[kanawa]

But there is one big difference: You can't always control what a dog does.

Dogs unlike guns have minds of their own, which is why...
You can't always predict what a dog may do.
This is why being in control of your dog is one of the main pillars of responsible dog ownership.

If you wanted to extend the control analogy to gun ownership
you could point out that firearms need to be safely stored and carried.
You store your gun in a secure place, you don't leave it lying around to be taken by anyone.
You transport your firearm with the safety engaged.

The liberal AG in my jurisdiction made the following comment...
"you cannot trust a dog owner to muzzle their dog just as you can't trust a gun owner to put a trigger guard on his gun."

BTW this same fellow who banned dogs is now attempting to ban all handguns.
To him there is an obvious connection.
The problem is that as a nanny-stater he ignores personal responsiblity.
In order to deal with specific occurences of criminal or irresponsible ownership
he infringes upon the lives of law-abiding responsible owners.

[GMMAC]

Guilty-until-proven-innocent, brain dead,
politically correct, knee-jerk, liberal hogwash at its worst:

Information on The Dog Owners' Liability Act and Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005

[GMMAC]

... and, further more:

[AnAmericanMother]

Actually, it's a direct analogy . . . because if you don't control the gun yourself, or don't control the dog yourself, bad things can happen.

The gun may not have a mind of its own, but if an idiot owner leaves it lying around, children, criminals, or those not of sound mind may get hold of it. Then you have an "other" that has control of the gun . . . but it's the owner's fault.

Same thing with the dog. Let it run loose and untrained, the "other" will take over from the owner . . . and again, it's the owner's fault.

These nanny-staters want to punish the instrument (gun, dog) and not the owner who is the true guilty party.