| Yes, you can kill someone with a pistol, put you need to pull the trigger first. Meanwhile a pitbull automatically locks onto the first weaker living being it sees, and bites off it's face. Kind of seems like a double standard to me. Both things were made to kill but one thing kills only when give the instruction, the other one just loves eating children. |
 |
| It is exactly because the pitbull has no trigger. You are not guilty, you were just walking your dog, it is an accident to pitbull someone. You never read on the newspaper, mass pitbulling by bullied kid in school too. Because pitbull is slow and you can't fire 6 pitbulls fast enough. Also, pitbull is very bad against doors and windows. Also of all the Pitbull vs Gun, gun wins or draw in almost all scenarios, specially if you count the reversed scenarios. |
   |
| There are many people who have a problem with fighting dogs, especially unmuzzled ones. In many countries their owners are legally bound to muzzle them in public, some even require a special license to own them. Last year an adult woman in my state got killed by fighting dogs on a leash, while their owner was trying to stop them, but they ignored the order, so muzzles are the only way to guarantee everyone's safety. |
ZarutakuFeb 3, 1:44 PM
*kappa* |
Sasori56483 said: hahahahhahmass pitbulling mass pitbullings are the thing of the future |
|
| It would probably be a good idea to require a license to own a dangerous breed of dog. And you shouldn't be able to get one if you are physically not stronger than your dog. |
Reply to TransferUser
It would probably be a good idea to require a license to own a dangerous breed of dog. And you shouldn't be able to get one if you are physically not stronger than your dog.
| @TransferUser the owner can be stronger than the dog but that doesnt change that the children around cant do shit. At least cats can try to run away and horses won the majority 1v1s with pitbulls I saw but a child is literally breakfast for the dog. |
|
| Well idk how it work in other countries maybe in the similar way as it is in Poland than there is a problem of both 50/50, as for both you need a special allowance and restrictions but still it can end up in a tragedy. For gun you need to be 18+, been in shooting range at least I think 3 or 4 times a year to keep your licence allowing you to carry and use a gun, while for dogs I am not sure how exactly it works but owners of dangerous one are being tested if they can raise them properly and I think they are also listed in the police records for the case if something go badly. [Obviously if someone reports you can pay some money fine for having a dog outside without a leash and without that mouth protection - forgot it's english name] Fun Fact: In Poland you can without allowance or anything buy a blackpowder firearm which in close range deals a higher damage and worse injuries than a regular gun. I prefer cats and I only used guns in shooting range, so restrictions for dogs fine I've been bitten few times by dogs while cats never been hostile to me, while a gun should be only used in shooting range by civilians, outside the range only by people whose job is connected with a potential of using a firearm ex. police, soldier, border guard, hunter etc. |
| That reminds me of a woman in my province who got so veraciously attacked that she literally got scalped. The only good thing in that story is that the owner was found guilty of criminal negligence (and the dogs were put down). |
Zettaiken said: should as in you think it should be only allowed for civilians on shooting ranges, or as in it is only allowed for civilians on shooting ranges? We can carry guns around here in Czechia, but concealed only, we dont have open carry. Funnily enough, its ok to bring into a mall as well but all malls have this "no guns" sign which legally means absolutely nothingwhile a gun should be only used in shooting range by civilians, outside the range only by people whose job is connected with a potential of using a firearm ex. police, soldier, border guard, hunter etc |
|
Reply to Commit_Crime
Zettaiken said:
while a gun should be only used in shooting range by civilians, outside the range only by people whose job is connected with a potential of using a firearm ex. police, soldier, border guard, hunter etc
should as in you think it should be only allowed for civilians on shooting ranges, or as in it is only allowed for civilians on shooting ranges? We can carry guns around here in Czechia, but concealed only, we dont have open carry. Funnily enough, its ok to bring into a mall as well but all malls have this "no guns" sign which legally means absolutely nothingwhile a gun should be only used in shooting range by civilians, outside the range only by people whose job is connected with a potential of using a firearm ex. police, soldier, border guard, hunter etc
| @Commit_Crime You can carry a gun as long as you're having a licence, but it is easy to albait and bypass, which is why for me a civilian shouldn't have access to dangerous weaponry. And if someone want to use a gun, there's nothing wrong with that than there are special places for that which are shooting range. I don't know about the laws about carrying and where you can carry, as I was doing shooting sports at middle school and I've never asked but one of my instructor's buddies from scuba diving, whom have a gun and regularly train in military shooting range as he should know all law stuff about that. |
| One is a weapon and one is an animal. One is a tool used by humans with only one reason and the other is a creature reacting to impulses. |
Reply to Romaki
One is a weapon and one is an animal. One is a tool used by humans with only one reason and the other is a creature reacting to impulses.
