Hacker News Reader

This is a classic false equivalence. Comparing the ownership of an inherently aggressive animal to the risks of driving, falling down stairs, or eating food is misleading.

The key difference is that cars, stairs, and food are essential parts of our society and and built environment whereas vicious and threatening dogs simply are not. Dogs, especially breeds with a known propensity for aggression, can and do actively attack and maim, often with little provocation. When an aggressive dog attacks, the harm is not an accident — it's a foreseeable outcome of allowing a high-risk animal into an environment where it can threaten others.

Cars and other 'risky' activities you mentioned are heavily regulated, with safety standards, licenses, and liability laws in place to mitigate harm. Yet, aggressive dogs often exist in a legal gray area, where irresponsible owners can inflict lasting harm with little consequence.[0][1] The fact that some people choose to neglect or improperly train their animals makes the situation worse, not better.

This isn’t about banning all dogs. It’s about preventing preventable violence from animals that have no place in densely populated urban areas. I can't drive a monster truck in a city, why should I be allowed to walk a monster animal?

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pit-bull-attack-calga...

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/boy-11-killed-in-dog...

Dogs are highly regulated, do you know how draconian courts are about dog to people attacks? In most cases the dogs dont get a second chance.

Monster Animals?

Let me ask you this, do you believe that statistics about certain races committing a large percentage of violent crimes should be interrupted as them being innately more dangerous? Would you suggest we ban them from cities? I'd truthfully like to know.

Dogs are not people, they do not have human rights, and the vast majority of dog breeds were created in the past few hundreds years via selective breeding by humans. It's not genocide, racism, or environmentally destructive to eliminate dangerous (meaning: capable of mauling or killing a healthy adult) dog breeds. Literally the only downside is that doing so would make some people sad.

I don't think that purpose bred animals are comparable to human beings, and won't be entertaining that odious notion.

Do you support regulations that would hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves?

Why or why not?

First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently.

Second of all this is an argument about the fallacies of correlation and causation when reading data and how hardcore emotional takes like yours tend to be from a misunderstanding of the data.

Also, the part that makes me the most disappointed is you are on here trying to regulate other peoples things and dont even bother to do a quick google search or educate yourself on the fact that all the things you are crying about already exist.

//// Under California Penal Code Section 399 PC, a person may be criminally liable if a dangerous animal he or she owns injures or kills another person. While this offense typically applies to dangerous dogs, it can apply to any animal owned or kept by a person. ///// Also the civil liability is off the chart.

The most liberal state in the whole US even has the laws you claim dont exist. Your fear is understandable, but your crusade without even spending a second on the issue is beneath the spirit of this website.

According to this site[0] the maximum penalty for breaking this law is a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine.

I'm suggesting something far different from what this law implements. I'm suggesting that people who own a high-risk dog that maims someone should be charged with assault, and if that animal kills someone they should be charged with manslaughter.

[0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/

Again, a simple search would show that 2-4 year sentence is standard for heavy assault and/or involuntary manslaughter. Your wish is literally already the reality of dog ownership, but you are still committed to vilifying other peoples choices.

The law you cited seems to only apply in cases where the owner knows their animal is dangerous and does nothing to prevent harm. It’s about negligence. What I’m suggesting is that if a person’s dog — regardless of prior warnings or known aggression — causes severe injury or death, the owner should face charges similar to assault or manslaughter, not just negligence.

Current laws often only apply in cases where the owner had prior knowledge of the danger. I’m arguing that severe outcomes from owning inherently high-risk dogs (like certain breeds prone to aggression) should carry more serious consequences regardless of prior knowledge.

And while sentences for assault and involuntary manslaughter may be similar to what I’m proposing (which I oppose because I feel that sentences for violent crimes should be far higher), the distinction is that I’m advocating for this standard to be applied to all severe cases involving high-risk animals, not just those where negligence can be proven.

So no, this isn’t ‘literally already the reality’ — there’s a meaningful gap between negligence laws and what I’m suggesting.

Ok, youre arguing that we should ascribe character to the statistics. So answer my question about what we should do with group of people who commit more violent crimes.

Comparing some risk/danger people are upset about to car accidents is a red flag. Concepts like risk-return and self-determination and dignity are fundamental to these topics, and the "look at car accident numbers" line almost always implies a minimization to the easiest thing to "win an argument" with: Statistics. Numbers. Anybody who believes they can ignore numbers is a fool, but on the other side, anybody who believes they only need numbers is just as detached from reality.

don't forget the completely non 1:1 statistics on banning things vs stopping them from happening.