Dogs that kill children need to be banned. This should not be a debate. This is common sense. No one has the right to own a dangerous animal. No animal with the track record of Pitbulls deserves to be pets in our society. We can not keep Tigers for pets, because they can potentially kill us and our family's. Same goes for Pitbulls.
And since the media is THE LAST PLACE one wants to go to find factual information, We should not be looking at dogs or laws for specific breeds of dogs... Rather governments (local or state) who base their decision to ban/ restrict a specific breed of dog based on media information.
Example- Denver, CO.
Denver has banned pit bulls, and dog that appears to be a pit bull, and any breed that incompetent Denver Animal Control Officers misidentify as one of the pit bull breeds.
(Note- Denver Animal Control's "Pit Bull Check List", as it is written, would ID approx 65-70 of the known 127 breeds of domestic dogs in the U.S. As "Pit Bulls")
As for Denver's 25 year old ordinance (that was originally enacted as a cover up to the city's own negligence) is a complete farce:
*The ordinance was never brought to public debate or election
* Not one credible Animal Welfare professional (ie licensed Veterinary Doctor or Animal Behaviorist, Dog Trainer, Animal Control Assoc, Professional Breeders or even a dog walker) was consulted when was deciding to enact the ban
* Take away Denver's local constitutional law (aka Home Rule Authority) and the enforcement of breed specific legislation violate both the 4th and 14th amendment of the US Constitution (the same US Constitution that ALL OTHER AMERICANS HAVE TO ABIDE BY)
* Oddly, Denver's ban is enforced in some neighborhood, but not others: In upstanding, affluent neighborhoods the city will flex its muscle and confiscate a dog, but in the bad neighborhoods where the problematic owners (ie animal abusers, back yard breeders, dog fighters, drug dealers, gang bangers, etc) live... One can drive down any back alley and find countles Pit Bulls chained up in backyards. What does this equate to? (((DON'T DISTURB THE ETHNIC VOTE))). Note, if this were another locale in the U.S., the same message might be DON'T DISTURB THE WHITE TRASH VOTE.
* Since 2009, Denver's Pit Bull ban has extended into the Service Dog realm. According to standards set forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act, no Service Dog of any breed shall be confiscated for any reason other than a bite or attack incident. Denver doesnt see it that way... And on March 15, 2011... The city of Denver was federally mandated to amend their ban to exclude Pit Bull Service Dogs. As of today's date 12/13/13... The city of Denver is still not in compliance with federal law. The city will argue they have a "policy" in place that Pit Bulls working as Service Dogs are to be left alone... But this exemption IS NOT reflected anywhere on the city's written ordinance, there fore there is no solid commitment to the exemption.
It doesnt take a four year degree to conclude that Denver's ban has nothing to do with dogs or public safety... Rather political posturing (against the state of Colorado 2005 and the federal government 2009 - today) and the political agenda of re-election.
Pit Bulls are not more or less dangerous than other breeds of dogs. American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers (two breeds which are frequently cited in breed specific legislation) have better temperaments than many other common breeds like Chihuahuas, Border Collies, Pugs, even Pomeranians and Toy poodles according to the American Temperament Test Society (“ATTS Breed Statistics | American Temperament Test Society, Inc.,” n.D.).
There is a great deal of legitimate scientific data out there that shows that breed specific discrimination and legislation is inaccurate and misleading. Studies routinely find that no one dog breed is responsible for a majority of bite incidences, and that generally, the breed of dog that is most prevalent in an area is the one most likely to be involved in more dog bite occurrences (Overall, 2010). In fact, a study of dog bite fatalities actually showed that most fatalities are caused by completely preventable factors like an owner not having control over a dog, a dog not being appropriately socialized, and people without the capacity to appropriately interact with dogs (like children or immobilized individuals) doing so anyways (Patronek, Sacks, Delise, Cleary, & Marder, 2013).
It has also been shown that people are unable to properly identify dog breeds and many dogs involved in bite incidents are incorrectly labeled as pit bull type dogs (Ledger, Orihel, Clarke, Murphy, & Sedlbauer, 2005). This attracts more attention along with more distrust for these breeds perpetuating a bad image and a cycle of misrepresentation. Adding insult to injury, these mistakes often go uncorrected in popular media.
All this information considered together helps to show that all dogs can be dangerous, not just bully breeds. Pet owners are ultimately responsible for the actions of their pets and while some dogs may be seen as more dangerous than others, it has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with image. What lawmakers should be focusing on is legislating behaviors for all pet owners. Do you think that creating and better enforcing leash laws, socialization laws and spay/neuter laws, which would be more focused on legislating humans rather than dogs might be more effective in curbing bad dog behavior?
ATTS Breed Statistics | American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (n.D.). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://atts.org/breed-statistics/
Ledger, R. A, Orihel, J. S., Clarke, N., Murphy, S., & Sedlbauer, M. (2005). Breed specific legislation: Considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommandations for alternatives. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 46, 735–743.
Overall, K. L. (2010). Breed specific legislation: How data can spare breeds and reduce dog bites. Veterinary Journal (London, England : 1997), 186(3), 277–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.023
Patronek, G. J., Sacks, J. J., Delise, K. M., Cleary, D. V, & Marder, A. R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726–36. http://doi.org/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726
Responsible pet owners, and innocent animals, should not be penalized for the "illusion of safety". How many gun owners, ex-cons, child molesters, drug users/dealers, and sex offenders live in the same areas that do not allow decent Americans who own a particular dog? Please begin applying common sense and hold people accountable rather than enforcing some incredibly useless law such as this.
I completely agree that big dogs can be dangerous, and should be treated as such. But lets be serious...Child abuse, guns, texting and driving, alcohol abuse, drinking and driving, drug use, spousal abuse, and even bullying are WAY more harmful to our society than specific dog breeds.
Pit bulls should not be banned because every person needs to be protected and pitbulls can be that protector. If people can own guns then why can't they own a pitbull. Have you every heard of a person taking a pitbull to a school and having them attack someone no. Well people do it with guns and not pitbulls so if the guns stay then so do pitbulls
Placing a ban on owning pit bulls is not a good idea at all. How the pit bulls act are completely up to the owners. Pit bulls are known for being violent, but that is all because of the owners training. Many people raise pit bulls to be gentle household animals and they should not be banned.
Placing a ban on Pit Bulls would not accomplish anything. That is the same as being racist in terms of human. A dog is not evil because of its gender, or type of dog they are, it comes down to many different factors. Who there owner is, how they were raised, environment.