There does seem to be one line of argument that says yes, pit bulls kill and maim more than others, but not because of the dog, but because of the owners.
That argument may be meritous, I don’t have enough facts to know. But the argument is irrelevant. If we presume as that argument seems to that pit bulls are attacking more than other breeds, and we know the attacks are in neighborhoods where children live, it really makes no difference to the mained and killed whether the reason is because the dog is inherently dangerous, or whether the reason is that the dog is more likely to be owned by degenerates.
However, given that in a good number of the televised cases, the owners don’t appear to be degenerates, I’m not sure I’d accept this argument without some sort of study. I’m just saying that if this argument is true, banning pit bulls will STILL prevent the maiming and death.
if we can’t prove pit bulls are more dangerous, we also can’t prove that they are not more dangerous. And I still don’t understand why people who oppose animal ownership would be arguing that most dogs are safer than pit bulls — if I wanted to end dog ownership, I’d be taking the pro-pit-bull side’s argument — “Pit bulls kill people, but so do every either dog — they are all just as dangerous as pit bulls, so we should ban all dog ownership, to protect our children”.
How exactly is the “anti-ownership” side advanced by an argument that only a couple of breeds are actually dangerous?
As to experts, I don’t know how one becomes an animal expert, or why people who have degrees that would suggest they know things would misidentify breeds of dogs.
How? How will a ban on pit bulls be any more effective than a ban on alcohol, radar scanners, fatty foods or hate speech?
And I still don’t understand why people who oppose animal ownership would be arguing that most dogs are safer than pit bulls — if I wanted to end dog ownership, I’d be taking the pro-pit-bull side’s argument — “Pit bulls kill people, but so do every either dog — they are all just as dangerous as pit bulls, so we should ban all dog ownership, to protect our children”. How exactly is the “anti-ownership” side advanced by an argument that only a couple of breeds are actually dangerous?
Because if they can get you panicked enough to invite the government's regulation of one breed...one 'dangerous' breed...they know that you can't very well argue that pits are dangerous and rottweilers are not, right? Heck, mastiffs have been bred for hundreds of years to attack human poachers, and a 150lb mastiff can do a lot more damage than a 60lb pit. And German Shepherds have been specialized for police work for many generations now...Pretty dangerous to have a dog like that around your children. Bull dogs, rhodesian ridgebacks, high-strung labradors, malamutes, they've all attacked. Australian Cattle Dogs are at the top of the list for attacks in Australia, so they're probably just as dangerous here in the USA. And as long as we're being protective, Cocker Spaniels have VERY high bite statistics! Sure, they may not be able to kill a kid, but do you really want even one child living with the heartbreak of permanent disfigurement? It's only one more breed, and isn't peace of mind worth it? Besides, you don't even own a Cocker Spaniel! It's not going to affect you any...
And if you think this could never happen, take a moment to meditate on low-flow toilets, CFL bulbs, and Cap&Trade. Think those things are totally unrelated?