Killer Dogs There are various views on dangerous dogs and their owners. Who’s to blame for the number of attacks on kids? In what follows I shall give an outline of these views presented in three texts by three different people and also how they’ve chosen to write these texts. The first text “Police back new law on killer dogs” is written by Jamie Doward who works for The Guardian. Because of the death of the five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson there has been a national debate concerning dangerous dogs. Senior police officer Bernard Hogan-Howe believes that the current legislation is confused and needs to be overhauled. Though it seems that the owners of these dogs are the target rather than the dogs themselves. Kiel Simpson whose dog killed Ellie Lawrenson is facing a jail sentence despite the fact that he’s already serving a life sentence. “The confusion saw hundreds of people in the Merseyside area hand in their dogs to police during an amnesty amid concerns they might be prosecuted.”
(p. 2, ll. 27-28). Clearly the owners seem to the problem in this text since they are the ones who have purchased these dangerous animals. “Pit bulls have certain traits but in the hands of responsible owners they would not be a danger. The act hasn’t worked; it’s failed to prevent a significant number of attacks.” (p. 2, ll. 39-40). This just emphasizes the view on this subject. Once again the owners are to blame because they haven’t been responsible when it comes to controlling their dogs. A RSPCA spokesman more or less agrees with this. “We don’t believe certain types are more dangerous than others. It’s extremely difficult to prove in court whether a dog is an American pit bull. There are only one or two people in the country who have the ability to prove it.” (p. 2, ll. 44-47). Not only are the children being victimized in this text. The dogs also seem to be the victims of irresponsible owners which have made them turn into dangerous animals that the owners cannot keep - mainly for their own sake. The dogs have also been classified as American pit bulls by the police who actually aren’t able to do that since they are not dog experts and therefore it seems as if the dogs - and owners - have been unjustly convicted which is also what the RSPCA spokesman points out in the quotation above when he says that there are only one or two people in the country who are able to classify these dogs.

Jamie Doward has chosen to include the death of a five-year-old girl in order to affect the reader. This will especially affect parents who have a parental instinct and therefore they are more likely to agree with the things being said in this text because they can relate to the pain that the little girl’s parents must be feeling. The text also contains expert knowledge using spokespeople who work for animals’ rights and know a lot of things about animals. The use of these experts creates a certain credibility that can also affect the reader. And finally, Jamie Doward uses value-laden words such as ‘dangerous’, ‘banned’, ‘serious flaws’ and ‘aggressive’. All of these words have a subconsciously affect. The tone in general is very serious and quite negative aswell. The second text “Jail owners of killer dogs” is written by Victoria Stilwell who’s an animal- behaviour expert from Channel 4 show It’s Me Or The Dog and the article is from The Sun.
A 13-month-old baby, Archie-Lee Hirst was mauled by his family’s Rottweiler. Victoria Stilwell has decided to comment on the issue of letting your child be around your dog.
She believes that you should face jail if your dogs kill someone because then you obviously don’t have control and you still let your dog be around other people. She somehow ‘attacks’ parents for mixing their kids and pets. She also explains that children act differently around pets than adults do which can be very dangerous. “It is not fair to put them under that kind of strain. You would not leave your baby alone with a stranger - so why a dog?” (p. 3, ll. 15-17).
She is blaming the owners - and more specifically, she is blaming the parents for letting their kids being around dogs. People are blaming the dogs but according to her, that is a huge mistake. “The problem is, when the worst does happen we all blame the dogs, calling for bans on certain breeds. But it is the owners who have the burden of responsibility, not the dog. To stop this kind of thing just requires a little bit of sense. That’s all.” (p. 3, ll. 17-21). Victoria Stilwell also victimizes the dogs, saying that the owners are to blame and wants them to start being responsible. She especially focuses on the kids who are in the danger zone. She ends by giving advice to families who are thinking about getting a dog. She definitely wants them to go to dog training. As she says: “You need to pass a test to drive a car and I think it should be the same to own a dog.” (p. 4, ll. 34-35). Clearly, this text also has a very negative view on the dog owners because once again they are the ones who have purchased this dog and therefore they have the responsibility of controlling it and they are victims just like the kids.

