Yes, and how do you think that's working out for us?
I never said I would ban pit bulls...
I leave it to others to decide where on the risk-reward chart banning pit bulls falls.
As for this and the rest of your controlling post: you stinking, passive-aggressive Pontius Pilate. No pit-banning blood on your hands, NO! Leave the hard decisions to others. You are contemptible. You don't know what you're talking about.
You shouldn't have any neighbors, Mr. Busy-Body Dictator of the World.
Your neighbor's dog brutally murdered? Drama queen. I don't believe you, and even if it's true (doubtful), it's anecdotal; do you know what that means?
Anecdotal means it is a report that, since it wasn’t part of a controlled study, cannot be used to indicate probability.
Of course, I didn’t use the story to indicate probability, merely to note that there is a “risk/reward” equation, that it isn’t just pit bull owners that are being inconvenienced, and that the argument against pit bulls includes other dog owners who, because some people are allowed to own pit bulls, have lost their dogs.
Your distraction about guns is meaningless as I noted before, since gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the constitution, while dog ownership is not. Also, guns are used by people to commit crimes, and so banning guns won’t eliminate the threat.
But banning ownership of pit bulls is highly effective. It is hard to HIDE the ownership of a pit bull, unless you keep them indoors — in which case they aren’t going to harm anybody. And for the neighborhoods we are talking about, criminals aren’t going to bring pit bulls to randomly attack children (yes, it is possible a crazy person could bring a pit bull somewhere to attack children, but hardly something we think of as an ordinary risk).
Your aversion to risk/reward is irrational, since an entire class of laws involves risk/reward analysis. Why do you think you can’t drive your car 100 mph on a residential street? Obviously, this is an infringement of your rights. But we make it illegal because you might run over some kid playing in the street.
So, why is it that you support a ban on people speeding past your children, but think it is fascist for another parent to consider banning a dangerous dog from possibly harming their children?
The sane people will have to do risk/reward analysis, to determine if there really is a risk attributable to pit bulls, and weigh that risk against the reward of owning one.
The reason I leave that to others is not that I’m passive-aggresive, it’s because I, (unlike apparently you), don’t pretend to know whether pit bulls are actually more dangerous than other dogs, much less whether they are dangerous enough that banning or other restrictions should be considered.
Do you think it is fascist to have to put a collar on your dog to walk them? To pick up their poop? To be required to have a fence if you let your dog out in your yard? Do you think only stinking, passive-aggressive control freaks force you to get a rabies vaccination for your dog?
How do you ever decide what laws are sensible, and which are the result of Hitler incarnate?