Posted on 07/02/2009 8:04:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
God bless this child... This is unimaginable.
Pythons wrap themselves around the necks of their mammal victims and squeeze, asphyxiating them. Since the baby was sleeping, it probably only awoke once the python had wrapped, and could no longer draw a breath. God bless that child.
Similar to the type that keeps pit bulls, I guess.
Similar to the type that keeps voting for communists.
I agree 100% that it needs to be considered. However, to act as if the story provided isn’t possible or likely is silly. It’s very possible.
Waiting for the idiots who defend keeping dangerous and deadly snakes as pets.
Haha, being afraid of an iguana, that’s funny. :)
Pet dogs kill more people than snakes do. Even Chihuahuas, Pomeranians and Dachshunds have all KILLED children.
If you’re gonna ban snakes from being kept as pets because of “omg think of the children”, ban dogs as well - ALL of them. They all can kill. No animal is 100% predictable. More people are mauled or killed by the FAMILY dog than loose/feral dogs. There’s always the chance that little Timmy may step on Rover’s tail and he bites him in the face, or worse.
Millions of people have pet dogs and take that risk. Does that make them bad parents?
I love dogs, but I even think they are more inherently dangerous than some of the larger snakes kept as pets, and a hundred times more dangerous than a corn snake or ball python (I do not think there have been any cases of anyone being killed by these two species), which are the most common pet snakes.
Snakes are not territorial like dogs. A snake will not hop a fence or chase you down and maul you because it thinks you’re an intruder. They are cold-blooded and built to conserve energy, and spend most of their time hiding or basking.
Snakes only kill when they are hungry. Dogs attack and kill for fun and to chase away intruders. In fact, it is not uncommon for pet snakes to be injured or killed by their prey if the snake is not hungry and the prey animal is left in the tank with them.
I’m sure many people here wouldn’t want all breeds of dogs banned because they *personally* like certain dogs, yet want all snakes and other exotic pets (that are less dangerous than dogs) banned because they *personally* do not like them. Not really any different than crazy liberals wanting to ban guns, Bibles or other things just because they don’t like them.
To me, it would be better to require anyone with a large constrictor to obtain a permit, get their pet chipped, and have someone inspect the cage it will be kept in. The snake in the article was kept incorrectly. Keeping dogs incorrectly (chained up and no socialization) leads to tragic accidents as well.
Meh, people are so hypocritical.
Guess I’d be that “idiot”, huh?
Do you think dogs should be banned as pets too? Family dogs kill more children than snakes. Dog behavioralists will tell you to never leave even the most well-behaved family dog around a child, as that potential for them to maul/kill them for whatever reason is always there.
If you care so much for the children and the public’s safety, they should be banned too.
No one *needs* a dog either unless they are service or working dogs. And if someone wants a companion, perhaps they should make human friends instead.
Should such unnecessary and dangerous beasties be around our children? Think of the children. :(
I, personally, do not need the government to protect me from “dangerous” pets, just like I do not need them to protect me by taking away people’s guns.
That having been said, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think snakes should be banned. I couldn't care less if people own them as long as they are responsible for their actions. I would agree, since a snake is wild they should require a permit and maybe an inspection of the cage, but definitely if the snake hurts or kills someone the owner is responsible.
Other than that, just because I don't like snakes or other reptiles, it doesn't mean I think they should be banned.
I would support a negligent manslaughter charge against this hapless couple.
ROTFL ... me either (twitch)...
Since pythons are becoming such a widespread nuisance in Florida, I say it’s time for them to become fashion accesories: shoes, belts and purses.
Sounds believable to me, I knew a guy with a python and it was always getting out and hiding in the house. He wasn’t married though. The damn thing creeped me out and I would not go over there after the first visit. I worked with the guy for a long time and he was always telling about his snake getting out.
No one needs any dog, unless its a specially trained service dog, in their house with children either.
No child should to die because some creep gets their jollies by feeding their dog cute ground up cows, lambs, pigs and chicken in kibble form, or that barbaric raw diet I’ve been hearing about!
How many kids do you think should die for this vice?
http://www.dogster.com/forums/Dogs_in_the_News/thread/543334
Sorry about the nerd-rage there.
I guess the topic just bugs me cause I know lots of people that own things that other people want banned, such as guns, reptiles, and large dogs, etc. and I hate these stories that make all owners of such things seem like stupid and irresponsible people. Sucks how a few bad apples can ruin the bunch.
The negligent manslaughter charge sounds good.
I think owning something dangerous makes you highly responsible for any unintended outcome. Anyone that believes that a constricting snake is not dangerous has failed the first test of owning one. Thanks for your response.
Maybe they should have a basic IQ test for prospective owners. If they have butt tattoos they could require carrying extra insurance and taking a training course which covers the dangers to small children. Here's the thing though - if they allow your toothless multi-tattooed neighbors to own vicious attack breeds or strange deadly, smelly critters shipped in from Africa and South America by circus people, they better let you own firearms.
There is no need to own a dog either, unless it is a service or working dog.
I’m curious though. Since you say snakes are unnecessary and potentially dangerous and therefore shouldn’t be pets, do you agree that only those who need service or working dogs should be allowed to own them? Any dog behaviorist will tell you that you should never leave any breed of dog unattended with a child, for the possibility of it mauling and/or killing the child is always there. There is no way to know whether your dog will or will not bite someone eventually. The risk is always there. Should even one child have to die by the family Golden Retriever or German Shepherd, especially when it wasn’t necessary for the family to have a dog in the first place?
Should one only be able to own a dog if there are no children in the home?
Also, to say all snake owners like watching rabbits die is no different when PETA members say all hunters are sadistic stupid oafs that love watching deer and other critters die. I’m sure some snake owners and hunters enjoy seeing animals in pain, but not all. FYI, my friends feed their meat-eating reptiles humanely killed and frozen rodents. They are killed in their sleep, much more pleasant than how the animals used in dog and cat food die.
Vicious attack breeds? Sure, if you think Golden Retrievers, German Shepherds, Huskies and Labradors are attack breeds. But I guess you would, considering all of those breeds have attacked and killed people.
Deadly critters? Considering ball pythons, cornsnakes, blue-tongued skinks and crested geckos have killed 0 people, no, I don’t consider them deadly.
They’re not my neighbors either, but my neighbor does own an aggressive black lab. Clearly this breed should be banned for public safety.
The most DANGEROUS place for a child is in a home with Mom’s BOYFRIENDS.
Dang straight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.