Bull Breed Again

[gnasher16 30,534]

I don't personally know one dog owner who would agree with this

 

I dont know one junkie who thinks heroin should be illegal laws shouldnt be based around what people want they should be based around what works.......making people more responsible with heavier sentancing doesnt work in any crime did bank robberies stop in the 70,s when folk were getting lifed off no of course they didnt people will always chance their arm.......hence to my mind its better to remove the temptation of wrongdoing than punish the outcome of wrongdoing.

Edited July 31, 2014 by gnasher16

[gnasher16 30,534]

 

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.

 

You are calling them the less wealthy......im calling them the unsuitable........should a jobless spotty teenager be legally allowed to get into a 200 mph supercar and create panic on the roads ? no.......so why should he be able to do it legally with a dog ?.......the only thing that stops him doing it with a car is finance.....so why shouldnt a high risk dog owner be treated with the same precaution as a high risk car owner.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

Gnasher, according to a report bank robberies have dropped by 90% in the last decade which is a result of better enforcement of the law. Essentially the chancers have weighed up the risk to reward and it ain't worth it no more. You can increase the risk by either increasing the punishment or the chance of getting caught.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

 

 

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.

 

You are calling them the less wealthy......im calling them the unsuitable........should a jobless spotty teenager be legally allowed to get into a 200 mph supercar and create panic on the roads ? no.......so why should he be able to do it legally with a dog ?.......the only thing that stops him doing it with a car is finance.....so why shouldnt a high risk dog owner be treated with the same precaution as a high risk car owner.

 

 

Should a spoilt spotty entitled little b*****d be allowed to get in a 200mph supercar? All you are doing is pricing out those that haven't the coin. The wealthy idiot remain... To my mind with that logic you might as well just ban anybody from owning a dog that's on the lower tax band.

 

If you want to take a similarity from the motor world, I'd be more in favour of a CBT for dog owners.

[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?

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?

I'm not talking high risk dogs, I'm saying poorer people wouldn't be priced out to own a dog in general.........if you want to strut round with a cane corso then pay top wack......if that prices a lot of people out, tough shite, so maybe people with more money can afford them, but you would ultimately decrease the amount of these shite personel protection dogs being about, & if that decreases the amount of kids killed, then that's a good thing right?? Just because I can't afford many things, I don't winge about it not being fair....that's life.

Fair or not.......it probably wouldn't work anyway, because poor or not, people always find away of getting what they want....it might even increase crime lol

What's the answer? High prison sentences don't stop joe public taking risks..........even in organised crime, it's joe public that take the most risk (mules) & ultimately pay the highest price.....ie..15 years inside.

[whippet 99 2,613]

poor or wealthy shouldn't come into it,......one rule for all

[gnasher16 30,534]

 

 

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.

 

A 200 bhp BMW owned by a 55 year old living in the sticks will probably be around the same figure to insure as a 18 year old Fiesta owner living in London.......the price is reflected in the overall risk..................a high risk dog owned by that same BMW owner is not as high risk as the same dog owned by the Fiesta owner.

[Accip74 7,112]

Gnasher, according to a report bank robberies have dropped by 90% in the last decade which is a result of better enforcement of the law. Essentially the chancers have weighed up the risk to reward and it ain't worth it no more. You can increase the risk by either increasing the punishment or the chance of getting caught.

Bank robberies have decreased, because it's just too hard to do now, there's far easier ways to make money, law enforcement & high prison sentences have always been there. Edited July 31, 2014 by Accip74

[Born Hunter 17,828]

 

I'm not talking high risk dogs, I'm saying poorer people wouldn't be priced out to own a dog in general.........if you want to strut round with a cane corso then pay top wack......if that prices a lot of people out, tough shite, so maybe people with more money can afford them, but you would ultimately decrease the amount of these shite personel protection dogs being about, & if that decreases the amount of kids killed, then that's a good thing right?? Just because I can't afford many things, I don't winge about it not being fair....that's life.

Fair or not.......it probably wouldn't work anyway, because poor or not, people always find away of getting what they want....it might even increase crime lol

What's the answer? High prison sentences don't stop joe public taking risks..........even in organised crime, it's joe public that take the most risk (mules) & ultimately pay the highest price.....ie..15 years inside.

 

 

So why don't we just ban all dogs, f**k it, that'll save babies lives. Completely ban the pet ownership of dogs un the UK. Got to be worth it right? You don't want to live in a world where laws are fair, well I do and frankly that's the whole point in a democracy.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

 

 

 

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.

 

A 200 bhp BMW owned by a 55 year old living in the sticks will probably be around the same figure to insure as a 18 year old Fiesta owner living in London.......the price is reflected in the overall risk..................a high risk dog owned by that same BMW owner is not as high risk as the same dog owned by the Fiesta owner.

