Square Singer @ squaresinger @feddit.de

Posts

23

Comments

1,275

Joined

2 yr. ago

That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.

Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn't want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.

They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like "The restaurants are all going to die". Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.

I don't have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.

For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.

You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn't have to be funded by the tax payer. That's what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).

But seriosly, "but regulation costs money" is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.

Social services don't pay for your dog's vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?

Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn't resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.

How dare you using the phone in a different way than Google intended! /s

The graph at the bottom of the article...

The issue is that for every good dog owner who trains their dog, puts it on a leash in public, picks up the dog shit and makes sure their dog can't cause trouble, there is also some idiot who got a dog on a whim, mistreats it and doesn't train it at all.

And most often the people who don't care for training their dog are also the people who don't care to secure the dog in public places.

I know that's a generalisation and there probably are some counter examples. But a "don't care" attitude generally runs through everything a person does.

And having a dog is a multiplier of what trouble that "don't care" attitude can cause.

That's why I am for licensing/inspections. For someone who does care it probably won't change much. They already go to a training course with their dog. Just give them a license for completing the training/make that training mandatory if you don't want to call it a license.

Any reasonable dog owner will be at vet in regular intervals anyway. Just let the vet not only check whether the dog is physically fit, but also if it obeys it's owner and if it shows signs of abuse. And make that checkup mandatory. It's better for the dogs anyway if they get their health checked regularly.

I see why you think it's not necessary, because you might be the kind of dog owner who cares and then it's just additional hassle. But, as I said, there are many who don't care, even if in your bubble (and I don't mean this word negatively) everyone cares for their dogs.

Another issue that should be taken care of. But have you tried getting an aircraft license?

Total agreement.

Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.

Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.

Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.

I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don't care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.

And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like "The dog has never done anything like that". That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.

I don't think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.

I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.

Putting a dog on a leash and muzzle it is how I'd treat a mennace. So I think we are mostly in agreement ;)

Well, as long as we cannot be sure whether a dog owner has done their duty and properly trained the dog, we can never be sure whether a stranger's dog is well trained or a purpously-trained killing machine. Or anything in between.

Over here yes. Happens quite often. Mostly when unsupervised children meet unsupervised dogs.

You pointed out the solution: nobody should be allowed to keeep a dog unless they can prove they know how to correctly train and keep a dog. If the owners are the problem, the owners should be held accountable.

The correct way is to treat every big dog like a mennace.

Fair point. I put the immigrants into the "born into the conflict" category, because they, too, didn't create the conflict to begin with. But you are right, they willingly moved into the situation, for whatever reason that made sense to them.

From the patterns I see in the world, social structures (governments, organisations, ...) are mostly on a downward trend. People in power are mostly concerned with keeping and extending their power, to the detriment of the people they are ruling.

Until it goes to far and there is a crisis so massive, that the people who are in power get swapped out and replaced by a completely different set of people. Then they spend a few years improving the situation until business as usual sets in and the downward trend sets in again.

You can see that e.g. in the founding of America, the time after the US civil war, the time after WW2 in most of Europe and in many other instances. Newly formed countries often take that chance to improve their constitution and government principles.

The thing is, contrary to e.g. Europe, the USA hasn't had a reset like this in a very long time. Hence, corruption is handled almost as if the constitution prescribed it. Compare e.g. how funding for the election campaign of presidential candidates is handled.

In my country, candidates are severely limited in how much they can totally spend on the campaign. The current limit is at €7mio. They have to declare all donations to parties, which are also limited.

In the USA, on the other hand, there is hardly a point trying to become a candidate if you don't have a few billionaires backing you.

That sucks pretty hard.

If you want to, they do offer swimming courses also for adults, at least over here.

It might be worth the investment.

A government doesn't have to be democratically elected. Even a dictatorship that came into power due to a military coup is considered a government.

As long as the Hamas control the area, they are a government.

If you check out the corresponding Wikipedia section (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Governance) you can see, that they are considered a government.