Jackson County orders vets to report rabies shots
#21
According to the CDC, 55,000 people a year die worldwide because of rabies. In the U.S. 40,000 people a year receive the PEP vaccination (post exposure). They don't give a specific number, but say that "most" of the 40,000 people requiring vaccination, were exposed by domestic animals. The cost in the U.S. is 300 million annually.

Your argument is, that you and your dog live outside of town and have limited contact with people, and you don't use the services provided by your registeration fee.

Why can't I make the same argument about my firearms?

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsRabies/
Reply
#22
(03-22-2013, 11:03 PM)footballfan Wrote: According to the CDC, 55,000 people a year die worldwide because of rabies. In the U.S. 40,000 people a year receive the PEP vaccination (post exposure). They don't give a specific number, but say that "most" of the 40,000 people requiring vaccination, were exposed by domestic animals. The cost in the U.S. is 300 million annually.

Your argument is, that you and your dog live outside of town and have limited contact with people, and you don't use the services provided by your registeration fee.

Why can't I make the same argument about my firearms?

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsRabies/

Neutral Your argument is that most of the people who die or are injured are from registered or unregistered home guns?
Reply
#23
No, it just seems to me Ponder is being a little hypocritical. He's all for the registration of firearms, because he believes it would reduce the number of people hurt or killed by them. Someone looking at the numbers, could conclude that rabies are pretty harmful as well, (and more common than I would have thought).

The registration and subsequent vaccination of his and other dogs could drastically reduce 40,000 people a year being exposed to a potentially deadly virus.

But, he's against the registration of his dog. Why?
Reply
#24
(03-22-2013, 11:15 PM)footballfan Wrote: No, it just seems to me Ponder is being a little hypocritical. He's all for the registration of firearms, because he believes it would reduce the number of people hurt or killed by them. Someone looking at the numbers, could conclude that rabies are pretty harmful as well, (and more common than I would have thought).

The registration and subsequent vaccination of his and other dogs could drastically reduce 40,000 people a year being exposed to a potentially deadly virus.

But, he's against the registration of his dog. Why?

I'm in favor of vaccinating my dog for rabies, I thought I made that clear. What I'm not in favor of is being forced to license my dog at the same time, or risk having my information given to county animal control. That's a law that discourages doing the right thing, which is innoculating my dog for rabies.

And how is that different than your views on gun control again??? Smiling
Reply
#25
So do they ID you at the Vets.
Just take your dog in, tell them your name is chuck white and pay in cash.
Reply
#26
(03-23-2013, 02:21 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(03-22-2013, 11:15 PM)footballfan Wrote: No, it just seems to me Ponder is being a little hypocritical. He's all for the registration of firearms, because he believes it would reduce the number of people hurt or killed by them. Someone looking at the numbers, could conclude that rabies are pretty harmful as well, (and more common than I would have thought).

The registration and subsequent vaccination of his and other dogs could drastically reduce 40,000 people a year being exposed to a potentially deadly virus.

But, he's against the registration of his dog. Why?

I'm in favor of vaccinating my dog for rabies, I thought I made that clear. What I'm not in favor of is being forced to license my dog at the same time, or risk having my information given to county animal control. That's a law that discourages doing the right thing, which is innoculating my dog for rabies.

And how is that different than your views on gun control again??? Smiling

You're a responsible pet owner. Just like I'm a responsible firearms owner. You don't want to be forced to register your pet, I don't want to be forced to register my firearms. Both of us have the same reason, it's none of their business. Neither issue would be solved by registration/licensing, because you can't innauculate the wild animals/criminals who are responsible for the majority of the infection.

I'll forward you this NRA membership form, since your on our side now. Ninja
Reply
#27
(03-23-2013, 08:07 AM)footballfan Wrote: You're a responsible pet owner. Just like I'm a responsible firearms owner. You don't want to be forced to register your pet, I don't want to be forced to register my firearms. Both of us have the same reason, it's none of their business. Neither issue would be solved by registration/licensing, because you can't innauculate the wild animals/criminals who are responsible for the majority of the infection.

I'll forward you this NRA membership form, since your on our side now. Ninja

Big Grin
Reply
#28
(03-23-2013, 08:07 AM)footballfan Wrote:
(03-23-2013, 02:21 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(03-22-2013, 11:15 PM)footballfan Wrote: No, it just seems to me Ponder is being a little hypocritical. He's all for the registration of firearms, because he believes it would reduce the number of people hurt or killed by them. Someone looking at the numbers, could conclude that rabies are pretty harmful as well, (and more common than I would have thought).

The registration and subsequent vaccination of his and other dogs could drastically reduce 40,000 people a year being exposed to a potentially deadly virus.

But, he's against the registration of his dog. Why?

I'm in favor of vaccinating my dog for rabies, I thought I made that clear. What I'm not in favor of is being forced to license my dog at the same time, or risk having my information given to county animal control. That's a law that discourages doing the right thing, which is innoculating my dog for rabies.

And how is that different than your views on gun control again??? Smiling

You're a responsible pet owner. Just like I'm a responsible firearms owner. You don't want to be forced to register your pet, I don't want to be forced to register my firearms. Both of us have the same reason, it's none of their business. Neither issue would be solved by registration/licensing, because you can't innauculate the wild animals/criminals who are responsible for the majority of the infection.

