OK to have pets that can cause harm?

This pit bull (dog breed) across the street has always made my evening walks, like walks of scare😆 even though confined to a fenced backyard, this dude barks and tries to jump (am gonna get yaa one day kinna of atitude😆) while people pass by, if try and try mechanism works one day he will be out, no worries for me👍🏼 as I have spotted a easy tree to climb😆 if at all it happens, with lil help from lady lucky😍 that helps me to reach and climb the tree on time, am carrying my cell😉 and no way can this dude climb trees😆. (Owner has all permission, is responsible and experience of having pit's in past so nothing can be done legally, at least till nothing bad(forbidd) happens.)

Have nothing against pets (love aquariums), in-fact had dogs as pet back in India and was planning to provide shelter to one retriever last year… but talking about breeds that can get ferocious and uncontrollable, there is a show on spike where they show when animals do something least expected is kinna of scary scary. (Not sharing links on purpose, they are very violent / blood and stuff).

OK enough of back ground now switching to debate:

Animals considered as pets are assumed to be no harms to Human being, but there are certain breeds that might endanger humans, in-fact can be life threatening. Is it right from legality or individuals stand point to have pets that can cause harm (life endangering) in anyways?

I enjoyed the background story to this debate! 😆 You already have a tree escape plan 🤣 But it's good to do drills of such emergency plans, make sure you can climb it! 😉

Question: Is it right from legality or individuals stand point to have pets that can cause harm (life endangering) in anyways?

Yes it is:

(a) Many families consider pets as family members. Just like they have to deal with the cards they are dealt in blood relations, (cranky, old aunts, juvenile delinquent cousins, cheek-pinching uncles, etc.) they put up with and care/love their pets as well.

Take for example a child, who in his/her teenage years becomes a total rebel, mocking all ideals, drinking etc, should the parent abandon him/her? No. Take a totally extreme case for example, a child maybe that takes drugs that cause him/her to become violent and hence a danger to the rest of the family? No the parents still won't give up on the child; they will attempt reform through rehab. Similarly, a maybe violent/over-enthusiastic pet should be dealt with care.

(b) One might say that pets are chosen unlike blood relations, but in many instances they are not, kids just grow up with them as part of the family and maybe take them as adults to their new homes.

Pets that are chosen, should be chosen with care. If a couple is planning to have kids/does have kids they should not choose a pet that would pose a threat to the child. It is the owner's responsibility.

(c) Threat does not equal actual harm. Just because the pet's breed has a tendency to be ferocious doesn't necessarily imply that that particular organism will display those genes.

(d) Freedom! If you are making this US specific, an individual has the freedom to do a lot here, albeit some constraints of course. Take for example the right to bear arms, of course it's potentially dangerous to have a firearm in the house, there have been many cases where the gun has gotten into the hands of a child who ended up killing someone. But it is still allowed legally and many people exercise this right. Similarly, a pet might be potentially dangerous, but it does not mean it will actually harm!

A pet that DOES harm is another case, does not apply to this debate.

No it isn't:

One term: Crocodile Hunter!

Personally I don't like ferocious pets, and avoid going to people's houses that have them! 😛

Originally posted by: manny.

how is this a debatable topic? i mean its not right to be near or keep anything thats life threathing... so the awnser to this question is obvious 😕

So, you want this topic to be debatable. I'll present opposing views, happy now.

Of course there's no harm in having these animals as pets. They can be potentially dangerous but as you say if the owner has sufficient experience in handling such animals then I dont think there's a problem. Secondly, as long as the animal is kept within the owner's private property and not let loose on the streets then people need not feel unsafe.

Moreover, it's not the only dangerous thing in this world. People keep ferocious dogs as a means of protection. Well accidents may happen, but accidents can also happen with electric fences or such things. So, if the owner has taken necessary precautions and has necessary facilities, where's the problem??

Originally posted by: anon

lolssss funny. 😆 😆

I do not think it is right that these animals or so called pts who are a threat should be kept as pets.

