Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
The sad thing about this is that the attack in question wasn't even perpetrated by a pit bull. Breed bans are totally ridiculous and have not proven effective for reducing attacks anywhere they've been implemented.
|
The article says it was originally called a pit bull and are now doing DNA tests. Do you have a link that shares the results?
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
Are you saying that banning a specific breed doesn't reduce attacks by that specific breed?
Sure one can probably argue that banning a breed doesn't reduce dog bites overall. I could believe that. I don't see how a properly enforced ban on pitbulls doesn't reduce pitbull attacks considering there shouldn't be any pitbulls in the city?
The point of a breed ban on Pitbulls is that their power is so much more significant and damaging that there's no reason to allow them to be bred. There's no benefit to allowing Pitbulls. Anything you can get from a pitbull, you can get from a less powerful breed.
|
I've always found the correlation between attacks and breed bans to be kind of weird. What do they have to do with each other? How can you possibly know for sure if a breed ban has had positive effects? Surely we aren't just doing it for the sake of reducing overall reports of bites. As you say, based on basic logic, pit bull attacks should decrease if pit bulls are banned. Having on more than one occasion been forced to deal with people who have insane pit bulls, I'm all for it based solely on my anecdotal experience.
It seems to me pointing solely to reports of attacks/bites before and after the bans is kind of like saying violent crime rates stayed level after guns were banned. Well sure, but did gun crime decrease? The whole point of these bans is to help reduce the number of potentially fatal, or at the very least severely damaging, dog attacks. I honestly can't wrap my head around how someone wouldn't see that banning one of the breeds that can inflict the most amount of damage wouldn't help.
Will there still be other violent breeds? Sure. But now there is one less potentially deadly breed out there. How is that a bad thing? You can point to bad owners all you want but as is often pointed out, albeit a bit extreme of an example, if every bad owner could only own a Chihuahua we would have a huge decrease in violent dog attacks. No matter how bad an owner is, those dogs simply can't inflict as much damage period.