TTAG reader DH writes:
I’m a dog lover. So are most of my family and friends, and the majority of that group has at least one dog that was a rescue. I mention that because many of the dogs that end up abandoned or in the shelter system have been labeled as “dangerous breeds”. I’m sure there is some well thought out, unbiased study (sarcasm here) to say that Pits or Dobermans, or any other “dangerous” breed has been involved in more attacks than say Chihuahuas, but in the end, all breeds do what their owner has trained them (or not trained) to do . . .
These “dangerous breeds” were selected to be working dogs because they possess qualities such as strength, endurance, loyalty. If they were naturally vicious, they would have been killed off years ago, instead of being trained to exploit the strengths they have for the desired role. This classification is has resulted in certain breeds being banned from municipalities such as Denver. DOD has banned certain animals from base housing. Not based on actual behavior, or how their owner has raised them, but on what they might do because of their breed alone.
So what do Pit Bulls have to do with guns? This story should sound too familiar. It’s about mind set. It’s too hard to hold violators accountable, so let’s ban stuff. It’s about to an AR being a much more deadly firearm than a M1A or a Mini-14, because it’s a scary looking…in other words…it’s breed. Anything can be made dangerous when misused or abused by its owner…car, knife, hammer, dog…firearm.
While there is no right to keep and bear dogs, this is the same mindset of pre-emptive action…all for the actions of a few, that is applied to law abiding gun owners. Media demonization focused at low information voters leading to arbitrary action by lower information politicians.
The irony is that the people who are standing up for the rights of the dogs, would most likely be on the side of those trying to limit the rights of gun owners.