Quote:
Originally Posted by billethkid
for general application and condemnation.
The events/occurrence as terrible as they would/could be are statistically insignificant.
So why does a subject like this warrant any consideration when real issues like using a cell and driving. More people killed than by drunk driving, yet it is tolerated...no let's call a spade a spade...ALLOWED!!!
Guess why. Because it is easy to articulate the negatives of a dog in town or not...because most have nothing to lose...they don't have dogs.
Precisely the reason there is an organization called MADD (mother's against drunk driving) they are not drinkers and have nothing to lose. But give up a cell phone ...now that there is personal involvement...losing the use of cell phones by the same mothers....not a peep....and ALLOWING the slaughter to continue.
I take my dog to the squares as they are a part of the family. If we are going to discuss behavior, let's not limit it to the dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTK
|
Guess you failed to read the part where I said that I do have a dog and did have two. One person, be it child or adult, or one other animal killed or maimed by a "single incident" is one too many. Do you argue this much when you are not allowed to take your dog other places? Had dogs not been allowed in the squares in the first place, this would not have become an issue. As for the cell phones, there again, the people should be responsible users. Talking on a cell phone (hands free) is no different than talking to another person in the car whether in the passenger seat or the back seat. Texting is another matter since it cannot be done without taking your eyes off the road and reading it or typing a reply.