Python kills children in New Brunswick

[BC_chick]

More responsible python owners:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/07/north-vancouver-python_n_3722217.html

There were two other snakes found in toronto last week.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/26/snakes-apartment.html

Ban them across the country. Now!

Edited August 8, 2013 by BC_chick

[Guest Derek L]

But put away your guns, snakes, pit bulls, big trucks because now your freedom is trampling on my safety. Therein lies the difference.

Cigarettes and religion... grey areas.

How so? What percent of owners of guns, snakes, pit bulls, big trucks etc actually pose a risk to the general public?

I feel sorry that you fear other people's stuff, even though the overwhelming majority of this stuff hasn't nor will harm anyone.....

Now the real question, should the owners of these unsafe things that you fear be able to do mundane things like drive, vote or have children?

[BC_chick]

You're the one who compared these things to tattoos and swinger clubs. I just pointed out the difference. And if you really can't tell the difference between driving a car and owning a python, I'm not really gonna waste my time explaining.

[Guest Derek L]

You're the one who compared these things to tattoos and swinger clubs. I just pointed out the difference. And if you really can't tell the difference between driving a car and owning a python, I'm not really gonna waste my time explaining.

The only difference I see, is that you have an unfounded, emotional, aversion towards "Pythons" and other stuff you deem dangerous........If responsible, a young fellow out in Surrey that get’s a tattoo of his favourite Pit-Bull, then drives home in his monster truck to play with his snake and smoke dope is actually no threat to you or the general public, even if his only motivation for doing this is that he feels this stuff is “cool”……..

[BC_chick]

The thing is, face tattoos and swingers do not pose a threat to me. Pythons and guns do.

I don't really care about the actuary statistics behind the threat because the pertinent number is that it's greater than zero (zero being the number attributed to the threat posed by face tattoos and swingers).

Hence, your comparison is void. And a few other adjectives which ill keep to myself since this is a civil discourse.

Edited August 8, 2013 by BC_chick

[Boges]

The only difference I see, is that you have an unfounded, emotional, aversion towards "Pythons" and other stuff you deem dangerous........If responsible, a young fellow out in Surrey that get’s a tattoo of his favourite Pit-Bull, then drives home in his monster truck to play with his snake and smoke dope is actually no threat to you or the general public, even if his only motivation for doing this is that he feels this stuff is “cool”……..

You don't "deem" pythons to be dangerous? Animals that, in the wild, have been known to take down crocodiles. An animal that is suspected to have silently gone from one room to another through HVAC and killed two children?

It's a case of public safety. Sure there are ways people can responsibly own these animals, but I suppose there are ways people can responsibly own anything. Responsible Nuke ownership anyone?

You also seem to ignore the precedent set by ecological problems caused by this animal when people can no longer care for them and get rid of them in the wild where they become invasive species. We also have already established that there is a correlation between people of questionable morals and people who want to own dangerous animals. So that itself should be a warning.

You can believe what you want but governments are taking this case seriously. Ontario has already started looking into their laws on exotic snakes so something like this will be less likely to happen there.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

Now that the lock jaw myth is dispelled, is there any data that shows what percent of pit-bulls actually attack a person or animal?

Whether their jaws lock or not, they do "hold and shake," as I said. It's a "lethal bite style" that makes the dog a more dangerous breed.

And as mentioned by Cybercoma, of pit bulls that do attack, how many of their owners method of raising them likely attributed to said attack?

I've never claimed that they bite more often, but that their bite is more lethal.

[jbg]

Whether their jaws lock or not, they do "hold and shake," as I said. It's a "lethal bite style" that makes the dog a more dangerous breed.

I've never claimed that they bite more often, but that their bite is more lethal.

Well goldens and labs are far worse in that respect, and in their overall disposition.

[cybercoma]

All terriers and terrier mixes tend to hold and shake. But again, it's about the temperament of the individual dog and how it's raised and controlled that's the issue. Not something particular about the breed. Pitbulls are some of the most intelligent and affectionate dogs I've ever been around. Anecdotally, I've seen far more aggressive Jack Russells, Chihuahuas, and German Shepherds than pitbulls. Every pitbull I've been around has been docile and well-behaved, likely because the owners were responsible and knew the risks with such a large dog.

[Guest Derek L]

The thing is, face tattoos and swingers do not pose a threat to me. Pythons and guns do.

I don't really care about the actuary statistics behind the threat because the pertinent number is that it's greater than zero (zero being the number attributed to the threat posed by face tattoos and swingers).

Hence, your comparison is void. And a few other adjectives which ill keep to myself since this is a civil discourse.

I get your point of view, like this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational

ir·ra·tion·al [ih-rash-uh-nl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.

2.

without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.

3.

not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrationalarguments.

4.

not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

5.

Mathematics .

a.

(of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as aratio of two integers.

b.

(of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as aratio of two polynomials.

[Guest Derek L]

You don't "deem" pythons to be dangerous? Animals that, in the wild, have been known to take down crocodiles. An animal that is suspected to have silently gone from one room to another through HVAC and killed two children?

Not if they are properly kept in an Aquarium……

It's a case of public safety. Sure there are ways people can responsibly own these animals, but I suppose there are ways people can responsibly own anything. Responsible Nuke ownership anyone?

