Saw a dog attack my grandchild!

[Mad Doug Biker]

Got some evidence to back that up by any chance?

According to the ONS, in the year ending 31 March 2015, there were 563,000 offences of violence committed by strangers. There were 7,227 hospital attendances for dog bites or attacks in the same period.

I'd suggest you're far more likely to be randomly attacked by a human than a dog...

Right, instead of muzzling all dogs in some sort of witch hunt, lets restrain everone so that nobody can ever do anything EVER AGAIN!!

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

What I was about to say is that, if you brought in a law saying that all dogs needed to be muzzled, then all the law abiding people would follow it, and all the idiots would continue without doing it (because it affected their rights or something equally retraded), therefore defeating the purpose....

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

I am somewhat suspicious of your enthusiasm for restraints...

Humans ARE the most dangerous species on the planet, so anything that helps.....

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Got some evidence to back that up by any chance?

According to the ONS, in the year ending 31 March 2015, there were 563,000 offences of violence committed by strangers. There were 7,227 hospital attendances for dog bites or attacks in the same period.

I'd suggest you're far more likely to be randomly attacked by a human than a dog...

How does that relate to a percentage of the national population?

Are there more offences by strangers, simply because there are so many more humans than dogs?

Note: Genuinely wondering, not picking arguments.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Ok, So here: https://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts suggests 8.5 million dogs in the UK as of 2015
This UK population says 64.1 million people in the UK.

So random stranger attacks make up 0.88% of the human population, and dogs that bite make up 0.09% of the dog population.

That is quite surprising, I honestly thought doing that would switch the likelihoods around. But it seems that you're 10x more likely to be attacked by a stranger than you are by a dog.

Handcuff all humans in public?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Well, if you assume that each attack was by a different individual or dog (and we know that's not really the case) then that means:

• with a human population of 65.1 million and 563,000 attacks, then c. 0.87% of the human population will carry out an attack.
• with a dog population of 8.5 million and 7,227 attacks, then c. 0.08% of the dog population will carry out an attack.

I'm sure the statisticians amongst us will pick holes in my calculations - but personally, I'm of the view that you are much more likely to be attacked by a human than a dog.

Sorry. I worked it out, with curiosity and posted above. But you got the same numbers as me. So I guess it's likely to be correct.

 

[Pale Rider]

Got some evidence to back that up by any chance?

According to the ONS, in the year ending 31 March 2015, there were 563,000 offences of violence committed by strangers. There were 7,227 hospital attendances for dog bites or attacks in the same period.

I'd suggest you're far more likely to be randomly attacked by a human than a dog...

Care to provide a link?

The ONS stuff I can see doesn't categorise violent offences by randomness.

There's some overall figures at table two in this link which categorise violent offences as with or without injury.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...e/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-07-16

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So the answer to incapable/irresponsible/badly trained owners owners is muzzle the dogs, same as the answer to red light jumpers is to ban cyclists.

false equivalence. No one is advocating that dogs be banned.

 

[Drago]

I once got bit by my Labrador. I was messing round with my youngest and she was squealing with delight, but Lemmy thought I was hurting her and didn't like it one jot so he bit me on the arse. He's very, very protective of her (though id still never leave them alone together).

It was a natural reaction, and I was actually quite pleased that he'd move to defend my little one if he felt it was required, so once I was over the initial surprise (it didn't hurt) I didn't tell him off.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

false equivalence. No one is advocating that dogs be banned.

No but it would be unenforcable as all the law abiding people would do it (and potentially put their dog in danger from attacks), whilst all the s*it for brains would continue as before, therefore making it useless.

 

[cyberknight]

GWS to your grandaughter .

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

GWS to your grandaughter .

Isn't it a boy?

 

[cyberknight]

Isn't it a boy?

Need me reading glasses .....

 

[Drago]

Need me reading glasses .....

Let me guess - your dog ate them?

 

[Pale Rider]

The link of for the numbers of attacks by strangers is here.




And? How is that relevant to your original statement: "The only difference is statistical, a human random attack is very rare, a dog random attack is rare, but less so." other than trying to change the goalposts?

Your link is to offences of violence by a stranger - someone not known to the victim - which is very different to the random acts of violence of which I posted.

There are many examples, I could get whacked in a pub argument with a stranger, whacked on the head while walking home late at night because I'm a bit hit and missed and present an easy target for robbery, whacked while riding my bike after a confrontation with a motorist or pedestrian.

All of these perpetrators are strangers to me, but the attacks are not random, they all have a reason.

That's why the tube murder made such big news, because it was a random attack and they are vanishingly rare.

I think it's fair to describe the dog attacks as random, in most cases the dog attacks out of the blue for no apparent reason.