| @Romaki That's a weird stance since it can imply that guns can only hurt people through the agency of a human while pitbulls cannot be controlled the same way and are therefore, more dangerous. (Unless that is what you meant in the first place.) |
| Pit bulls are banned in many countries. I agree pit bulls are more lethal than a gun on average given the random nature of animals vs a mindless tool. |
 |
| @LoveYourSmile ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I think that ummmmmmmmm I think that the refugees bother you more. |
|
Reply to removed-user
Because pitbulls are dogs, and dog people are insane. I am not even kidding, if you are dog owner, there is a 50/50 percent chance you our lowkey a misanthropist with issues. Honestly? There are a ton of dog owners who own dogs as an extension of themselves, and many pitbull owners do fall into this area due to the hypermasculinity associated with these types of dogs, which is not dissimilar to gun fetishism in the the states and abroad.
Having met a ton of crazy dog owners, so many of them have their entire identity be "owner of a dog"; you see a ton of gun nuts like this, but at the former is much more socially acceptable than the latter. You see this frequently on social media.
Just because it is more socially acceptable does not mean it is less annoying. People who make their dogs their entire personality are among the most insufferable fucking assholes on the fucking planet. It is in some ways worst to make a living animal your personality than a non-sentient entity like firearms.
Having met a ton of crazy dog owners, so many of them have their entire identity be "owner of a dog"; you see a ton of gun nuts like this, but at the former is much more socially acceptable than the latter. You see this frequently on social media.
Just because it is more socially acceptable does not mean it is less annoying. People who make their dogs their entire personality are among the most insufferable fucking assholes on the fucking planet. It is in some ways worst to make a living animal your personality than a non-sentient entity like firearms.
| @PeripheralVision I was about to agree with you here but then you added the hypermasculinty shit, cant sign this shit no more, you gayified your reply, congrats |
|
| I have a big, big problem with pitbulls. Breeding them should not even be legal, they never existed naturally they're a crossbreed and were bred to kill. |
Reply to Commit_Crime
@PeripheralVision I was about to agree with you here but then you added the hypermasculinty shit, cant sign this shit no more, you gayified your reply, congrats
| @Commit_Crime No thanks to you. |
| @LoveYourSmile hahah finally someone with a brain, the kids need to learn how to live with fent. If their parents are bigoted towards american culture, the schools should educate them instead |
|
Reply to removed-user
@Commit_Crime No thanks to you.
| @PeripheralVision the image doesnt load but I am happy you found it, its such a great work of art |
|
Reply to removed-user
Because pitbulls are dogs, and dog people are insane. I am not even kidding, if you are dog owner, there is a 50/50 percent chance you our lowkey a misanthropist with issues. Honestly? There are a ton of dog owners who own dogs as an extension of themselves, and many pitbull owners do fall into this area due to the hypermasculinity associated with these types of dogs, which is not dissimilar to gun fetishism in the the states and abroad.
Having met a ton of crazy dog owners, so many of them have their entire identity be "owner of a dog"; you see a ton of gun nuts like this, but at the former is much more socially acceptable than the latter. You see this frequently on social media.
