If you have ever been viciously attacked, and your pets killed by them you may feel differently. Yes it is the people who are the problem. But when they run wild, pit bulls are extremely powerful and much more difficult to overpower. Make no mistake, the only way to stop them is with a gun. I had the misfortune of having to deal with 2 pit bulls.
Like I said before, I am against breed specific legislation, but I also believe that certain breeds should only be owned by people who are "dog savvy" and know what they are getting into ...
... I am not saying that it was because it was a pitbull, but more because the owner should not have owned a dog she could not handle and was not trained to be around other dogs. It is not just pitbulls. A lot of larger dogs do seem to look at smaller dogs as prey and need a lot more socializing around them.
First off, I am totally against breed specific legislation. ...
... I think these bully breeds can be great dogs, but I do believe that they need especially dog-savvy owners who take the time to train and socialize their dogs, more so than say, a pomeranian, who would be obnoxious if not trained or socialized, but couldn't kill another dog or person ...
...There are no easy answers. It's true that Pits attract owners who DEFINITELY shouldn't have ANY dog, let alone a "bully" breed. But if it weren't Pits, it would be a different breed ...
... The other problem is that there are SO many Pits in shelters, where the past history of the dog is NOT known, and who may or may not have received the socialization (especially dog-on-dog!) that they should have when they were young. THESE dogs, I do kind of worry about in terms of the "loaded gun" lying around the house… especially in the hands of people who are NOT experienced dog people and who have young children in the house.
These are all fair comments. Among others, one of the problems with any legislation is whether or not owning a dog is a "right" or a "privilege". Driving a car is considered a privilege, which is why states can enact laws that regulate it. They can require minimum ages and a driving tests. Owning fire arms is considered a right (in the U.S.) and passing laws regulating gun ownership is difficult.
Lilly makes a valid point when she states an ill socialized Pomeranian isn't likely to kill or significantly injure anyone, where as a Pit Bull might.
Cruzr's post makes a similar point.
One might suggest that in lieu of BSL, that maybe legislation requiring certain training and socialization would be appropriate. Maybe in order to get a dog license, one must complete puppy classes up to certain level. There are several issues with such a requirement, amongst them is reflected in Krandall's post where she states, that if it wasn't Pit Bulls, it would be a different breed.
There are many breeds capable of aggressive or violent behavior if poorly socialized, or worse, trained to be aggressive or violent. Some with more ease than Pit Bulls.
Does such legislation rank dogs within a heirarchy?:
1. Pitt Bulls, Rotweillers, Dobermans, Shepards etc.
2. Toy Breeds
Is that fair?
It's an interesting topic.
There probably is a reasonable approach somewhere in the middle that wouldn't make those with vested interests happy.