• Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Social services don’t pay for your dog’s vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?

      Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn’t resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So how will you actually regulate it without a department of dog liscencing?

        Let me add, we are talking about millions of dogs.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn’t have to be funded by the tax payer. That’s what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).

          But seriosly, “but regulation costs money” is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t get me wrong. You put in a dog licensing facility I am all for it. I just think, and please correct me, the amount of political capital people would have to invest could be spent elsewhere and provide much greater returns.

            • Square Singer@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.

              Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn’t want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.

              They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like “The restaurants are all going to die”. Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.

              I don’t have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.

              For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.