I agree with Ryan, if anyone tried to hurt MY dogs I’d defend them with my life. It’s the owners that need sorting and all the indiscriminate breeding that a lot of them do.

You quote this
animals are not comparable to humans

No, they’re a damn sight better than humans, they don’t care if we’re poor or rich, fat or thin, wear designer clothes, live in a mansion, have the latest gadget, in a foul mood etc etc. They just give us unconditional love, maybe that’s why GOD called them DOG. I’m sorry but give me animals over most humans anyday.

My opinion

I understand, I’ve seen that one used many times, it’s a classic grasping at any straw tactic used by people when the core issue of what is being debated is running away from them.

You maintain that you are ‘open to’ and ’see sense’ in a proposal that will cause more people to be attacked by dogs and is derelict of logic or sound reasoning. That’s fine.

We disagree. We can leave it at that.

Let me say it again, since you were too busy trying to find anything at all to pick apart in my reply rather than reading the reply as a whole:

“I never advocated the muzzling of “all dogs”. I said that if all dogs were muzzled in public then no person would be bitten in public. This is an undisputable fact. Whether it is a good idea or not is a different matter and I am not advocating it because I am not in a position to do so. I am merely stating that I can see some sensibility in it.”

Do you get it this time? You’re projecting your disagreement with George Galloway onto me when my point of view is not his. That’s bad form on par with shooting the messenger. As I have said more than once (and to most people - especially those who write journalistically as a profession - once should be enough) I am not advocating what Galloway proposes, I am merely open to it, and can see sense in it.

Anyway, the hour is late, and the breakdown of grammar and punctuation in your last post suggests you’re both tired and irritated, so I’ll sign off for now and check back another day to see what else you can come up with.

Muzzle every dog in public tomorrow, dog attacks will increase the following week. The net result of muzzling all dogs will be an increase in dog attacks.

Sadly I put the question down because I knew you would think in the terms you did. You have failed to understand dog behaviour at all.

Unless you muzzle EVERY dog for EVERY moment they are in contact with humans in the home and in public you will create an increase in dog attacks on people. Don’t take my word for it, feel free to ask 100 dog trainers and behaviourists, more if you like.

Sorry but you’ve demonstrated you do not have any comprehension as to the cause of dog attacks.

Why you can’t spot that it is dog owners who will determine whether dog attacks increase or decrease, I fail to understand.

In every other comparible scenario your logic would be laughed at. As I said earlier, make cars out of rubber, ensure all flights of stairs are stacked with foam, ensure no household products contain toxins, ensure nobody but qualified professionals are allowed to operate electrical items - do all of these things and you will save human lives. I don’t value the life of a Ford Fiesta higher than a person but I don’t see your logic carrying through that for every Ford Fiesta involved in an incident where a person is killed or injured that you would call for legislation on the brand of car or the car in general. Are you not seeing this?

And just to help you out with your quest for stats.

You have a greater statistical chance of being killed by lighting in the UK than dog attack. Still, let’s not let that stop us calling for a whacking great sledgehammer to crack this particular nut eh? Even if the sledgehammer is aiming at the wrong nut in the first place.

Can we stop dogs attacking people full stop? No, not without banning all dogs. Can we reduce dog attacks? Yes, but not if we follow the ‘reasoning’ of people who actually don’t understand the effects of what it is they’re calling for.

Bearing in mind that I would never dream of killing a dog, and only introduced the notion as a dramatic device to illustrate the extent to which I value human life more than animal life, you’re really going to town on this. You’ve proved your bias even more clearly: in plain English you have stated that you would wish death upon someone who was responsible for the death of a dog. No more needs to be said about that. Your position is clear.

Now, let’s deal with your blatant twisting of my words: You cite what you call my “opening gambit”, and you insert, on the end of a direct quote, in parenthesis, seven additional words which were never typed by me, in order to change the context of what I originally said:

“I can see some sensibility in muzzling (all dogs, as per Mr Galloway’s proposal)”

I am not George Galloway, and I am not here to fight his corner, so please forget the “as per” you have added to my quote. I never advocated the muzzling of “all dogs”. I said that if all dogs were muzzled in public then no person would be bitten in public. This is an undisputable fact. Whether it is a good idea or not is a different matter and I am not advocating it because I am not in a position to do so. I am merely stating (unbelievable that I need to repeat this) that I can see some sensibility in it.

Your conclusionary question to me is almost too ridiculous to answer, but I will answer it regarless. I must be a masochist.

“Would muzzling all dogs in public stop or even reduce the number of people killed or injured in dog attacks?”

Er… yes. Assuming some dog attacks happen in public, and assuming that a muzzle prevents a dog from biting a person, then how could it be possible that muzzling dogs in public wouldn’t stop public dog attacks? This really isn’t hard to grasp.

You were the one who introduced the notion of ‘throttling’ dogs.

If you throttled MY dog, yes I would go out of my way to ensure you endured the same. I love my dogs as my family. Most dog owners do. That does not say I value a dog’s life as equal to humans (personal opinion, many people do and that’s fine) but I value the life of MY dog’s higher than any person who would seek to hurt or kill MY dogs. Seems simple enough to understand.

Again, I urge you to point out anywhere where I have suggested human welfare is not more important than animal welfare. Please show me where I have said this. This website is about educating people on how to avoid dog attacks. A subject I, as someone who understand the subject on which I am commenting, feel comfortable in discussing on grounds of facts rather than subjecture.

In answer to your question on where you have expressed anti-dog opinion, how about we begin with your opening gambit:

“I can see some sensibility in muzzling (all dogs, as per Mr Galloway’s proposal)”

Do you believe ALL dogs would be happy, content and comfortable to be muzzled? Or would you concede this to be a view that is very clearly anti-dog?

If I suggested all cars be made out of rubber and restricted to no more than 20mph in order to protect some humans from some (bad) drivers, those views would - rightly - be described as ‘anti-car’.

I ask you but one thing, bring some stats and facts to the discussion to support your ‘neutral’ stance on this issue. Would muzzling all dogs in public stop or even reduce the number of people killed or injured in dog attacks?

When have I ever expressed anything “anti-dog”, anyway? Sure, I value the life of a single human over the lives of every dog in the world, but that’s not to say I hate dogs, it just means I love humans immeasurably more than animals.

Surely, even as the editor of a dog lover magazine, you must concede that the welfare of people is vastly more important than the welfare of animals, and that someone making the perfectly sensible suggestion of muzzling is not ipso facto somehow “caninophobic” (there: I’ve coined it for you).

As for the rest of your reply: You state “I didn’t compare dogs lives to human lives ONCE”. You’re correct. Actually you did it twice. You brought up the completely erroneous issue of the subjugation of Muslims in a weak analogy as though the two issues had anything to do with each other. If you didn’t mention Muslims in order to make a moral comparison then why did you mention them at all? The only other explanation would be that you’re a bad writer, and I can’t imagine that to be the case.

I’m also not sure what you mean when you write “Trust me, if you ‘throttled’ my dog you’d cost yourself at least ONE human life”. Are you implying that you would attempt to murder me in the entirely fictitious event that I was to kill a pet of yours? If so, then surely you’ve just contradicted yourself and you do indeed consider the life of an animal equal to that of a human being.

“…given the net result of terrorist attacks and dog attacks is injury and death of HUMANS - why can’t we compare the two?”

Following yet?

You’ve just proven yourself to be a fool. How dare you compare dogs to human beings?

I would throttle every dog in the world to save a single human life - animals are not comparable to humans and you betray your bias by implying they are.

As a side point, I love how your reply to me was longer than your original article; you must have a lot of spare time.