Jun 9, 20222 min read

So the owner is accountable here and not there?

The article linked below is a discussion of increasing the penalty placed on owners of dogs associated with an attack.

I know this is off topic but how is a gun responsible for murder yet a dog is not. Is anyone else having a hard time making sense of the comparative?

A gun which is an inanimate object, which cannot make choice nor can it produce expression without the intervention of a 3rd party, someone is responsible for murder. While a dog which is a living creature that does makes decisions and has expression is not accountable for a similar offence.

I am amazed with the rationalization of so many people and the biases that drive it. If anything I would say that this article is actually a cognitive examination, testing general reasoning when a comparative example exists.

We just has a mass school shooting and guns have become the culprit of violence and murder and here is a discussion of dog violence in the form of attacks and positioning accountability on the owner. So owner is accountable here but not there. How does that work?

What this will ultimately reveal is the means by which bias is created, established, along with, strategies to compel or restrain people with it or by it. This is mass level perceptual and behavioural research. One more means of modifying our behaviour. I guess if the public is will to become consenting lab rats for pharmaceutical trials what is a behavioural test

What I am most interesting in, is what such a bias is born from. We have a dog versus a gun. One is living the other in inanimate. One connects with us on an emotional level the other does not. They are both obedient with only one being able to act independently.

What is it about these difference that bring for such a variation of assessment and accountability of a violent act. If a gun were to have eyes and relate to you would it be harder to make it accountable. Would you be influence if a dog could ensure death with an attack.

I think it boils down to relatability, experience, and it being a living creature that ushers in an emotional bias that lends it self to assessments and evaluation. I just hope that people understand that when you misplace accountability the perpetrator than has the opportunity to find the utility to escape all forms of responsibility.

I ask you to ask yourself - if a dog owner and not the dog is accountable for a violent attack than how and why is a gun being claimed to be accountable for a similar offence?