[The Coopster]

Hey, over here! I suppose the government should just butt out here, as it is your right in a free republic to own whatever dog you want, regardless of it's danger to others, right?

[coloradan]

Hey, over here! I suppose the government should just butt out here, as it is your right in a free republic to own whatever dog you want, regardless of it's danger to others, right?

Diane Whipple was disarmed by her government and therefore prevented from being able to save her life when attacked. Whe had plenty of time to call for help. You can't pin her murder 100% on the dog. If it either partly the government's fault for preventing her from being able to defend herself, and/or partly her and Darwin's fault for believing the gun grabbers, if she was anti-gun even if gun ownership had been allowed to her.

Also, with rights come responsibilities. If owners of Maul Dogs face murder or manslaughter charges every time someone gets killed and appropriate assault charges every time someone is attacked, proper training, restraint and discipline might rapidly come to all dog owners, especially the owners fighting dogs at high risk to become Maul Dogs.

[Iconoclast2]

People should be accountable for harm caused to others. The challenge is how to structure a government that achieves that without the loss of freedom. Old-fashioned courts did best.