323

Woman killed by her two XL bully dogs at home in east London (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by x4740N@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

247 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 61 points 7 months ago

Definitely think owning dogs should require a license and a test of some sort like driving a vehicle.

Can't control a 120lb dog? Class B license instead of Class A license.

Only allowed to buy dogs under 100lbs.

Don't understand how feeding and training works? No license for you.

Licenses for being able to own non-fixed animals as well. Being able to breed dogs and cats needs to come with way more responsibility as well.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago

Now do kids.

[-] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

👮

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 7 months ago

i think murder is already illegal

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 5 points 7 months ago

There should be, but I expect the unintended consequence is a severe drop in birth rate.

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago

The unintended consequence is genocide. When people need permission to reproduce that introduces a convenient method to keep certain people from having kids.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk -2 points 7 months ago

I think that's the point.

There are some people who just definitely don't have the wherewithal to be parents. They can barely look after themselves, often they don't look after themselves.

Part of the test would be to ask if you plan to name your kid after a Game Of Thrones character.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

~~unintended consequence~~ desirable effect

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 months ago

Not always. See Japan and Korea, for instance.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Let's hope they figure out how to reduce population gracefully. It's important to save the planet.

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 months ago

The problem is not reducing population, it's to have our economic system be able to cope with population reduction instead of just collapsing. Do you think we have any hope of changing it for the better?

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Do you think we have any hope of changing it for the better?

We do by working towards post scarcity and transitioning away from capitalism

And if they try to stop it we force the transitioning

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

We could also just move to space, we have the tech to start this process

[-] derpgon@programming.dev -1 points 7 months ago

How is that bad? Less pollution and garbage, no need for as much housing (thus dropping house prices), no need for as many stores, vehicles, resources.

And less shitty parents, less homeless people, less crime. I see that as an absolute win.

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

It TOTALLY won't be structured in a way to keep people of certain classes unrelated to child rearing ability from essentially reproducing at all.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

And this is why we can't have nice ~~things~~ democracy.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

https://time.com/4192760/hitler-munich-excerpt/

[-] derpgon@programming.dev -1 points 7 months ago

It was almost 100 years ago, but yeah, everything leads to Hitler eventually.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

No... no. Not everything, but rhetoric like in your comment.

You're literally cheering on eugenics, with a false hope of what it would achieve.

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 0 points 7 months ago

Alright, I should have prefaced this with "I assume society is working, there is no racism, corruption, non-cis non-hetero people have sufficient rights, and the government is working as intended."

Of course, unfeasible right now.

[-] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 3 points 7 months ago

There is no need, birthrates are already falling.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

But the ones breeding shouldn't be...

[-] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Now do whatnow!? Are we still doing phrasing? That still a thing?

[-] scrappydoo@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

The UK used to have dog licences, but they were abolished in 1987. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP98-6/RP98-6.pdf

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was amended to ban XL bully dogs in February 2024 unless an exemption certificate is held. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66775985

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

What if a dog grows over 100 american freedom units (lbs)

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 7 months ago

I'm assuming the fact that dogs grow would probably be accounted for in the license. It's a well documented phenomenon.

this post was submitted on 20 May 2024

323 points (90.5% liked)

World News

39364 readers

2151 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.