Quote:
Originally Posted by Reneeee
This is literally the guns don't kill people, people kill people battle. But if that person didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill 58 in Vegas.. stupid argument for pitbull, theyre a dangerous breed. It's why nobody in Canada owns Alligators, Lions or Komodo Dragons, they're unfit as pets.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
|
Any debate of this type has to consider the risk factor otherwise you would end up taking the position that anything that poses any kind of risk needs to be banned. Guns kill significantly more people than pit bulls do in this country every year, as does alcohol and car accidents yet no one is calling for a ban on driving. Instead, if you happen to be consistently risky behind the wheel, they don’t let you drive anymore. The same can be done with poor dog owners. If the owners are held to a higher standard through fines or other punitive measures then the problem should fix itself, either owners will do a better job raising their pet or they won’t choose to own a breed they aren’t able to safely raise.
I really think any data presented on bite frequency is a little misleading. Of course the dog with the strongest bite is going to have the highest number of reported incidents, but that doesn’t mean they are the breed most prone to biting. I got bit by a shihtzu when I was around 12 years old, I went to pet him but didn’t realize he was guarding a bone so he bit my hand without warning. It hurt and bled but it’s not as if I had to go to the hospital which means it never got reported. While people might say that isn’t a severe incident(and it wasn’t) had it happened to the baby or toddler who were in the room at the same time it likely could have been. Any dog is capable of attacking. If it is the strength of their bite that is the issue, then which breed takes their place once they get banned and how long until we have the same debate about that breed?