Now you’d think anyone who keeps a Bengal tiger in a residential neighborhood is a nutjob right?  Well… arguably, a couple of energetic pitbulls can do a whole lot of killing too and yet people argue that’s just fine.

I have a friend that had a pitbull she loved to pieces. The dog never hurt a fly, and from my one experience, was really just the sweetest thing. (Me: oh no, a scary pitbull! Dog: instantly ran over, flopped down at my feet, and begged for a belly rub). But at the same time? It’s still a breed that was engineered for fierceness and aggressiveness. It’s one that currently seems the dog of choice for dog fighting. So I think there’s really two factors here: it’s fair enough to be wary of all aggressive dog breeds (and we do tend to pick and choose a bit there, which ones we decide we’re afraid of), and it’s fair enough to be wary of any dog that’s likely to be owned by someone who wanted a ferocious dog (I’m tired, so I can’t seem to say that right). Neither circumstance is really the dog (or the breed’s) fault. And simply banning (or demonizing) the breed isn’t going to stop dogs from being bred to be aggressive and ferocious. 

So I guess what I am saying is that the comparison to a loaded pistol is a very poor one, but the issue is sufficiently complex that a)pretending that the traits that pit bulls have been bred for don’t matter and that they’re all just sweeties or b)pretending that if we could just get rid of those evil pit bulls, dog maulings would go down by a billion percent are both stupid and ridiculous. 

So are pools. In fact, pools are arguably more dangerous, exist almost solely for leisure or sport, kill far more children than all dogs do every year, and I support people’s right to have pools.

I see that you have also chosen to ignore my comment about 4,500,000 Americans being bitten annually, with 31,000 needing reconstructive surgery. If you can’t participate without cherry picking and straw men, it’s time for you to stop.

My ‘pitbull’ is 55 lbs,  built like a slightly chubby whippet or a boxer with a longer nose.  Any breed standard he meets, a Lab would also meet.

Since your so keen on removing clearly identifiable dangers, pools should be banned, right? In fact, the argument there is strong, because there’s evidence it would actually accomplish something!

Which was the core of my post – it doesn’t MATTER if they are dangerous. The only thing that matters is whether or not banning them improves things.

“Do you find the statistical figures of pitbulls-related maulings and deaths acceptable as a social cost of owning this breed as a house pet?”

I find them a meaningless aside in relation to the actual important questions – would banning pitbulls reduce the number of deaths and injuries from dog attacks? That’s question one. Considering that a number of places have banned them, I find it telling that no one has even attempted to demonstrate this. If you still don’t understand what I’m getting at here – cars are dangerous. If a majority of accidents involved red cars, would the solution be to ban red paint jobs, perhaps because they go faster? Of course not. Statistics are all well and good, but aren’t all that useful without context when making decisions. If those car accidents tended to involve cars from a specific manufacturer, it would certainly deserve a closer looker and may lead to tighter regulations, but the statistic alone would not be anywhere near enough evidence to run them out of business, for the same reason blaming red cars is ludicrous.

Even then, we need to determine whether the benefit thereof is worth the cost of choice. And make no mistake, we make choices every single day that value convenience, leisure, and style over the health and safety of ourselves and our fellow man.

“Bluntly, I find your position irresponsible and morally reprehensible. What you are saying is ‘I would rather accept the deaths of a few toddlers so that I can keep this specific breed of dog over all other breeds of dogs.’”

I find yours shortsighted and morally reprehensible. And, since I neither own nor desire to own pit bulls, I find it strange if that were truly what I was saying. I think your position applies pretty much to dogs as a whole, not just dangerous breeds.

Meanwhile, let’s ban the pit bulls.

The problem with your argument is that a pit bull is like a gun that can kill people without needing a person to aim and fire.  A dog chained in his own yard, can break free and maim or kill.  And they have.  That’s why people fear them.  They’re the loose cannons of the pet world.

I wish you had told me that before I put my foot in my mouth.

What’s wrong with you?

And yes, turn those people in.  And euthanize the dogs.