Just because it is more socially acceptable does not mean it is less annoying. People who make their dogs their entire personality are among the most insufferable fucking assholes on the fucking planet. It is in some ways worst to make a living animal your personality than a non-sentient entity like firearms.
Having met a ton of crazy dog owners, so many of them have their entire identity be "owner of a dog"; you see a ton of gun nuts like this, but at the former is much more socially acceptable than the latter. You see this frequently on social media.
Just because it is more socially acceptable does not mean it is less annoying. People who make their dogs their entire personality are among the most insufferable fucking assholes on the fucking planet. It is in some ways worst to make a living animal your personality than a non-sentient entity like firearms.
| @PeripheralVision Harsh words but I agree with most of this Dog people are insane in ways gun crazies are not though. Most gun fanatics, *most* of them and all the ones I know of IRL- at least believe in training on how to use them, gun safety, and don't walk around neighborhoods with the leash safety off pointing them at people. Dog nuts on the other hand, act like the whole world revolves around their dogs, anyone and anything that goes wrong is never the dog's fault- they not only dismiss training and safety, they actually blame the human (i.e. the child) for getting attacked. To me this is a level beyond insanity. I have yet to see a gun fanatic claim the people they shot were to blame for scaring the gun and should have known better... |
Reply to Commit_Crime
@PeripheralVision the image doesnt load but I am happy you found it, its such a great work of art
@Commit_Crime  I've been corrupted, and I see the light. (The mom is also hot) OT: I am not saying every dog owner does not care for their pets, but I do think how people approach owning a dog has normalized a ton of unhealthy views about ownership itself, and there is a distinct bias too and against certain breeds that are biased by the sort of emotional attachments that not only characterize love, but something reminiscent of an inverse parasocial relationships. Dogs are seen as extensions of the selves, they can be emotionally anthropomorphized to an unreasonable degree. I love dogs and things dogs are capable of love, but they are not human beings, and in many cases can share our flaws. They have personalities and even biases themselves. They are living beings that deserve better than what these types of dog owners view them as. If insecurity is a reason why you have so many young men have an unhealthy view of/obsession with guns, then narcissism is the driving force behind the type of dog owners I am referring to, and unfortunately society has always encouraged this type of "ownership" because it is more acceptable to have too much self-esteem than too little, to exploit rather than be exploited. |
removed-userFeb 1, 5:06 PM
Reply to removed-user
@Commit_Crime
I've been corrupted, and I see the light. (The mom is also hot)
OT: I am not saying every dog owner does not care for their pets, but I do think how people approach owning a dog has normalized a ton of unhealthy views about ownership itself, and there is a distinct bias too and against certain breeds that are biased by the sort of emotional attachments that not only characterize love, but something reminiscent of an inverse parasocial relationships.
Dogs are seen as extensions of the selves, they can be emotionally anthropomorphized to an unreasonable degree. I love dogs and things dogs are capable of love, but they are not human beings, and in many cases can share our flaws. They have personalities and even biases themselves. They are living beings that deserve better than what these types of dog owners view them as.
If insecurity is a reason why you have so many young men have an unhealthy view of/obsession with guns, then narcissism is the driving force behind the type of dog owners I am referring to, and unfortunately society has always encouraged this type of "ownership" because it is more acceptable to have too much self-esteem than too little, to exploit rather than be exploited.
I've been corrupted, and I see the light. (The mom is also hot)
OT: I am not saying every dog owner does not care for their pets, but I do think how people approach owning a dog has normalized a ton of unhealthy views about ownership itself, and there is a distinct bias too and against certain breeds that are biased by the sort of emotional attachments that not only characterize love, but something reminiscent of an inverse parasocial relationships.
Dogs are seen as extensions of the selves, they can be emotionally anthropomorphized to an unreasonable degree. I love dogs and things dogs are capable of love, but they are not human beings, and in many cases can share our flaws. They have personalities and even biases themselves. They are living beings that deserve better than what these types of dog owners view them as.