 

 

I understand that. But I said nothing of a 55 year old low risk individual. Fact is insurance is costed on a risk bassis, wealth has no bearing on it. So high risk wealthy individuals will NOT be priced out and so remain a very real threat to others. All you are doing is pricing out those that haven't the coin. The idiots with coin still remain. So you may have reduced the threat by X% but in a completely unfair manor. Quite simply, as I have said, poor babies stop being mauled, rich babies continue to be mauled.

[Accip74 7,112]

 

I'm not talking high risk dogs, I'm saying poorer people wouldn't be priced out to own a dog in general.........if you want to strut round with a cane corso then pay top wack......if that prices a lot of people out, tough shite, so maybe people with more money can afford them, but you would ultimately decrease the amount of these shite personel protection dogs being about, & if that decreases the amount of kids killed, then that's a good thing right?? Just because I can't afford many things, I don't winge about it not being fair....that's life.

Fair or not.......it probably wouldn't work anyway, because poor or not, people always find away of getting what they want....it might even increase crime lol

What's the answer? High prison sentences don't stop joe public taking risks..........even in organised crime, it's joe public that take the most risk (mules) & ultimately pay the highest price.....ie..15 years inside.

 

So why don't we just ban all dogs, f**k it, that'll save babies lives. Completely ban the pet ownership of dogs un the UK. Got to be worth it right? You don't want to live in a world where laws are fair, well I do and frankly that's the whole point in a democracy.

What do you think is a good idea then & keeping it fair for all the scrotes who wanna strut round with aggressive dogs?

[gnasher16 30,534]

Gnasher, according to a report bank robberies have dropped by 90% in the last decade which is a result of better enforcement of the law. Essentially the chancers have weighed up the risk to reward and it ain't worth it no more. You can increase the risk by either increasing the punishment or the chance of getting caught.

 

You dont think that might have something to do with cctv/forensics/.....ie technology..........rather than tougher sentancing ?................tougher sentancing for a crime does not stop the crime being committed.....simple.

[Lab 10,979]

 

 

I'm not talking high risk dogs, I'm saying poorer people wouldn't be priced out to own a dog in general.........if you want to strut round with a cane corso then pay top wack......if that prices a lot of people out, tough shite, so maybe people with more money can afford them, but you would ultimately decrease the amount of these shite personel protection dogs being about, & if that decreases the amount of kids killed, then that's a good thing right?? Just because I can't afford many things, I don't winge about it not being fair....that's life.

Fair or not.......it probably wouldn't work anyway, because poor or not, people always find away of getting what they want....it might even increase crime lol

What's the answer? High prison sentences don't stop joe public taking risks..........even in organised crime, it's joe public that take the most risk (mules) & ultimately pay the highest price.....ie..15 years inside.

 

So why don't we just ban all dogs, f**k it, that'll save babies lives. Completely ban the pet ownership of dogs un the UK. Got to be worth it right? You don't want to live in a world where laws are fair, well I do and frankly that's the whole point in a democracy.

I'd quite happily ban all pet dogs, canny see the point in them.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

 

 

I'm not talking high risk dogs, I'm saying poorer people wouldn't be priced out to own a dog in general.........if you want to strut round with a cane corso then pay top wack......if that prices a lot of people out, tough shite, so maybe people with more money can afford them, but you would ultimately decrease the amount of these shite personel protection dogs being about, & if that decreases the amount of kids killed, then that's a good thing right?? Just because I can't afford many things, I don't winge about it not being fair....that's life.

Fair or not.......it probably wouldn't work anyway, because poor or not, people always find away of getting what they want....it might even increase crime lol

What's the answer? High prison sentences don't stop joe public taking risks..........even in organised crime, it's joe public that take the most risk (mules) & ultimately pay the highest price.....ie..15 years inside.

So why don't we just ban all dogs, f**k it, that'll save babies lives. Completely ban the pet ownership of dogs un the UK. Got to be worth it right? You don't want to live in a world where laws are fair, well I do and frankly that's the whole point in a democracy.

What do you think is a good idea then & keeping it fair for all the scrotes who wanna strut round with aggressive dogs?

 

 

I've told you, harsher sentencing and harder enforcement. Gnasher gave an example of bank robberies, a 2 second google showed that in the UK bank jobs have dropped by 90% in the last decade which has been attributed to a greater risk of being caught. Essentially the criminals have taken note of the risks they are taking and packed up that game for easier pickings. Make a few examples and the public will become more aware of the risks they are taking by owning a dog.

 

Possibly also improve education through compulsary basic training in dog ownership.

[gnasher16 30,534]

 

 

Should a spoilt spotty entitled little b*****d be allowed to get in a 200mph supercar? All you are doing is pricing out those that haven't the coin. The wealthy idiot remain... To my mind with that logic you might as well just ban anybody from owning a dog that's on the lower tax band.

 

If you want to take a similarity from the motor world, I'd be more in favour of a CBT for dog owners.

 

 

And whats wrong with pricing out those who cant afford to pay for their mistakes ?..............Besides which,how is it pricing out a sensible middle aged man who lives in the country who,s premium will likely be less than the spotty idiot driving a Fiesta in London