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.”?
Here is the difference.
ANIMALS ARE AUTONOMOUS.
GUNS ARE INANIMATE OBJECTS.
Thus why I also hesitate to severely punish owners...they only have so much control. The dog can still do things on its own.