If insecurity is a reason why you have so many young men have an unhealthy view of/obsession with guns, then narcissism is the driving force behind the type of dog owners I am referring to, and unfortunately society has always encouraged this type of "ownership" because it is more acceptable to have too much self-esteem than too little, to exploit rather than be exploited.
| @PeripheralVision man, play the game though, dont just goon to the characters, thats haram the bias against the breeds is 100% correct though, chihuahuas are food for bigger dogs (which is a good thing, they are so fucking annoying and I hate my neighbors), pitbulls eat children, all the small dogs are super annoying, the medium dogs are alright and God forbid a woman gets herself a dog above her waist height, thats such a red flag that even I become scared |
|
| While it’s true that to a certain degree, such pitbull’s unpredicted behavior like maul the shit out of any small creature. Cats, small breed of dogs and children. I rather be comfortable that my son would be fine around some serial killer than a pitbull. The gunner (the killer) has the choice out of morals. A dog is doing something out of instinct and morality as a concept never crossed animals minds since life started. This is quite a life and death bet. I know humans can go far worse than what animals do, but hey choose the lesser of the two poisons. |
ArabianLuffyFeb 1, 7:56 PM
 |
| Because to claim a life form is ontologically problematic could have wider consequences when applied elsewhere. |
  ♡ Harder Daddy ♡ |
| pitbull lives matter! shees* these stupid creatures look stupid exactly like their owner and also mimic the same personality of their owner, better stay away from sh*tbull if it doesnt have a muzzle. |
| haha pitbull meme so funny a joke that has been joked 1 000 000 times is even funnier on the 1 000 001st |
| "If the cuckoo doesn't sing, I guess I'm fine with that." - Natsuki Andou, Kitaku-bu Katsudou Kiroku |
| I've had a pitbull get startled seeing me all covered up in winter stuff and not saying anything since I had headphones on so he runs up to me and I put my knee up and foot a little out to block him from jumping on me and he walked around and bit my thigh. I stood there and asked him nicely to let go and he did and just pranced off back to his owner. Not a big deal. Didn't even break through my canvas pants. I had a mild blood blister though. Dogs react to not just their owners but who they attack. In fact most victims of dog attacks are little boys because they are harassing the dogs at higher rates. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| I nearly got mauled walking out of my apartment once by a pitbull. |
| In my country neither are acceptable or easily obtainable, the nanny state is working for once. Doesn't mean that we wouldn't find something else to harm eachother with, because we always do. |
 |
| I will sum it up. Pitbull cute dog 99% people love dogs is also a living thing. Guns are only used for harming things (malicious or non malicious) I'm not posting a view here mi simply explaining why some ppl see things like that. |
| i believe it's because people subconsciously associate guns with fragile authority, i mean, using an overgrown airsoft toys to kill people? cringe pitbulls on the other hand are part of the same species that is proclaimed as men's best friend, and this couldn't be further from the truth for pitbulls. motherfuckers will engage unprovoked regardless, they truly defy authority. YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO PITBULL ATTACKS  |
 |
| In my country we call them "shitbulls". I agree, OP, we need some kind of final solution the pitbull question. |
| I have nothing against pitbulls or guns. They are the same: you shouldn't put them in the hands of uneducated, irresponsible menchildren. *stares at US gun deaths* |
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
| I have a problem with pitbulls and not guns. |
  |
| Pit bulls aren't even cute, have no idea why people likes them so much. |
 |
LoveYourSmile said: I can't seriously think of arms and putbulls, when real social problems of my country, such as SKBC+ legalization or fentanyl allowance for highschoolers, remain unsolved. Wait, why is SKBC+ legalization a problem? Fentanyl allowance is bad, but SKBC+ legalization is good. |
*kappa* |
