The breed of peace strikes... again

[Lochton]

One Million people in Britain own knives! Surely it is political correctness gone mad to take away all their knives.

No. You simple-minded cretin.

I didn't talk about political correctness. But if all dogs had to be removed from society due to those reasons, then I can at least point at 5 million or more that should be fully gone too.

NO! The owner should be put down.

The dog is doing exactly what its biology tells it to: protecting its territory. It is entirely the fault of the owner.

I said it was. Hence why the owner has to pay and do the charges. People have voted away death penalty - even so, the loss of a finger doesn't equal death for a human being.

Along with all of you twats who don't take the control of a wild animal seriously.

Aaaaand this comment screams to me that I shouldn't talk to you anymore. I know how to control my dog. I have had no harm done to any through the ownership of 4 dogs in total.

But I still expect that a dog, sadly, has to be put down to avoid further issues in the form of baiting the dog to commit harm for insurance fraud, or for the society to ban the family because they have the dog etc.

- - - Updated - - -

People must be trolling here when it comes to banning "all dogs". I'd rather say that not all people should be allowed to get a dog without a proper education beforehand. As far as I remember, staffys are forbidden in Germany and not without a reason. Does not still mean that they're all violent. All living things are potential to it, but on staffys it's obviously more potential (?). Also, in countries where they have these dog fights, well is it because the humans or the dogs?

I have voted the past three times it has been up, to get license for pets and farm yard animals - alas, never happened.

At least insurance is a demand here.

[Katie N]

I know how to control my dog.

Says every dog owner until they no longer can control it when it attacks someone.

[Matiketope]

Says every dog owner until they no longer can control it when it attacks someone.

How many dogs have you had? Not every people live in Vietnam where you might have trouble with stray dogs and lack of education when it comes to taking care of dogs. Maybe such case gives people issues against dogs. Also, cats also attack humans - kill'em all?

[Dendrek]

Genocide. Since we can't do it to humans let's do it to a breed of dog instead. Whatever you need to get your hate-filled fix.

(Note, I'm not commenting on this story, but on OP's obvious agenda.)

[KOUNTERPARTS]

People must be trolling here when it comes to banning "all dogs".

Of course they are trolling. Is it any real surprise when Jinro or Avskildhet enter a thread they spew their narcissistic and borderline psychopathic "opinions" on things it turns people against them?

Or worse off, they aren't trolling, and are genuine.

[Matiketope]

It's also proven that owning a dog (or a pet) is healthy, physically and mentally, for people. Dogs being the most sympathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they are trolling. Is it any real surprise when Jinro or Avskildhet enter a thread they spew their narcissistic and borderline psychopathic "opinions" on things it turns people against them?

Or worse off, they aren't trolling, and are genuine.

Ok... I don't follow Off Topic-forum enough obviously.

[Templar 331]

As she put the parcel slip through the letter box, the dog bit off half of her finger

• The force of the dog was so strong her forehead smacked on to the front door

I'd like someone to explain this one to me. The letter box is the little flap on your front door that is just big enough for a few letters to go into, right? So if it's just big enough for a letter, or this dumbass's finger, how does the dog have enough leverage to slam this woman's head against the door? Her wrist would slam against the door and stop there. If you look at the damage on her hand and how it stops there that seems to be the case.

But this is the DailyFail so I don't expect this story to be genuine.

[Rennadrel]

Dogs are dangerous animals. They're disgusting. They're obnoxious. We should just ban them from society.

We should ban people like you from the internet for posting dumb shit.

[Matiketope]

We should ban people like you from the internet for posting dumb shit.

I'd rather give them a better way to express themselves. Ignoring the generalization when judging living beings, is only a small part in the way to success, when it comes to throwing up bad sensations. But then again, it's the internet.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If I caused someone to lose a finger I would certainly go to prison. I don't see why someone should be absolved of being held responsible for their animals. The animal should die as well.

False, but thanks for the reply.

- - - Updated - - -

Dogs are dangerous animals. They're disgusting. They're obnoxious. We should just ban them from society.

No thank you. You can just avoid them.

