> "...at rates other animals will never match."

This is because we make the right decision to not live in close proximity to lions, tigers, bears, apes and all the other menagerie of dangerous creatures we share Earth with.

> "...only about 30 to 50 people are killed by dogs"

It's not a coincidence that this number is low. We keep domestic cats and dogs as pets precisely because their propensity and - in some cases - ability to kill us is low. If bears were as commonly kept as household pets as dogs you would see a completely different result.

And even further, we friggin’ engineered them genetically through artificial selection to be that way.

Culture has done the same to humans, generally selecting for pro-social traits. (Yes, there are outliers.)

What is the point being made here? Humans are liable for themselves and their actions - animals are not. It ultimately doesn't matter if an animal has a justification for its actions; being unable to take responsibility for them, from a human perspective, is the biggest separator between human and animal behaviour.

Animals are liable for their actions. The punishment is usually death by lethal injection or firing squad.

The stronger argument is that animals aren't as aware as humans which actions will have consequences. Animals do have customs about what's okay and what's not, but they often don't align with human society's laws.

It's "ignorance of the law is no excuse" taken to an extreme.

I don't really agree. While humans can and do punish animals, it doesn't follow that the animal itself is liable for its own actions. In pretty much all cases, the owner of the animal is the one liable - and animals without owners are liable to nobody. An animal without an owner might still be killed - for example, if it is a danger to people - but I don't think you can call that just punishment.

For another argument, consider that if you went into the woods and were mauled by a bear, nobody who found your body would feel the need to confront the bear and hold it responsible. The bear would not need to be convicted in order to be acted against.

> being unable to take responsibility for them, from a human perspective, is the biggest separator between human and animal behaviour.

That is true, but also not related to what your GP was talking about IMHO.

I understood their comment as coming from a perspective of either "you should fear what you can't understand/explain - and you can't really understand animals" or "it's their nature to be violent, it doesn't matter whether you understand them", either of which I think is flawed.

You made a much better point.

I just have a habit of picking at reasoning even if I agree with the conclusion. Sometimes you end up with a more concise and to the point argument at the end of that, and in this case it came from you!