Remember that woman in rural LA county who was killed by a pack of dogs last week?

[BainsBane]

152. It's simply false

that large dogs are by nature more dangerous. Yes, any animal can react hostilely if mistreated. In general, however, larger dogs are calmer and bite less than smaller dogs. They certainly bark a lot less. Certain breeds do tend to be more aggressive. German Shepherds in particular are bred for aggression because they are used by police and military forces. A Great Dane, however, is big wuss, as is my 65 lb boxer mix. So to assume automatically that larger dogs are more dangerous or aggressive is simply false. Dogs are not guns. They are living creatures. It's like assuming a big person is more aggressive than a small one. A big person might be stronger, but there is no reason to assume she or he is more dangerous than someone smaller.

Most importantly, if you ever find yourself in danger from a dog, the owner has behaved negligently and should be penalized for it, even prosecuted and jailed (unless of course you have trespassed on to someone's property).

You know what you said about not being able to go on without garlic, good tequila and tabasco? Multiply that by a trillion and you might have a sense of how I feel about dogs. Guns, tequila, and garlic don't provide love. Dogs do.

On a more practical level, scientists have argued that human civilization would never have come to exist without dogs. It was dogs that made agriculture and raising live stock possible. Dog remains have been found among some of the oldest skeletons of sedentary human populations. And Chihuahuas and Shitzus weren't the dogs that they used with livestock.