All I know to say is you’re going down a very slippery slope when you start getting the government involved in banning things that may potentially cause harm.
I haven’t yet said what I think ought to happen, and how government OUGHT to do. I’ve only said what government inevitably does.
I think local and State governments ought to make it terribly expensive for owners of dangerous dogs to act irresponsibly.
Currently, in some jurisdictions, owners are allowed one attack by their dog without any penalty. And in some jurisdictions, if the attack occurs on the owner’s property, the victim is not allowed to sue for damages.
I’d like to see both of those allowances disappear from the statutes. Owners of dangerous dogs should be held legally responsible for the actions of their pets all the time, not just after one attack and not only off their property.
There should be no restrictions to the ability of victims to sue or of the amount owners can be sued for. And I think the damages won in a suit should supersede bankruptcies. In the case of a victim who is killed by a dog, I think none of the owner’s property should be off limits in a suit, including their home. And I think the government should have the power to seize property and money won in such a suit, after allowing a reasonable amount of time for the loser to voluntarily pay.
So, no don’t ban the dogs, just make it unbearable for an irresponsible owner when their dog attacks and causes injury or death.
(Also, I think that if the dangerous dog injures or kills another dog, the owner of the victim should be able to sue for and collect for far more than the purchase price of their dog.)