|
It's very simple. Any dog can be mean or aggressive. Some dogs have stronger prey drives than others, and will be compelled to chase objects like running children. Large powerful breeds can naturally do more damage than smaller dogs. Banning any one, two or three breeds is not going to stop fatal dog attacks. If you ban pittbulls all together, undesirable owners will simply move on to another powerful breed.
The solution is simple. Dog owners should be held responsible for their dogs, period. I have three large Rottweilers and I take great pains to make sure they aren't out wandering around. They are properly fenced, walked in control and properly trained. They're all very gentle dogs and even still I would never leave a child to interact with them alone. That's being a responsible owner.
Look at it like this. Far more people are killed by drunk or speeding drivers yet we don't ban alcohol or sportscars. Rather, we punish offenders. Drive drunk and kill someone? Vehicular manslaughter. Drive an insane speed and kill someone? Vehicular manslaughter. Drive drunk and get caught or get caught speeding excessively, and lose your license and or go to jail. Reasonable responses to the actual act.
If your dog escape and kills or harms somebody, manslaughter. If your dogs are out wandering the neighborhood or generally causing a threat, you should lose the right to have powerful dogs. Responsible owners can thus continue to responsibly have these animals and the undesirable owners will be weeded out.
Breed bans have never and will never work that's just a simple fact.
__________________
.
|