Sorry, that is not the case.
I would be happy to go over the discussion points with you. Would you please first read the whole thread, including the other one I posted today on the 57 YO woman mauled to death by a pit bull in Chicago yesterday, and the links I included, and then come back to discuss the issue.
It is apparent that you have come into the discussion without the background information I have supplied in not only both of these threads today, but the ones over the last few months. If you wish to play “catch-up”, you may input “pit bull” in the FR searchline and immerse yourself in the information provided, educating yourself on the subject as I did, and then I would be happy to go further with you. Unfortunately, I must leave now for the morning. Thank you, Norski
I’ve read a hundred of these threads in the past and find no reason to read another. It all comes down to someones belief that something should be banned because they don’t like it’s looks and because they want to prevent harm to another.
I find little to differentiate these arguments about banning ‘scary looking dogs’ and banning ‘scary looking rifles’.
In both cases, we are being asked to allow the government to define what we should be allowed to own based upon nothing more than the fact that someone finds them ‘scary looking’. You say you only want to save women and children. Well, isn’t that the same argument offered by “Handgun Control, Inc.”?