour of.

Are you absolutely fucking retarded? No amount of training can curb an animals instinctual nature for certain. That is nature.

The idea is to reduce the frequency of bites, it is impossible to remove dog bites aside from removing dogs. Much like its impossible to stop knife violence without removing all knives.

As it stands now, a person only needs to pay a fee and register the animal, there is no regulation governing individuals that they must train their dogs in obedience to curb aggressive behaviour.

They should have their licenses taken away and they themselves should be locked up. For good, if necessary, and depending on the extent of damage caused. It's the responsibility of the individuals to act responsibly, and it's dependent on the individual what exactly is responsible behaviour. No individual should ever be punished for the fuck-ups of others, and that includes having to deal with licensing fees and tests just because some idiots cannot control their dogs. Or their motor vehicles.

Get fucked, commie.

Here’s hoping to you getting mauled by a rabid dog you steppe nigger.

No amount of training can remove the nature of the human species either. Yet it is the responsibility of the parents to teach their offspring properly, and government should stay the fuck away from family matters. Hell, the government should stay the fuck away from individual business, full stop.

If I do, it will be the fault of my government that has made it illegal for me to carry firearms to protect myself.

I don't care, it's literally a non-issue. I don't know about in Canada, but like I said, if here, a dog does actual damage to anyone, it's going to be in the news. People don't need to be forced by the government to train their dogs because they do it anyway.

>Much like its impossible to stop knife violence without removing all knives.
I'd know. And I'd rather have isolated incidents of knife crime rather than imposing ridiculous laws that make it needlessly difficult for people to purchase knives. The same goes for dogs, but even less so because dog bites are not a fucking problem.

Hear, hear.

>4.5 million a year
>literally not a problem