When I speak of the cases where the dog was completely unprovoked, I am just quoting the people involved. I’m thinking more of the cases where the pet has been gentle and kind with the children, and for no reason turned on them. I’m trusting the parent is telling the truth.
A dog is a living thing. A gun is not. Some negligence is required for a child to kill with a gun. We can’t ban cars because of careless people leaving keys in the car, or other mishaps with children. A gun is in the same category.
Banning a dangerous breed of dog will hurt nobody. A dog that is known to snap. Not having this dog available does not make a darned bit of difference. There’s lots of dogs. I realize we will never eliminate all dog attacks, but the pit bull is notorious for this and they’re so strong, they often cannot be stopped.
What if someone wanted a nice lion for a pet? A nice bear? Tiger? There’s a reason dangerous animals are not allowed, especially in more populated areas. AFAIC, pit bulls should be on the list. Best we just agree to disagree.
We will just agree to disagree, negligence is not unique to gun owners for them to kill, dog owners are often just as negligent.
Just look at the argument, banning a dangerous breed won’t hurt anyone, many other breeds exist.
Neither will banning the AR-15 when you can own any other rifle, shotgun or pistol, we shouldn’t do either one IMO.
Lions, tigers and bears are not now and have never been domesticated animals, millions of pit bulls are.
Pit Bulls are strong, so are Rottweilers, Malinois, Shepards, etc...