| I was chased by a pitbull once. It lost interest and didn't bite me, but I still ended up with seemingly permanent damage to my body when I fell onto the street from running so quickly. Hopefully I'll win a lot from the lawsuit and have the injuries fixed with surgery. Commit_Crime said: Meanwhile a pitbull automatically locks onto the first weaker living being it sees, and bites off it's face. I know you're exaggerating here, but I thought I'd point out that pitbulls are affectionate and protective toward humans they live with. Plenty of other breeds are more dangerous to humans too. PeripheralVision said: Because pitbulls are dogs, and dog people are insane. I am not even kidding, if you are dog owner, there is a 50/50 percent chance you our lowkey a misanthropist with issues. Honestly? There are a ton of dog owners who own dogs as an extension of themselves, and many pitbull owners do fall into this area due to the hypermasculinity associated with these types of dogs, which is not dissimilar to gun fetishism in the the states and abroad. Having met a ton of crazy dog owners, so many of them have their entire identity be "owner of a dog"; you see a ton of gun nuts like this, but at the former is much more socially acceptable than the latter. Let's run the numbers on this. There are roughly 900 million pet dogs in the world. Some have multiple owners such as a family. Some people own multiple dogs as well. But to keep things simple, let's assign one human owner to each of those dogs. Divide by two and we get 450 million people...all of whom are, according to you, "lowkey misanthropists with issues." And the evidence you have presented for this assertion is...*drumroll*...nothing at all. What a surprise. It sounds even sillier when you take into account that dogs have been living alongside humans for tens of thousands of years. That said, I agree with many of the other things you said about dogs and their owners, so I won't respond to all that. Most gun owners are not nuts, fanatics or fetishists. Your ilk resort to these vacuous affronts because you have no fucking argument, and clearly have no respect for the liberty of others. PeripheralVision said: If insecurity is a reason why you have so many young men have an unhealthy view of/obsession with guns People own firearms because it is their right to defend their lives and liberty. Any other reasons are auxiliary. It is typically not because of insecurity, obsession or "unhealthy views"...these are nothing but more empty insults to compensate for your lack of a rational argument. Little_Sheepling said: In my country neither are acceptable or easily obtainable, the nanny state is working for once. Doesn't mean that we wouldn't find something else to harm eachother with, because we always do. And in your country, subjects (ahem, "citizens") are arrested and imprisoned for innocuous behavior like criticizing religion on Facebook or literally standing there doing nothing but silently praying near a building...and on top of that, fined many thousands of dollars for it. Thought crime at its finest. That's a mild example too. Just look at all the countries where their governments disarmed the people and mass murdered them, to the tune of hundreds of millions. This is no coincidence. When the people are not armed, the government can ultimately do whatever the fuck they want to you, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it but hope they are in a merciful mood. (Or escape to a country that doesn't treat you like property.) Honestly, I think I'd rather be a democide victim and have my body destroyed than have my spirit crushed by living in a place that severely punishes me for unapproved thoughts. Spast1c said: Guns are only used for harming things (malicious or non malicious) I'm not posting a view here mi simply explaining why some ppl see things like that. In the vast majority of instances that guns are used against others in the US, it is defensively as a deterrent to prevent harm from being caused, without the trigger ever being pulled, saving countless lives...people who may have otherwise been seriously injured or killed if they didn't have a gun with them. Deathko said: I have nothing against pitbulls or guns. They are the same: you shouldn't put them in the hands of uneducated, irresponsible menchildren. *stares at US gun deaths* You have not properly researched these statistics, let alone comprehended them. The truth is that no one is more well-educated and responsible in regards to firearms than Americans. There are over 400 million guns, trillions of bullets, and countless other weapons here...yet proportionally minuscule aggression. When a handful of Democrat-run cities are taken out of the equation, the US has nearly the lowest firearm-related murder rate of any nation. Criminals target the defenseless, and do not obey laws. The violence is only so high in those cities (and certain other "gun-free zones") precisely because guns are restricted (in flagrant infringement of the Constitution, I might add), emboldening criminals to take advantage of obedient citizens who are rendered helpless. And to make matters worse, the aforementioned cities fail to separate these violent criminals from the rest of society, habitually releasing them back into the public to wreak further havoc. deg said: control or even ban both since both are dangerous anyway Then criminals will continue attacking people, except the victims won't be able to defend themselves. Not to mention the threat posed by governments I mentioned above: even if you don't lose your life, you lose your freedom. Banning guns is what is truly dangerous and deplorable. |
