Comments by "Steve Parker" (@steveparker8065) on "banning dogs and Suella braverman" video.

We should also ban muscular people, self-defence experts, trained fighters, and people who work in the armed forces. Because they are all capable of greater damage than most, which is the same as banning 'bully breeds'. My point is a dog or person given a loving environment, family and taught the basics of interactions with others need not be feared. Just because they are capable of greater damage does not mean they should be banned, exceptions obviously should be made for mental or physical illnesses that predispose an animal or human to violence. I agree with Tim, knee jerk reaction from Suella.
5
@terrydaktyllus1320 The ones who train their dogs to fight say the same, it's a basic human response to excuse behaviour. They aren't likely to say "Well, we trained him to fight anyone he saw as a threat, it's not our fault your child acted threatening near him" Seriously...
2
@lamestreammedia3154 You missed the point, the argument put forward is about the ability to harm or do damage based on the breed. I simply put that in terms of a human being. But social conventions are learned by all animals, laws are arbitrary, and they are not morality incarnate. Many laws are unjust, prejudiced, based on class or finance etc.
1
@chrysalis4126 The dog's name was Rocco... The mother also said she warned her daughter to get rid of the dog. That doesn't say much about how well the dogs were treated and it's all anecdotal. If the mother foresaw problems then the dog was obviously acting in a way that indicated such. Maybe a predisposition as mentioned, or lack of training. Either way it's a daily fail story.
1
@lamestreammedia3154 If you have to put words in other people's mouths then you've already lost the debate. I said humans and dogs alike have different abilities to cause harm/damage. A small lapdog like a poodle could present a greater threat than a large dog, simply because of training, illness or behavioural issues. All animals have social conventions, watch a documentary on natural history. People are allowed guns they simply have to fill in a form and follow gun regulations... The law was changed after Dunblane to make it harder to get a gun, but they are accessible to anyone who meets the criteria (not an armed robber) and follows the legislation. People online should learn to understand basic language before entering into debate...
1
@lamestreammedia3154 I'm not interested in your petty misinterpretations of my statement. A poodle is a huge danger to a baby or a child. The point was about the ability to harm being a reason for banning dogs, I'm not getting dragged into some pathetic pedantry. I corrected your misinterpretation of my points and your lack of understanding regarding legal ownership of guns, and my generalisation about "armed robber" was meant to be understood as a reference to criminality negating the right to own a gun. Sorry, but I'm not wasting any more time on your pedantry and petty nonsense... Feel free to have the last word, you aren't debating me when you put words in my mouth and intentionally misinterpret my comments... If you were a dog I'd seriously consider you eligible for being banned...
1