Nintendogs Blamed For Dog Attack from Planck's Constant

nintendog play nintendogs on nintendo ds

Photo Credit: lis186

The gamester blogosphere is abuzz with a report in the British tabloid the Daily Mail about a dog attack on a 9-year-old girl while she was playing Nintendo's pet sim Nintendogs.

Megan Walker was mauled by Saracen, a bull mastiff, while playing the game at a friend's house. Saracen [an appropriate Muslim name for a beast that attacks and savages little white girls] dragged Megan from the sofa and sank its teeth into the girl's face, removing her lip.

The girl's grandmother attributes the attack to the sounds of barking emanating from the game station while Megan was playing Nintendogs, "I think this game should carry some kind of warning. People should be told not to play it when there are dogs in the room. I blame the game for what happened to Megan. If they hadn't been playing it I don't think the dog would have gone for her."

The Daily Mail reported she told police that Megan may have kicked Saracen and that is why he attacked her. Doctors were able to re-attach Megan's lip but the dog was later destroyed.

I have reported in quite a few articles that no one should keep dogs who weigh more than any child in the family, read:

Planck's Constant, If a dog kills your child- it`s your fault
Children seen in emergency departments were more likely than older persons to be bitten on the face, neck, and head. 77% of injuries to children under 10 years old are facial.

Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.

The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.

The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.

Megan fit this profile to a tee. This was not the dog's fault, this was her family's fault. Any dog big enough to drag your child off a sofa is too big to have in your home.

I hate and despise laws that try to protect the idiots in society. However, I do make an exception if the law protects innocent parties from the actions of those idiots. For example, I wear a seat belt to protect myself and at first glance I would object to any law forcing me to wear a seat belt to protect myself; however, an idiot who does not wear seat belts is likely to get hurled through a window and into my path possibly causing me harm. So in that regard, the law is good.

Children have no say in what kind of dog is in the house. They depend on their parents to protect them and do the right thing. Here is where a law is needed to protect the child. As I wrote in National Disgrace - Dog Attacks:

In the typical 14 years that 60 million American families will have a pet dog there will be over 70 million reported cases of dog bites; 14,000 a day with the majority of them children and almost all of them by a loving family pet. A pet that the owners will swear was a good-natured pet that never exhibited aggressive behaviour and never bit anyone before. As if the pet was really a member of the family. Right.

Someone has to protect the children. Since most people who own big dogs around little children are too stupid to protect their own kids, we should have laws that prohibit the ownership of any dog that is larger than the smallest child in the family.

We take children away from abusive parents, we should do likewise from parents who house big dogs.