 |
| Because logic is an endangered species. Guns and pitbulls both require responsible handling, but people like to cherry-pick their outrage. A pitbull mauls someone, and it’s bad owners, not bad dogs. |
| Best thread of the year so far. Millions of people in the world are sent to the hospital ever year after being attacked by dogs, and pitbulls make up for two thirds of the fatal attacks. It would be easy to solve the issue though: 1) It is now illegal to own a dog without a licence (the licence will be expensive and hard to get). You need a licence to own a gun, and the gun doesn't randomly start to shoot at people. 2) If you unloose your dog in public, you will face up to 5 years of prison and will have to pay a $10,000 fine. 3) It is illegal to own a pitbull and similarly dangerous breads. 4) It is illegal to bread pitbulls, pitbull bullies, and anything that is closer to a wolf than a caniche. The penalty would be up to 50 years of prison and $10,000,000 fine. 5) If you prefer dogs over cats, you are sent to Antarctica with your "man's best friend." |
PeripheralVision said: I did not mean to nor was talking about all gun owners or even all dog owners, but making an observation. You have a fair amount of insecure young men who do gravitate to guns just as you have young men who gravitate to Andrew Tate or black-pilled incel culture. I think there is a very real population of young men these days who want guidance, who sadly are being taken advantage of or seek out short-term maladaptive coping mechanisms partly because we as a society have not done all that much to address this and even undermine efforts to help these men. Some of it is in fact demonization. Sadly, I think part of that demonization of young men in general is normalized. In this thread, I was pointing out how normalized parts of dog culture are that escape scrutiny compared to gun ownership. If anything, I’d say over the top gun fanaticism is shamed whereas over the top dog ownership is just the norm. Of course some of it is because dogs are sapient or sentient, living breathing animals capable of affection unlike guns, but I also think a ton of dog owners are in it for the narcissism. I stand by my point though. You have a ton of people out there who make dogs their entire personality and they are fucking insufferable. Alright, now that you clarified, it would appear we are in agreement...for the moment. :P |
|
PeripheralVision said: you take that back!living breathing animals capable of affection unlike guns Meusnier said: wonderful idea5) If you prefer dogs over cats, you are sent to Antarctica with your "man's best friend." Zarutaku said: grim, yet another victim of big pharma misinfo. Zombies aren't capable of basic functions like driving so they are actually super good for the environment and emissions Fentanyl allowance is bad |
|
| @SmugSatoko Heh. Your country is listed in the top 30 of every firearm homicides list I've ever seen, usually with a bunch of south american, cartel-riddled countries. While the US has the most guns per capita, it'd be wrong to pretend no other country has firearms either. Serbia has a third of the guns per capita of the US (0.4 guns/citizen vs 1.2), yet in 2020 you were 15 times more likely to get killed by firearm in the US than in Serbia. Switzerland has a quarter of the guns per capita of the US, yet in 2020 you were 40 (forty!) times more likely to get killed by firearm in the US than in Switzerland. Your bit about it being a problem in democrat cities because guns are restricted there is simply not true. Guns are restricted in most cities in the western world, yet no other western country sits between Paraguay and Guatemala (2020 numbers) in terms of firearm homicides. But if I google "US map mass shootings", I get big concentrations in LA, SF and NY (logical considering they're the biggest urban agglomerations in the US), but the biggest cluster is by far... the whole Bible Belt. This pattern still holds true if I pull a list of the biggest mass shootings in the US, with small towns and the Bible Belt/Texas being massively represented. Guns aren't a problem by themselves (believe it or not, I am not "anti-gun" and would gladly own and shoot a bunch of cool guns), but pretending there is no problem with guns in the US/that more guns is the solution to it (usually for political, factionist reasons), is part of the problem. |
DeathkoFeb 3, 3:20 PM
Prophetess of the Golden Era |
Reply to Deathko
@SmugSatoko Heh. Your country is listed in the top 30 of every firearm homicides list I've ever seen, usually with a bunch of south american, cartel-riddled countries.
