Breed-specific legislation

[StringJunky]

That depends on whether you take the legislation sensu strictu or more generally as being about the restriction of dangerous dogs.

 

Often bought to show off.

Not really needed.

Likely to harm kids and others.

Provides illusion of security

Main argument in favour boils down to "but I like them".

and so on.

We won't get the wrangling about whether the 2nd amendment applied to automatics ; instead we get it about what's a pit-bull.

There are 120+ million households in the US. 40-odd million have a dog. That's at least 40 million dogs. 30 people are killed and 10 of those by a pit bull. The incidence is not worth having legislation for, certainly not of the draconian kind. Dogs, statistically, are very safe.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

That depends on whether you take the legislation sensu strictu or more generally as being about the restriction of dangerous dogs.

 

Often bought to show off.

Not really needed.

Likely to harm kids and others.

Provides illusion of security

Main argument in favour boils down to "but I like them".

and so on.

We won't get the wrangling about whether the 2nd amendment applied to automatics ; instead we get it about what's a pit-bull.

Instead of "but I like them" what about "They're alive and there is no good reason to euthanize them"?

[Arete]

Likely to harm kids and others.

 

Perhaps the climate change debate would be a better analogy.

[CharonY]

Off-topic, but Huxley and Wallace are adorable.

More on-topic, is there any other legislation that has been created as a response to similarly low incidence rate?

Edited October 5, 2016 by CharonY

[Arete]

Off-topic, but Huxley and Wallace are adorable.

More on-topic, is there any other legislation that has been created as a response to similarly low incidence rate?

 

The closest I can think of is shark netting in Australia. 35 -50% of sharks found entangled in the nets have come from the beach side of the net. 50 years of data shows mixed results on the impact the incidence of attacks, largely due to extremely small sample sizes.

 

Not enough people get attacked by sharks to work out if nets work, but they sure make people feel better about taking their kids to the beach.

[CharonY]

Hmm, yeah, I think I read that the death by shark is less than by vending machines (though newer ones are supposedly more topple-resistant). But are the net actually mandated by any laws? I think I may have read that it may actually be against some environmental laws.

 

Edit: found an NSC injury book and going through the list fatal injuries due to dog bites 2011 were 34. Similar accidents:

- contact with hot tap water (27)

- foreign body entering through skin or natural orifices (31)

- lightning (23)

- explosion of pressurized devices (19)

- contact with hornets/wasps/bees (71)

 

More common accidents:

- fall involving furniture (1,113)

- fall involving stairs or steps (2,101)

- fall from ladder (465)

- drowning in bath tubs (431)

- accidental suffocation in bed (692)

- inhalation of food (1,173)

- inhalation and ingestion of other objects (3,208)

- accidental firearm discharge (591)

-alcohol 2,155

 

Now, the question that could be raised could also be about efficacy of these laws. For example, if deadly attacks is the result of bad owners, would it make a difference if they can get other largish dog breeds? I somehow doubt that Chihuahuas would be their second choice.

Edited October 5, 2016 by CharonY

[Arete]

But are the net actually mandated by any laws? I think I may have read that it may actually be against some environmental laws.

 

Not sure... the nets are usually funded by state governments but I'm not entirely sure what the legislation is.

 

 

Now, the question that could be raised could also be about efficacy of these laws. For example, if deadly attacks is the result of bad owners, would it make a difference if they can get other largish dog breeds? I somehow doubt that Chihuahuas would be their second choice.

 

Or as I anecdotally witnessed in when pit bulls were banned but Staffies weren't in South Australia, suddenly everyone had a really big-boned Staffordshire terrier (which bring us back to the ambiguity issue).

 

Breed/bad owners are not the only issues involved - 30% of dogs involved in fatal attacks were chained and 60% were un-neutered males.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Arete