A prime example of why "Bleeding Heart Liberal" does not work.
When we protect the human rights of people to keep dangerous dogs, by our inaction we allow children to be mauled by the dangerous dogs.
Those who take a liberal view are as guilty as those who do harm themselves , but their consciences are clear because they have not done anything and things have just happened.
No reasonable person would want a rotweiler.
I agree, generally. I've been following this discussion on another forum where many people make the point however that banning one particular breed is not helpful (admittedly these posts appeared mostly to be from Rottweiler owners who all swear their dogs are 'great big softies' and it's the owners and 'bad management/training, not the dogs, which are at fault.) They cite as justification of this view that many smaller breeds are equally aggressive and that Jack Russells and the like occasionally attack small children with terrible results.
I would respectfully disagree with people who claim their dogs are safe. No dog is safe. My mother's dog was a 'softie' and extremely obedient and yet it still launched a vicious and unprovoked attack one day on a visiting child (aged 8 and fortunately no harm was done, except, possibly, psychologically). Both my mother and I were there and I can guarantee the attack came out of the blue. No-one knows what was going on in that dog's head, but that's the whole point, isn't it - they are animals, they can be occasionally governed by some ancient instinct or unpredictable impulse which can overturn any training, and anyone who thinks they can be left safely alone with children is just plain wrong.
Disney has a lot to answer for. Real dogs are predators and small children are their natural food. Why are the owners surprised at all?
Training your dog is good since it means it will 'hardly ever' bite people. Especially if you train everyone how to act round it with no sudden movements to startle it.
I totally agree. Dogs are pack animals that see their owners (usually) as pack leader. A young child is probably not seen as food but could be seen as a potential threat to its status in the pack.
No one learns do they 
I saw the news item about the child who got killed. The dog was put down, but I expect 100s of nice new dogs were brought home today to play with the kids.
Aww isn't it sweet! he really loves playing with toddlers and look at the loving way he looks at the baby! he's just a big softie
I can't believe people still don't get it. Dogs are animals, they are unpredictable, they can turn and kill
Two dead children today - a tiny baby has also been killed in Australia by a Rottweiler.
Melbourne News
Speaking as something of a dog nut (if that doesn't sound too weird) I couldn't agree more that dogs are simply what they are - highly trainable domestic animals, with the emphasis on animals. I would never under any circumstances leave a dog alone with children too young or too inexperienced with dogs to be able to control it - no matter how longsuffering and easy-going it had been in the past. Our first beast went ten years (its whole life) without ever giving a human so much as a dirty look, much less laying a paw or a tooth on anyone, and I would still never have left it alone with a child - that ought to be a matter of course for any dog owner! too right, Merry. And this was a 2 1/2 year old the family had had for 6 months, so by definition they hadn't observed its entire history.
I know this will sound very useless, but in the case of a dog that "lived in the yard" as the article says, that is not a family pet. The yard is its home and the child who took the baby out to see it was unwittingly invading its patch. There are almost too many mistakes to mention here: first of all a family pet dog doesn't get a patch of its own - it's not allowed let alone encouraged to feel that a place or a chair or a bowl or a toy belongs to it; everything belongs to the humans. Dogs are perfectly happy with this as long as you're consistent! Secondly the kids should never have been left alone with it in the yard - unless the yard door was locked and the key where they couldn't get at it. If it wasn't a family pet dog but a yard dog, what were they doing anywhere near it? I wonder; what are the odds that none of the children in the house had even been told to leave the dog alone when there was no adult present? Why don't people realise these wonderful, friendly, gorgeous etc etc creatures have teeth, and will use them? Of course they will (especially if a toddler sticks a pencil in their ear, falls over on top of them etc etc).
There are a lot of practical things owners can do to "child-proof" their dog, such as training it to accept with equanimity toys/bones/food being taken away from it (long-winded detailed account elsewhere on the hard drive in the highly unlikely event anyone wants it!), getting it used to sudden movements, and to having its ears, tail, paws etc handled, including while eating .... teaching it that it is bottom of the pack at all times, below the children (eccles is dead right) ... and of course children ought to be dog-proofed (not to assume they all like handling, not to assume they all like kids .... bloody Disney). But there's no substitute for basic precautions; you don't leave two untrained animals together (I mean a dog and a child). Merry, you already said it a great deal more calmly and coherently. I really need that soap-box icon, I'm afraid! [/rant]
Imagine you're a dog. Humans give you things to eat and are friendly towards you. A friendly seven year old human appears and holds out a live baby for you to play with, or to kill and eat.....
The dog has been shot dead but the stupid adults who are responsible are unfortunately still alive. They'll probably go and get another dog as well.
Helio, I do love to see animals in the wild so I appreciate why people like to have pets of all kinds. I realise too that many dogs will never actually hurt anyone in their lifetime.
The biggest part of the problem is the owners of course. You mentioned a couple of points there about status and owning territories and objects that I wouldn't have known about. Clearly there's a lot of stuff owners should know before they get an animal in the first place.
(Leaving aside for now the owners who want a dangerous dog for their own status)
I see the point too about the kids being trained to act correctly around the dog, but I see a difficulty there.
I can imagine a case for a farmer for example who has working dogs. His are carefully trained and his own children taught from early on how to deal with them. For the sake of the occasional visitor they can be sent out of the way.
However in the places that I see the dog is right there in the living room of the house. It gets its exercise in the garden and the street outside. It meets strangers all the time outside and visitors inside who can not be expected to follow special rules.
Even with a superbly trained animal in those situations there is still a risk and it's often to someone who didn't choose to own a dog in the first place.
Still, I'd be happy for a start to see all owners required to take a course and pass a test to be sure they know these things. That alone would cut down incidents drastically.
Next Page...