Here is a story that illustrates a falacy of the argument in favor of breed-specific laws:
Their dog wanted candy. Their child was holding the bag that the candy was in. So their dog viciously mauled their child to get at the candy. Half the girl's face was torn away. She was hospitalized in critical condition, and required reconstructive surgery. When she got home from the hospital, guess what her parents did? They put her back together with the dog, and called the local television news station. (For more, read the article.)
Accompanying the article is a photograph of the dog. It appears to be some type of husky. In any event, it is not a pit bull or Rottweiler. None of the proposals for breed specific laws such as breed bans would have outlawed or regulated this type of dog in any manner.
I am against breed bans because a ban on one or two breeds will not solve the overall dog bite problem, just like a ban on Columbian drug lords would not solve the drug problem, or a ban on Camel cigarettes would not solve the smoking problem, or a ban on Smith and Wessons would not solve the violence problem.
The dog bite problem has been caused by dog owners, not dogs. The people are the problem. The people cannot be banned.
The dogs are the only means that the people — the ones with the truly bad dogs — express their violence, ignorance and criminality. In the case of this girl, it looks like ignorance.
The solution is far more complicated than just banning the dogs themselves. I favor a broad-based set of measures that will address all of the underlying causes of this epidemic. I have drafted a 10-point plan for dealing with the underlying causes of the dog bite problem. They are set forth on the Preventing Dog Bites section of Dog Bite Law.