That's different though, fore the use/ownership of explosives is a complex question......Even a responsible Nation State has a gamut of issues to prevent harm to the public with both their use and storage….

You also seem to ignore the precedent set by ecological problems caused by this animal when people can no longer care for them and get rid of them in the wild where they become invasive species. We also have already established that there is a correlation between people of questionable morals and people who want to own dangerous animals. So that itself should be a warning.

I qualified myself, I said responsible owners, clearly a person that dumps (any) a pet is irresponsible

You can believe what you want but governments are taking this case seriously. Ontario has already started looking into their laws on exotic snakes so something like this will be less likely to happen there.

How many people, within the entire history of Canada, have been killed by a pet snake?

The reason Government takes bullshit incidents seriously is because they are politicians that need to be seen “doing something” by the irrational masses in exchange for votes….

[GostHacked]

What if the snake came at you with a knife?

[guyser]

What if the snake came at you with a knife?

Good one !

[Guest American Woman]

A lot of the reptiles that were kept in the store are being removed by the city zoo since the store owner didn't have a license - which means that it was illegal for him to have the python as a pet. As has been pointed out, it is illegal to have a snake of that size as a pet.

[Wilber]

Even their tails do a lot of damage.

True. We had a black lab who's tail eventually beat a rather large corn plant in our family room to death. Cleaned off a few coffee tables with it as well. They are a big strong dog and while most are very sociable and interact great with kids, they are capable of doing some damage if things go sideways. But if they do, they are much more likely to just inflict a bite than attack with intent to severely injure or kill. Almost always what it perceives to be in it's own or a family members defense. We used to walk past a yard with a beautiful female golden but you sure didn't try reach out and pet it. Grabbed my jacket sleeve when I tried one day. The family had little kids and it was fine with them. Next door neighbour said it had been teased a lot by some previous neighbours and so really didn't like strangers. There are exceptions in every breed. We had four labs over the years and every one was its own individual with its own idiosyncrasies.

Back to the snake. One expert said he was a bit confused because this species usually bites before constricting and thought it odd that it would be able to kill one without waking up the other. Time will tell.

[GostHacked]

A lot of the reptiles that were kept in the store are being removed by the city zoo since the store owner didn't have a license - which means that it was illegal for him to have the python as a pet. As has been pointed out, it is illegal to have a snake of that size as a pet.

We might be able to overlook it, if it was just one snake, but there were many illegally owned animals.

Must also cost a fortune to feed one of these animals.

[GostHacked]

double post

Edited August 9, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

We might be able to overlook it, if it was just one snake, but there were many illegally owned animals.

The fact that it was illegal to own the snake makes me wonder why no charges have been made considering two boys died as a result.

Must also cost a fortune to feed one of these animals.

I have to wonder what it was fed.

[dre]

They should just make people fully responsible for the objects in their posession. If you snake escapes and kills someone? Murder charge. If you allow your gun to be stolen and it kills someone? Murder charge. If your pitbull kills someone? Murder charge.

[cybercoma]

If only things were that black and white. You're sleeping. Someone steals your car and kills someone, do you get the murder charge?

[ReeferMadness]

If only things were that black and white. You're sleeping. Someone steals your car and kills someone, do you get the murder charge?

Apparently, only if you allowed it to be stolen.

[BC_chick]

If only things were that black and white. You're sleeping. Someone steals your car and kills someone, do you get the murder charge?

Well, actually, if you kill someone in your car due to negligence, you may face charges. Dre's point is that the same idea should be applied to our other possessions.

As for someone stealing your car and killing someone... well, the car is not in your possession, is it? The thief would be the one facing the vehicular homicide charges. Along with theft.

Edited August 12, 2013 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Well, actually, if you kill someone in your car due to negligence, you may face charges. Dre's point is that the same idea should be applied to our other possessions.

As for someone stealing your car and killing someone... well, the car is not in your possession, is it? The thief would be the one facing the vehicular homicide charges. Along with theft.

Dre's point is if someone steals your gun and kills someone, you should be charged with murder.

"If you allow your gun to be stolen and it kills someone? Murder charge."

Edited August 12, 2013 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

I get your point of view, like this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational

ir·ra·tion·al

[ih-rash-uh-nl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.

2.

without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.

3.

not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrationalarguments.

4.

not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

5.

Mathematics .

a.

(of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as aratio of two integers.

b.

(of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as aratio of two polynomials.

No it's not. You're the one comparing face tattoos to housing snakes. I pointed out that face tattoo has zero possibility of hurting anyone else, whereas the same cannot be said about the python.

Quoting the dictionary to throw out an ad hominem argument doesn't make your point any more valid.

Your comparison was illogical.

Edited August 12, 2013 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Dre's point is if someone steals your gun and kills someone, you should be charged with murder.

"If you allow your gun to be stolen and it kills someone? Murder charge."

I'm not sure if you are referring to a different post of his. This is the one I was referring to:

I think its ok for people to own dangerous animals if they are criminally responsible. If your pitbull kills a child you get a manslaughter charge. Same if your snake does. If your dog bites someone its an assault charge.

That would sort this stuff out pretty quick.

I'm reading it as people being criminally responsible for their possessions.