Nearly 5 million bitten by dogs each year
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 28, 2025 08:30
VIEWED: 2946
PAGE 3 of 4
Hilarious. He gets called out over and over for false equivalence, so he starts a thread dedicated to it. At least he owns his idiocy.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, what I mean is that a powerful dog in the hands of a jerk is a dangerous beast.
Some men own these dogs and train them as weapons. It's the same as the gun mentality and people who own arsenals of weapons.
'I'm dangerous, don't fuck with me'
When actually they are SCARED, I'd guess.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The problem, as with guns, is the people.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Would you have the authorities round up and euthanize all pit bulls, or prohibit their sale, because some folks breed and train them improperly - to make them aggressive and dangerous? Is it the dog's fault, or the owner's?
Quote:
But dogs are NOTHING like as dangerous, accidentally especially, as guns, so a foolish person can own dogs all their lives and those dogs would never be involved in biting someone. A foolish person can own a gun for a very short time and have something deadly happen; the woman at Starbucks who didn't even remember WHICH PURSE HER GUN WAS IN is a prime example of both that and the fact that we have a problem with the MENTALITY around guns.
Depends on how you define 'dangerous'. As Kiki1 noted earlier...
"DOGS
80 million dogs/ 4.7 million victims/ 800,000 seek medical attention/ 386,000 treated/ 16 die
GUNS
200 million guns/ 180,700 victims/ 76,100 seek medical attention/ 73,500 treated/ 31,076 die"
Of course that includes purposeful injuries by both. If only unintentional injuries were counted, the numbers for dogs would remain about the same, but guns would go down to 14,675 injuries and 606 deaths (per CDC WISQARS data for 2011)
So dogs are way more likely to hurt or require you to get medical treatment, you but guns more likely to kill you.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm so bored by these car/dog analogies. It's surely an argument that only people who are already strongly pro-gun find convincing.
A gun is a tool for killing human beings.
That's its purpose - what it was invented for, and what it's designed to do. Comparing it to other dangerous objects in society that are not specifically designed for killing humans, is of questionable value.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
a gun is a tool for killing human beings.
It also does work on rattlesnakes, lions, bears, and deer, and cattle or hogs at butchering time.
There are some natural threats or resources for which it is a valid tool.
I will acknowledge that it doesn't get USED for those valid purposes very often, and is most commonly used, as you state, for killing other people, either wholesale in wars, or one on one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If we were having the actual discussion about dogs, what Magons said:Quote:
a powerful dog in the hands of a jerk is a dangerous beast.
Some men own these dogs and train them as weapons. It's the same as the gun mentality and people who own arsenals of weapons.
'I'm dangerous, don't fuck with me'
When actually they are SCARED, I'd guess.
Bang on. If not actually scared of whatever it is they want defense AGAINST, scared of not being "top dog" in their social spectrum...or something equally ridiculous.
But of course we're not, or at least Geezer's not; he's playing his same false-equivalency game and will never stop.
As far as that's concerned, "What KPO said":Quote:
It's surely an argument that only people who are already strongly pro-gun find convincing.
A gun is a tool for killing human beings.
That's its purpose - what it was invented for, and what it's designed to do. Comparing it to other dangerous objects in society that are not specifically designed for killing humans, is of questionable value.
It's a silly "debate", and 16 injuries versus OVER 600 is no argument at all. And it matters not what "accidental" deaths are, it matters that people DIE who don't need to, and dogs have nothing to do with the issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It also does work on rattlesnakes, lions, bears, and deer, and cattle or hogs at butchering time.
There are some natural threats or resources for which it is a valid tool.
Some guns are designed for hunting animals, and I would say there's a valid argument for them. They're not as effective at killing humans as the guns that are designed for that purpose, and nobody really is talking about banning them.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... but guns more likely to kill you."
And that's the point. Some things IN THEMSELVES are far more dangerous than others.
Would you consider regulating stuffed bunny rabbit toys - requiring bunny rabbit toy registration, lessons in bunny rabbit toy safety, demonstration of bunny rabbit toy proficiency, bunny rabbit toy background checks?
How about nitroglycerin? Should people need to prove they know how to store and use it safely, and have no documented criminal or psychological issues before they can get it - or should any old bubba be able to get and keep as much as they want, whenever they want it? How would you feel if that crazy old crank, or worse, a Muslim living next door to you, had three tons in their sweltering garage?
If you want to use that equivalency, I say BRING IT. And make your case that dogs are just as serious a problem as guns. If you can.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
ound checks?
How about nitroglycerin? Should people need to prove they know how to store and use it safely, and have no documented criminal or psychological issues before they can get it - or should any old bubba be able to get and keep as much as they want, whenever they want it? How would you feel if that crazy old crank, or worse, a Muslim living next door to you, had three tons in their sweltering garage?
I carry it around with me, or have it within arms reach, 24/7. Not 3 tons worth, that would be too heavy to carry, but in a 40 milligram dose, it's a life-saving heart medication. ALL I had to do get a prescription from my doctor.
Which is, of course, not your point. You're right. My usage is the exception, and the quantity trivial.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you are medically in need of 'nitro' you have my sympathies ... and fyi maybe you should stay off the board? It could place too much of a demand on your heart.
So, were you able to buy that nitro on the street? Are you allowed to buy as much as you want? Can you use as much as you want without danger? Or is 'nitro' dangerous, even medically, and therefore regulated?
BTW - is this pertinent to the discussion?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME