[Finny]

The thing is, a definition has to be attempted for this problem to be solved. But it takes balls to do that, which is apparently something too many folks don't have. And "total safety," my foot. Reasonable safety is more like it -- it's unreasonable that a mail carrier can't do her job without having her leg shredded by a Rottweiler who dashes out from between cars, a gal can't unlock the door to her San Francisco apartment without being killed by the neighbor's dogs, and a farmer can't raise exotic goats without losing 88 of them to three maurading pit bulls. Containment is good, but apparently it ain't working so well. Harsh preemptive punishment for creating the risk in the first place is better. And most important, containment is more essential with some breeds than with others. Plain and simple. This "regardless of breed" mantra is patently ridiculous.

[kanawa]

The thing is, a definition has to be attempted for this problem to be solved.

The definition can made using the quantitative measure of weight.

Harsh preemptive punishment for creating the risk in the first place is better

Which is exactly what I suggested.

And most important, containment is more essential with some breeds than with others. Plain and simple. This "regardless of breed" mantra is patently ridiculous.

Containment is a plain and simple principle of responsible dog-ownership regardless of breed.
There are millions of dog-bites each year. They are all serious and unacceptable.
If that attitude, in your mind, makes me seem ridiculous, then so be it.