@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:But why not simply phase out a breed of dog that is statistically more dangerous in unpredictability and the degree of injury inflicted?
I haven't even seen anyone here make a legitimate case that they are "statistically more dangerous".
1) The statistics don't distinguish between situational and dispositional factors. In short, it doesn't say whether pit bulls are inherently so or whether their owners are.
2) The statistics don't really show whether they are disproportionately represented in attacks. The statistics do show that they constitute a significant number of attacks but there are no reliable statistics on how many pit bulls there are, so we don't know whether they are disproportionately involved in attacks.
3) Many attacks are ascribed to pit bulls or "pit bull types" of dogs when they are ambiguous. It's unclear how much the reputation of pit bulls is being reflected in the breed classifications when even when such breakdowns are available.
4) Other powerful dogs that are popular (e.g. rottweilers) are comparable to pit bulls in the statistics. If we get rid of pit bulls the owners will just gravitate to other dogs. And quite frankly, despite the reputation pit bulls have any powerful dog can be dangerous and their temperament and training is what matters most. The bad-ass owners with their bad-ass dogs aren't going anywhere. Get rid of pit bulls and then we'll just be talking about rottweilers.
Whatever big, powerful dog is popular is going to be responsible for a lot of dog attacks that cause injury, and whatever big and powerful dog is legal is going to be popular among those who buy dogs for protection.
I don't get why you guys who support buying guns for self defense (for which there are much better statistical cases for danger than dogs) are ready to ban dogs that are purchased for self-defense. And especially then when you are ready to just ban one breed.
That's kinda like banning one brand of gun. It doesn't even make sense for its stated goal.
Quote:As an all-time passionate and fiercely protective dog lover--all animals actually--I am certainly not opposing dogs or the people who own them. But we have already posted numerous cases where children and adults were attacked simply walking along a sidewalk or in their own yard.
So what? Pamela Rosa posts a lot of stories bout innocent people getting hurt by black people and you see through that kind of anecdotal evidence. Why should this anecdotal evidence be treated differently? In the case of blacks the actual statistical case can be made for disproportionate representation in violence. But even then you are able to see situational factors.
Here with pit bulls you
can't make that statistical case, so what's with the quickness to want to ban them based off anecdotal evidence and weak statistics?
Quote:If one particular breed is identified as especially dangerous and unpredictable, is it such an assault on freedom to initiate an initiative stop breeding and distributing such dogs?
This is a loaded question because nobody here has made a compelling case that "one particular breed is identified as especially dangerous". You guys might get closer if you just say "all big and powerful dogs" but you simply haven't made any sort of case that pit bulls are "especially dangerous and unpredictable".
As to how much of an infringement on freedom it is I guess that depends who you ask. A pit bull breeder will answer very differently than a person who's afraid of pit bulls.
I personally don't think it would rank very high in terms of an infringement on freedom, but because the threat it purports to address is so very insignificant it's not a net benefit to me.
If anything I think communities should be able to decide on a case-by-case basis. If I don't want my kids attacked by dogs I'd want to live somewhere where there are no large dogs, I wouldn't want a law banning pit bulls. That wouldn't make my kids much safer (as long as there are a host of other dangerous dogs that are legal) and I don't want to see dog breeds disappear just because they are responsible for a tenth of the deaths that lightning causes.