[Finny]

Not too long ago, a lady was unloading groceries from her car. She propped open the door to her house to do so. Arms loaded with groceries, she got to her kitchen, put down the groceries, turned around -- and found TWO pit bulls/mixes that had escaped from their yard in a home several blocks away, in her kitchen and growling at her. Search FR threads for one by a woman whose little dog was attacked and seriously maimed by a couple of pit bulls, and you can read about this incident.

Now maybe you ain't been keepin' up on current events, to paraphrase Hudson, but all you've got to do is search FR right here using the words "bull," "bulls," "pitbulls," and "pitbull" and you'll see a long, long list of recent and fairly recent news reports about kids, old people, and average folks (not to mention goats and other livestock) being either killed or critically injured not by huskies, Jack Russell terriers, or chows, but by Rottweilers, pit bulls/pit bull mixes, and presa canarios. If you think that the lady in her kitchen would have been facing an equally dangerous threat had it been two Jack Russell terriers in her kitchen, you're fooling nobody but yourself.

There is no great coverup and conspiracy to hide all the other Americans who are killed or critically injured in proportionate numbers by dogs of other breeds. Hence the call by many misguided people to "ban" pit bulls and Rotts, etc. I think banning is the wrong solution. The best solution that offers the best live-and-let-live for all dog owners, is to have breed-specific regulation on dogs, singling out the very very few dog breeds that have a record of killing or critically injuring more than three innocent Americans a year. Pretty simple and reasonable, but pit bull/mix rottweiler, etc. defenders INSIST that this is not right, that all vicious dogs are equally dangerous. The vicious out-of-control Jack Russell terrier has very little chance and zero track record of killing or critically injuring an adult human, except by fluke. The pit bull/mix, Rottweiler, and Presa Canario, on the other hand, has a long and well-documented track record of both.

What you prefer to call "nanny staters" are people like me who are sick and tired of NOT being able to walk on public streets in public neighborhoods or be able to unload groceries from the car FOR GOD'S SAKE without the threat being faced with some loser's pet that's of a breed that has a history of killing or critically injuring adult humans. As much as I wish this was a concealed-carry state, it is not, and in fact, a person shouldn't have to carry a side-arm to protect themselves from asshat dog-lovers' PETS.

[kanawa]

I think banning is the wrong solution.

Why?

You know that irresponsible people will ignore your proposed breed specific regulations.
To insure that these monstrous attacks do not occur we must ban all vicious breeds.
It is ridiculous to wait until there are three or more fatalities before acting,
Surely one fatality is one too many.
Follow the lead of Ontario.
They examined dog fatalities in Canada
and found one historic fatality attributed to the American Staffordshire Terrier.
That was enough to have the breed proscribed. That's how a government that cares acts!
There is no reason for anyone outside of law enforcement or the military
to have a dog that is big and strong enough to kill a person.
Since, and I can attest to this, a ban will not stop people
from continuing to breed these outrageously dangerous animals,
police, by-law and animal control officers
must be given extraordinary powers of search and seizure.
Kudos to the liberal government of my province for removing the impediment of warrants,
as well as for implementing the brilliant tactic of reverse onus.
Let the burden be on the owner to prove his dog
is not one of the banned breeds/types.
This a small price for society to pay so that we can be safe.
These ticking time bombs must be sought out and removed, torn away if need be,
from their owners and immediately put to death.
None of this "grandfathering' of existing dogs,
it's just not worth the risk if it can save even one child .
If it comes down to people, so called responsible or not,
having a breed of their choice and the rest of us being able to live without fear,
our need trumps their selfish desires and so called property rights.
The "animal professionals" can talk until they're blue in the face about how extremely rare
these occurrences are compared to the number of dogs out there
and how the vast majority of these dogs never cause any problems but that isn't the point.
We read the papers and either know a bad dog or someone who knows a bad dog,
we are justifiably terrorized and something must be done.
Without safety we have no freedom.
If the owners of these power dogs don't like it, too bad.
There's something seriously wrong with anyone who would want one of these beasts anyway!

[proud_yank]

Until reading that, I never gave any thought just how dangerous walking into my own kitchen or backyard really was.

Following your logic, especially citing the media as the foundation by which it is made, guns and SUVs should be banned, or heavily regulated.

What specifically would you have done, regarding these specific breeds? You don't really say. Would you suggest tighter fencing laws, require they be on a line at all times, never allowed outside a house?

The question I have is, assuming a golden retriever attacks someone (which happened to my Mom, unprovoked and it came from nowhere), why should it be treated any differently than if it were a pitbull?

The vicious out-of-control Jack Russell terrier has very little chance and zero track record of killing or critically injuring an adult human, except by fluke.

I haven't checked the data, but I don't think you would have to dig too deep to conclude that the majority of fatal and non-fatal dog attacks involve children.

Honestly, I think that down in the PRC you have a far greater chance of being harmed or killed by a criminal than you do by someone's dog.