[ZTWsquared]

(05-04-2010, 07:45 AM)Flofocus Wrote: Your opinion is that pitbulls are dangerous dogs and should be banned, mine is the complete opposite.
Your opinion on this bill was it was directed at pitbull breeds only, I know it wasn't (I know the law since I'm directly affected by it)

Breed banning wont do s**t to protect the public from dangerous dogs. As long as your applying band aids to the bigger problems, the problems will always be there.

We won't agree on this and I'll leave it at that.

I know that neither of us wants to drag this out, and we essentially agree to disagree ... but I did want to respond to this.

It is not my opinion that pit bulls are dangerous ... it is an actuarial fact ... and again, it is not my opinion that the legistlation is only directed at pit bulls, but it is significant that they are the only breed to be singled out in this legislation - again, not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

The bigger problems as you call them, assuming you're talking about bad owners, has been persistent for decades and rather than showing any signs of improvement as a result of any actions taken by dog owners themselves, the problem is getting worse.

Banning specific breeds will in fact protect the public from those breeds to whatever extent dog owners obey the law ... zero pit bulls means unequivocally zero pit bull attacks ... and that is regardless of whether or not you agree that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or not, and whether or not you feel the legislation is fair and justified ... the zero corelation is a mathematical absolute and cannot be denied.

If your argument is that in the absense of pit bulls the public is at the same risk from other breeds - then I would be open to being convinced of this ... but if your argument is that the elimination of pit bulls will not eliminate pit bull attacks, well - I think the the fallacy of this argument is obvious.