I'll forward you this NRA membership form, since your on our side now. Ninja

Joining the NRA might be a bit extreme, but (and contrary to popular opinion here maybe) I'm not really against having guns for personal defense. What I don't like is the attitudes of people who are most vociferous in liking to kill other creatures and seem to get off on the violence of it all, whereas I find no joy in killing and indeed, I don't even want to be around these kinds of people. Especially when, the most vocal gun defenders are the ones that come off most violent and angry in their posts - those are especially especially the ones I'd just as soon mock as endorse. Watch and you'll see. Smiling

It doesn't help either that one of my early life experiences was being accidently shot by my boss with a 7mm round. Hunter types do sort of seem like buffoons to me. (Fortunately, the round went through a fleshy part of my leg and not much for harm came of it.)
Reply
#29
You'll be glad to have a gun when a rabid dog comes after you.

[Image: Rabbit-dog_1372446i.jpg]
Reply
#30
(03-23-2013, 09:01 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(03-23-2013, 08:07 AM)footballfan Wrote:
(03-23-2013, 02:21 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(03-22-2013, 11:15 PM)footballfan Wrote: No, it just seems to me Ponder is being a little hypocritical. He's all for the registration of firearms, because he believes it would reduce the number of people hurt or killed by them. Someone looking at the numbers, could conclude that rabies are pretty harmful as well, (and more common than I would have thought).

The registration and subsequent vaccination of his and other dogs could drastically reduce 40,000 people a year being exposed to a potentially deadly virus.

But, he's against the registration of his dog. Why?

I'm in favor of vaccinating my dog for rabies, I thought I made that clear. What I'm not in favor of is being forced to license my dog at the same time, or risk having my information given to county animal control. That's a law that discourages doing the right thing, which is innoculating my dog for rabies.

And how is that different than your views on gun control again??? Smiling

You're a responsible pet owner. Just like I'm a responsible firearms owner. You don't want to be forced to register your pet, I don't want to be forced to register my firearms. Both of us have the same reason, it's none of their business. Neither issue would be solved by registration/licensing, because you can't innauculate the wild animals/criminals who are responsible for the majority of the infection.

I'll forward you this NRA membership form, since your on our side now. Ninja

Joining the NRA might be a bit extreme, but (and contrary to popular opinion here maybe) I'm not really against having guns for personal defense. What I don't like is the attitudes of people who are most vociferous in liking to kill other creatures and seem to get off on the violence of it all, whereas I find no joy in killing and indeed, I don't even want to be around these kinds of people. Especially when, the most vocal gun defenders are the ones that come off most violent and angry in their posts - those are especially especially the ones I'd just as soon mock as endorse. Watch and you'll see. Smiling

It doesn't help either that one of my early life experiences was being accidently shot by my boss with a 7mm round. Hunter types do sort of seem like buffoons to me. (Fortunately, the round went through a fleshy part of my leg and not much for harm came of it.)

The truth is that it's moronic to simply DECIDE that people like to kill other creatures and seem to get off on the violence of it all.
You decide that because that's what you want to think and that's what you want others to think.

You beg to be mocked with your anti everything superior attitude more than anyone else on the forum.
Reply
#31
You're the type of person rules are required for.

For example, let's take this forum for example. People wanted the profane personal attacks to stop. Most people don't make profane personal attacks into a lifestyle. They don't need rules for that sort of thing, they just naturally self control themselves.

Only a few really need rules, and they ruin it for all the rest of us.
Reply
#32
(03-23-2013, 06:44 AM)chuck white Wrote: So do they ID you at the Vets.
Just take your dog in, tell them your name is chuck white and pay in cash.

Well, yeah. You'd have to go to a different vet and pay in cash. I'm guessing if you went to a clinic, they would ID you.
Reply
#33
What good does it do if your dog bites someone and you tell them "but really, I have a rabies vaccination and I told them my name was Chuck White"? I suspect that's not going to get you far. Especially when you explain about how you really didn't want to buy a dog license on general principles. Smiling
Reply
#34
(03-23-2013, 02:24 PM)PonderThis Wrote: What good does it do if your dog bites someone and you tell them "but really, I have a rabies vaccination and I told them my name was Chuck White"? I suspect that's not going to get you far. Especially when you explain about how you really didn't want to buy a dog license on general principles. Smiling

If your dog bites someone, tell them your name is chuck white, and pay them in cash.
Reply
#35
Last time a dog of mine bit somebody, animal control got involved before I could pay the guy off. Smiling
Reply
#36
(03-23-2013, 02:32 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Last time a dog of mine bit somebody, animal control got involved before I could pay the guy off. Smiling

Did you have a license?
Reply
#37
When they got through with me I did. Smiling
Reply
#38
Both of mine are as well. It's such a small cost, compared to the total cost of a dog.

There are those who have dogs on the cheap. We could only hope they at least get rabbi shots.
Reply
#39
(03-23-2013, 02:41 PM)chuck white Wrote: Both of mine are as well. It's such a small cost, compared to the total cost of a dog.

There are those who have dogs on the cheap. We could only hope they at least get rabbi shots.

Going kosher seems a bit extreme.
Reply
#40
LaughingLaughingLaughing

I mean rabies, the rabbi is for getting your dog circumcised.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)