- - - Updated - - -

I've owned two dogs actually. And they were trained. Your ignorance blows my mind. When a dog breed consistently attacks people no matter how well trained they are or how they are raised there is a PROBLEM. There are hundreds more fatal attacks by this breed than the next most "dangerous". There's a problem. Something needs to be done.

When a fucking lobbying group is going around trying to shove misinformation down people's throats like "they're nanny dogs" or "it's how they're raised" there are red flags.

This is false.

[Freighter]

False

Nope, at least 1 year in prison up to a maximum of 10 years depending on the severity of the bodily injury.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Nope, at least 1 year in prison up to a maximum of 10 years depending on the severity of the bodily injury.

*Citation needed.

[Freighter]

*Citation needed.

http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=138767#J258:0

*람의 신체를 상*하여 **에 대한 위험을 발*하게 한 자* 1년 *상 10년 *하의 징역에 처한*.
(Person who inflicts bodily injury on another and endangering their life shall be punished for at least one year up to 10 years)

②신체의 상** *하여 불구 또* 불치나 난치의 질병에 *르게 한 자* *항의 형과 같*.
(Preceding paragraph applies to a person who injures another and causes them to be crippled, incurably or hopelessly diseased)
③자* 또* 배*자의 직계존속에 대하여 *2항의 죄를 범한 때에* 2년 *상의 유*징역에 처한*.

Are you gonna complain now?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=138767#J258:0

*람의 신체를 상*하여 **에 대한 위험을 발*하게 한 자* 1년 *상 10년 *하의 징역에 처한*.
(Person who inflicts bodily injury on another and endangering their life shall be punished for at least one year up to 10 years)

②신체의 상** *하여 불구 또* 불치나 난치의 질병에 *르게 한 자* *항의 형과 같*.
(Preceding paragraph applies to a person who injures another and causes them to be crippled, incurably or hopelessly diseased)
③자* 또* 배*자의 직계존속에 대하여 *2항의 죄를 범한 때에* 2년 *상의 유*징역에 처한*.

Are you gonna complain now?

CHAPTER 25 Sins of Injury and Assault

Constitution system diagram buttonhistory
Article 257 (Injury, Permanent Injury) (1 ) A person who has injured a person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years, suspended for less than ten years, or a fine not exceeding ten million won. <Revised 29 Dec. 1995>

(2) Anyone who commits a crime under paragraph (1) for his or her spouse's immediate existence shall be sentenced to 10 years in prison or fined up to 15 million won. <Revised 29 Dec. 1995>

③ The offenses mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be punished.

First off, your own article says otherwise, secondly, this didn't happen in Korea, so..

[Freighter]

First off, your own article says otherwise, secondly, this didn't happen in Korea, so..

No, it doesn't. You're quoting another article(257) than the one I posted(258). The one you quoted does not cover bodily injury resulting in the loss of extremities or things attached on them, like fingers or toes. The one I posted does.

So what? I said I would go to prison for it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No, it doesn't. You're quoting another article(257) than the one I posted(258). The one you quoted does not cover bodily injury resulting in the loss of extremities or things on them.

So what? I said I would go to prison for it.

Again, this didn't happen in Korea, so contextually, you wouldn't.

Article 258 would be the wrong article, as it specifically sites (danger to life), and losing a finger does not constitute a danger to life.

[Freighter]

Article 258 would be the wrong article, as it specifically sites (danger to life), and losing a finger does not constitute a danger to life.

No, you can't just ignore 2nd paragraph just because you don't like it.

[Lochton]

Says every dog owner until they no longer can control it when it attacks someone.

Except, I've had 4 dogs, on the 5th without any harm done to it, people, or other animals that aren't vermin.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No, you can't just ignore 2nd paragraph just because you don't like it.

Article 257 is the correct article - it says OR a fine. Loss of a finger does not constitute as possible death.

Also, again, this didn't happen in Korea.

Also, the animal shouldn't die, as there would be no reason to stick your whole hand into a mail slot - so the whole thing is suspect to begin with.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

No, you can't just ignore 2nd paragraph just because you don't like it.

Reading comprehension must be hard.