Victoria Stilwell is an animal-behaviour expert and by that she has already created credibility because she knows what she is talking about which affects the reader. Once again, the death of a child is included though in correlation with the focus in the text it is relevant because the entire article is about the mix of kids and pets. There are also value-laden words such as ‘manslaughter’, ‘dangerous’, ‘killers’, ‘strain’ and ‘tragedy’. These words are all negatively loaded and are mainly aimed towards the the owners/parents. These words also contribute to the negative tone throughout the text. The third and final text “If the dog is dangerous, the will be, too.” is written by Simon Heffer, a columnist for the British newspaper The Telegraph. He starts off by talking about the depravity of the underclass and then moves on the same example that appeared in the first text. He tells that Kiel Simpson who owned the dog that killed Ellie Lawrenson was a convicted drugs dealer. He points out that it underlies his point; if there’s a dangerous dog, there is a dangerous human owning this dog. “Pit bulls and their associated banned breeds are the chiens du choix of the criminal classes. Find one, and you will more than likely have found somebody who is such a threat to society that he has been locked up for something.”
(p. 5, ll. 28-30). So according to Simon Heffer the dangerous dogs are always owned by criminals. He does not victimize the dogs nor does he blame them completely. Instead he is also focused on the owners - though a specific type of owners: the underclass, criminals.
He tells a story about a chief constable who wanted his officers to question every driver of a vehicle that was parked improperly. And every time the vehicles were somehow illegal or the drivers were either convicted or on bail warrants. This is his comparison to the subject. An improperly parked car means a dangerous driver and a dangerous dog means a dangerous owner. Whether these two things can be compared is up to the individual to decide. “Unfortunately, not all police forces lay down the law so hard, and our underclass has been allowed to get out of control.” Simon Heffer spends a great deal of time demeaning the underclass. He’s talking about their residences, their drug dealing and their careers as frauds.
“Ellie Lawrenson is dead because society is failing the undeserving section of the underclass: not by depriving it or oppressing it - our much-exploited welfare state is absurdly generous to such people - but by letting it get away, sometimes literally, with murder. Forget about the dangerous dogs, for heaven’s sake, and let’s start getting really nasty with the dangerous human.” (p. 6, ll. 43-46). In this final passage he concludes that society is to blame for these dangerous dogs because society has allowed these dangerous humans to be the owners of the dogs. He wants us to focus on the people owning these dogs and not the dogs themselves.

Like the other two texts, this one also mentions the death of a child and it’s the same child that was mentioned in the first text. As mentioned before, this has a certain affect on the reader and especially parents. Simon Heffer uses many value-laden words such as ‘depravity’, ‘attacked’, ‘mortally injured’, ‘pointless’, ‘failing’ and ‘depriving’ plus many, many other negative loaded words. This text has a very negative tone and is especially aimed towards the underclass/criminals and society in general. He also uses this comparison which is mentioned above to affect the reader in a negative way. He uses no expert knowledge - besides his own - to get support. At the same time he’s trying to create a very convincing and patronizing tone in order to make people understand the seriousness of the things he says. What’s also worth noticing is that he does not victimize anyone so it does not exactly contain any compassion.
This quotation illustrates his negative tone: “I remember writing at the time it was passed that the Dangerous Dogs Act was a pointless piece of legislation, a knee-jerk response to a regrettable series of incidents involving these beasts.” (p. 5, ll. 15-17). All three texts are of course subjective though in the first text, the author has chosen to use expert knowledge in order to create a certain opinion concerning the subject whereas the other authors simply use their own words to create this opinion. They all have a very negative tone - which is aimed towards the owners instead of the dogs. They more or less all use these negative loaded words to strengthen and convince the reader. All in all, the three texts are extremely similar though the negativity in each text varies. It’s quite difficult to say whether the texts offer a solution or not. The first text demands a change to the law on dangerous dogs but that suggestion gets criticized by spokespeople who work for animals’ rights because they blame the owners for being irresponsible. Therefore is no concrete example on a solution. It’s a discussion that’s about who’s to blame in all of this. The second text gives advice of how to choose the right dog for you and your family, especially if you have kids. So the solution is to be a responsible person and buy the right breed from the right place and make sure that it’s the right dog for you - and your family of course. There is a concrete solution in this text. It’s not just about buying a dog; it’s about buying the dog that fits into your family. The owner and dog need to match. The third text has a slightly more hidden and perhaps a bit more brutal solution. He wants society to take a look at the owners who own these dangerous dogs. He is referring to the underclass/criminals because they are the ones to blame when it comes to these dogs.
This is not exactly a concrete solution to the problem though to him it does seem like one.
He wants society to create the solution for these dangerous dogs - and dangerous humans.