[Liberal Classic]

Dogs are property. As such, crimes commited with dogs, and torts involving dogs are the fault of the property owner -- the dog owner.

Beware of people complaining about "bad breeds" and "assault dogs".

[JusticeForAll76]

Don't I get to cross-examine the dog?

[ZULU]

Society is becoming more and more tolerant of laws which infringe upon the rights of the majority in order to punish the few.

Whether its "dangerous dog breeds", firearms, other types of pets, remote control planes, pre-existing pig farms, etc.

The driving force behind this is, of course, attorneys and self-serving politicians, which are too often synonmous.

[Jack Black]

Ridiculous. Of course there are dangerous breeds. Look at this malarkey from the article "It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous.". Why? To me it seems totally reasonable. I don't want a Tiger in the backyard next door.

I'm sure the author is a well meaning person, with a long history of responsible dog ownership, and so are his friends.

The sad reality is not everyone is like him. Big, mean Pit Bulls, trained to fight are the "in" accessory for gang bangers, wanna-bes, ghetto hoodlums and other city-scum these days. Oh, yeah, I forgot homeless. They seem to have picked up the trend.

A vicious dog, unlike a gun, *IS* semi-autonomous, and may just wander away and bite someone.

Even under the most basic lassie faire philosophy Dogs often do go to where "my nose ends", sadly, and are a fitting target for regulation if anything is.

[Publius6961]

Dogs are property. As such, crimes commited with dogs, and torts involving dogs are the fault of the property owner -- the dog owner.

Sorry, but I just ain't buying that; and I say that as a dog owner.

Once your "property" has torn a child to pieces, or ripped a woman's face off, it is a rather serious and permanent injury --- torts or not. Specially in the case of deaths it's clearly irreversible.

These sad cases are totally preventable, and sadly the least responsible owners are usually the least able to meet their legal and financial obligations, even if that were a possible substitute for the loss of a loved one.

[cspackler]

Dogs are property. As such, crimes commited with dogs, and torts involving dogs are the fault of the property owner -- the dog owner

So, if you own a "dangerous dog" that, despite all of you attempts at safety, manages to escape your property and kill a child, you would be willing to face murder charges? If you are not willing to say yes, then all of your blustering to the contrary are meaningless. I have know too many people who have had childrem mauled and disfigured by Billy Bob's Rotweiller or Pit down the street.

It may be your right to own a dangerous animal, but it's everyone elses right to not get their face chewed off by your "rights".