The owners might be irresponsible, but that is in my view all the more reason to ban them. In this case the owner apparently had 10 of them. At what point do we say “To hell with the excuses, if they won’t control them, then we will.”
The pit bull is the biggest offender. I’ve got a lab, have had labs for 20 years. Some people think labs are dangerous. Some insurance companies charge higher premiums for dangerous breeds. I’ve never had a problem with any of my labs, even around small children. Never even had one become aggressive or bite anyone even once—even playful bites.
No insurance company has tried to charge me more because I have a lab. If I had a pit bull, I’m sure they would.
Of course, any breed can be made mean, but pit bulls who appear to be perfectly sweet end up committing these atrocities too.
You can distinguish between those breeds that are dangerous and those that aren’t. I’m not worried that the government is going to ban labs just because they might ban pit bulls. We’re not dealing with a slippery slope situation here.
Dobermans and mastiffs, even Great Danes and German shepherds have been criticized as being too dangerous at one time or another. But they all pale in comparison to the pit bulls.
It’s just a judgment call. Right now, we have a mentality that anything goes. Punishing the irresponsible owner doesn’t seem to work for pit bulls. Frankly, most of these “irresponsible owners” are good people who mean no harm. They are just irresponsible, and are themselves shocked at what their own animals do. In many cases, you can’t even identify the owner because the dog is a stray. You would have fewer instances like that if the breed were banned.
No one is going to want to ban all dogs. Responsible owners can always find another breed they like if you ban one or two. There are a lot to choose from. It’s generally the irresponsible owner who insists on having the dangerous breed.
respectfully,
SIDENET