While the US has the most guns per capita, it'd be wrong to pretend no other country has firearms either. Serbia has a third of the guns per capita of the US (0.4 guns/citizen vs 1.2), yet in 2020 you were 15 times more likely to get killed by firearm in the US than in Serbia. Switzerland has a quarter of the guns per capita of the US, yet in 2020 you were 40 (forty!) times more likely to get killed by firearm in the US than in Switzerland.
Your bit about it being a problem in democrat cities because guns are restricted there is simply not true. Guns are restricted in most cities in the western world, yet no other western country sits between Paraguay and Guatemala (2020 numbers) in terms of firearm homicides. But if I google "US map mass shootings", I get big concentrations in LA, SF and NY (logical considering they're the biggest urban agglomerations in the US), but the biggest cluster is by far... the whole Bible Belt. This pattern still holds true if I pull a list of the biggest mass shootings in the US, with small towns and the Bible Belt/Texas being massively represented.
Guns aren't a problem by themselves (believe it or not, I am not "anti-gun" and would gladly own and shoot a bunch of cool guns), but pretending there is no problem with guns in the US/that more guns is the solution to it (usually for political, factionist reasons), is part of the problem.
While the US has the most guns per capita, it'd be wrong to pretend no other country has firearms either. Serbia has a third of the guns per capita of the US (0.4 guns/citizen vs 1.2), yet in 2020 you were 15 times more likely to get killed by firearm in the US than in Serbia. Switzerland has a quarter of the guns per capita of the US, yet in 2020 you were 40 (forty!) times more likely to get killed by firearm in the US than in Switzerland.
Your bit about it being a problem in democrat cities because guns are restricted there is simply not true. Guns are restricted in most cities in the western world, yet no other western country sits between Paraguay and Guatemala (2020 numbers) in terms of firearm homicides. But if I google "US map mass shootings", I get big concentrations in LA, SF and NY (logical considering they're the biggest urban agglomerations in the US), but the biggest cluster is by far... the whole Bible Belt. This pattern still holds true if I pull a list of the biggest mass shootings in the US, with small towns and the Bible Belt/Texas being massively represented.
Guns aren't a problem by themselves (believe it or not, I am not "anti-gun" and would gladly own and shoot a bunch of cool guns), but pretending there is no problem with guns in the US/that more guns is the solution to it (usually for political, factionist reasons), is part of the problem.
| @Deathko hands off the Bible Belt, chud. We all know why reactionaries LOVE to hate on the only SKBC+ accepting part of the USA. Sometimes you just have to shoot someone to impress your sister, alright?  |
|
| It's the owners, not the dogs. Many pitbulls are raised as protection dogs, their aggression is cultivated by their owners. Not to mention the ones who were raised for dog fighting. Every pitbull I've been around (and even one I owned) was super sweet and lovely, wouldn't hurt anyone.  (Not my picture) |
More topics from this board
» how do I get to watch anime morePOLARMANE - Yesterday |
4 |
by narikuu
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Would you watch Assad's Twitch Streams?vasipi4946 - 42 minutes ago |
3 |
by vasipi4946
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever done any mischief in your younger years that your family is still unaware of to this day?fleurbleue - 7 hours ago |
7 |
by XMGA030
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Confession: "falling in love" with an anime character?caramel_pudding - Yesterday |
10 |
by screampleasure
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Do you actually like the food associated with your country or culture?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
26 |
by screampleasure
»»
1 hour ago |