1. There are already adequate laws on the books regarding dog attacks and guns. If I shoot you for no good reason, I will go to jail. I may even get the death penalty. If my dogs attack you, causing you severe harm or death, I go to jail, (although I don`t quite agree with incarceration in all cases as some people do provoke animals and therefore should not be the owners fault whatsoever if it attacks and kills-its the moron for goading the animal). So yes, you are irrational in thinking that there is not adequate punishment and you are irrational for wanting to take inane measures (complete eradication of Pitbulls) to prevent what I think is an acceptable amount of deaths. In the United States that would be 0.000009627977608931363 Percent of the population that die from dogs or 30 out of 311,591,917 people. So yes, you are INCREDIBLY irrational.
2. Bacteria are not equivalent to mammals and are in a totally different Phylum. You are making a false equivalency that makes absolutely zero sense. I hope you are not advocating that humans try to set up a lobbying organization in order to "Save the Cancer Cells" or "Preserve AIDS". That would be nonsensical.
3. I think the current rate at which people die by Pitbulls and other dogs is completely acceptable, rendering them statistically harmless. See my above figures. Also, I don`t put more value on a childs life automatically just because they are children.
4. I don`t agree with house mice, squirrels and other animals being treated as Vermin, but I do understand the concept of being specist and think that being specist is completely fine to discriminate towards other organisms as it is certainly in our DNA and every single organism as well. If certain animals do have a disease, such as Rats-Black Plague, measures should be taken for inoculation and quarantine of the animals for study, in order to develop a cure for these diseases. Eradication is not feasible and does nothing to further Science along. In fact, it only sets it backwards.
5. Start here with Hippos. http://animal.discovery.com/tv/worlds-deadliest-towns/killer-hippos.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/hippos-kill-nearly-3000-people-a-year_n_1143202.html
They are incredibly dangerous.
I am glad you think their are many adequate laws dealing with serious dog attack. The owner of the Pitbulls that attacked me, escaped with a fine of $2000, that's it. That was about the amount of money I lost in the first week (and this owner had two priors involving the many pitbulls he owned attacking others) Meanwhile I was unable to walk for six months, had to close my business and use my life savings to get by. As for America, the situation is no different, if you take for example the case of Tony Solesky, his young son was brutally attacked by a Pitbull and his sons life left hanging by a thread. Tho owners were never jailed and then declared bankrupt when he lost the civil suit. Leaving the Solesky Family hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket and with no way of recovering these costs. As for my own case, I am still waiting for the civil suit to start after three years.
And it isn't just fatalities, it is the alarming rate of serious injuries after attacks, I have monitored these attack stories for a couple of years, and they are daily occurrences. Also the amount of other peoples pets that are killed is alarming. I find it striking that you find a small amount of fatalities perfectly acceptable (of course, as long as their not your friends or family members) for something that is 100% preventable. Their are millions of incidents with dogs every year, only a small percentage of them result in serious injury or fatality, and the majority of these are caused by the same dozen breeds of dog, with Pitbulls far and away the Number one Killer, killing more than all other breeds combined. Dogs were created to be companion animals, And in the words of Randall Lockwood of the HSUS & ASPCA said: Shaped by dog-fight enthusiasts, they are "a perversion of everything normal dogs should do. What they've created is a canine psychopath."
I must admit, I find your outlook consistent with sociopathic behaviour, and typical of the Modern World. Based on your reasoning that the action we take must be based on how statistically harmless it is. I could suggest that the deaths from 9/11 were way too few to worry about, that to spend so much on terrorism, to invade other countries, to take away citizens freedoms, to spend countless billions, to kill millions of foreigners is simply overkill. I mean after all, just as many people die by hippo each year as the amount that were killed during 911. Why not focus all those resources on Hippo fatalities. personally, I think that the chances of being killed during an act of terrorism is statistically harmless, so when people are killed in events like 911 it is best to ignore them. Oh brother, what a cold world you must live in.
4,486 American soldiers died during the IRAQ war, and countless more seriously injured, all because a few thousand died in a terrorist attack. I imagine you supported the efforts of your country during this time and thought it was worthwhile even though it was
statistically harmless.
