Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

There's a vast difference between the danger that an aggressive pitbull poses as compared to an aggressive poodle. A part of the danger may well be provided by the owner but there's certainly an innate capability for harm that varies with the breed. To my mind te question isn't whether the whole breed is dangerous, the question is whether people should be denied them on the weight of the few that are used or abused that way.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

My feeling is although the owner accounts for 70% of the dogs behaviour, 30% is breed. For example, you wouldn't expect a jack russel to stop in its tracks when its peeling a rabbit apart, or a border collie to stop trying to herd things. The same goes for fighting breeds.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Cars are weapons too., but you don't complain about those, do you?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

It's all about the owners and how they raise the pet in question. Rotweilers can be very dangerous but they can also be extremely benign. Sure.. big dogs with big teeth and smaller dogs with powerful jaws have the ability to be more dangerous than say a poodle but it doesn't mean the "race" is dangerous.

It just means that many owners get a dog of that race cause it's "phat" and "cool" to have a dog that can bite a toddlers face of at the drop of a hat.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I expect people to be licensed to drive them and insured against any damages that they cause while doing so.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dogs are supposed to be licensed, yet few people bother to do so. Same with guns. The same is also true with cars and the people who drive them.
And even fewer people have insurance.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

it is only a weapon if the own trains it too be one.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You can make the same argument about anything with a potential to harm, a gun isn't a weapon until placed in the hands of someone who's going to use it as such, likewise knives and nuclear warheads. Still I doubt you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons.

And those people are subject to penalties under the law. Which is why hardly anyone - at least in this area - drives around without insurance and a driving license.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

It's more dependent on the owner than anything. So no, you can't ban a dog breed for the faults of their owners. While some breeds are naturally more aggressive than others they can (for the most part) be tamed with training, the length and intensity of said training is dependent on many factors about the dog.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Hey at that rate even the spoon you eat with and the book you read are weapons. You can use them just as easily to harm someone. The only reason personal ownership of nuclear warheads as opposed spoons is restricted is because of the area of effect and the impact. I mean your fists and feet are weapons. Nobody goes around cutting those off.

But I'm sure you already knew that. ;)

But this is where the next point comes in that dogs cannot really harm people (or at least the impact is not as large as nuclear warheads) and, therefore, it is totally dependant on the owner/user/etc. The worst that could happen is a person getting rabies which is totally the carelessness of the owner to not get a shot for the dog. But the people who do said things and are completely careless with their dogs are in a minority as far as the government is concerned. Therefore, they don't issue such a license even though they may penalize you for having allowed your dog to assault people or whatever.