Heard so many newspaper cases of young bbies and children, being mauled to death by such ferocious dogs, now whether you argue that is poor dog owners - does not justify dogs action or make that ok does it. 🤢

Makes me sick, such dogs are ket in home where they are a threat, no only to young defenceless kids but heard o attacks on adult too.

Think it is simply wrong. 😳

Specially when they are kept jsut for the heck of maintaining some kind of social status.

Originally posted by: manny.

how is this a debatable topic? i mean its not right to be near or keep anything thats life threathing... so the awnser to this question is obvious 😕

Coz it can have both side of arguement 😆😆 . Obvious😕 😆 here one such breed lovers site... go check... http://www.pitbulllovers.com/site-map.html wonder why people cann't get most obvious things in world😉, may be there is valid reason and lets hear it out from all😛

Originally posted by: sweetmagic4u

I enjoyed the background story to this debate! 😆 You already have a tree escape plan 🤣 But it's good to do drills of such emergency plans, make sure you can climb it! 😉

😆Thanks.. drills???, you want me to be sued for trepassing without a reason...lolss it's easy am sure can make it.😆

Question: Is it right from legality or individuals stand point to have pets that can cause harm (life endangering) in anyways?

Yes it is:

(a) Many families consider pets as family members. Just like they have to deal with the cards they are dealt in blood relations, (cranky, old aunts, juvenile delinquent cousins, cheek-pinching uncles, etc.) they put up with and care/love their pets as well.

Take for example a child, who in his/her teenage years becomes a total rebel, mocking all ideals, drinking etc, should the parent abandon him/her? No. Take a totally extreme case for example, a child maybe that takes drugs that cause him/her to become violent and hence a danger to the rest of the family? No the parents still won't give up on the child; they will attempt reform through rehab. Similarly, a maybe violent/over-enthusiastic pet should be dealt with care.

Hear yaa on treated as family members, was reading before yes most cases of attacks are irresponsible owners. But my point responsible or irresponsible why to take the trouble in the first place, having cranky old aunt is still unavoidable, but this can be.

(b) One might say that pets are chosen unlike blood relations, but in many instances they are not, kids just grow up with them as part of the family and maybe take them as adults to their new homes.

Pets that are chosen, should be chosen with care. If a couple is planning to have kids/does have kids they should not choose a pet that would pose a threat to the child. It is the owner's responsibility.

You Right!!, that kinna of my point in response to (a)

(c) Threat does not equal actual harm. Just because the pet's breed has a tendency to be ferocious doesn't necessarily imply that that particular organism will display those genes.

Isn't is best to handle the threat to avoid possibility of harm. No am not saying stop driving a car😉

(d) Freedom! If you are making this US specific, an individual has the freedom to do a lot here, albeit some constraints of course. Take for example the right to bear arms, of course it's potentially dangerous to have a firearm in the house, there have been many cases where the gun has gotten into the hands of a child who ended up killing someone. But it is still allowed legally and many people exercise this right. Similarly, a pet might be potentially dangerous, but it does not mean it will actually harm!

A pet that DOES harm is another case, does not apply to this debate.

No it isn't:

One term: Crocodile Hunter!

Personally I don't like ferocious pets, and avoid going to people's houses that have them! 😛

😆😆 Itney lecture key baad u are saying avoid going to people's house, don't worry will give yaa some tree climbing lessons 😆😆 Like your views here.

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

There is a pit bull ban here in Ontario and if I am not wrong , certain species including pitbull are restricted in UK.
I think , for the interest of society people shouldn't keep such breeds, or animals in residential areas. There are certain animals which can't become domestic , no matter what you do , so better keep them away from other people. There are several incidences where , close family members or even owners themselves were attacked so what the use of keeping such pet , who can harm you or your family.

Nice to see yaa back!! U r right there is bann in some countries and states, or one has obtain licenss in some. Exactly @ bold.