you have to yield on the "there IS some difference between species, and logically, even breeds" point. And, "lunacy", congrats on the appropriate tag.

Well actually no. Breed is not really a scientific term and exactly how to you catagorize mixed breed dogs. Consider also that wolves and dogs are the same species, but different sub-species. Clearly we differentiate between sub-species, but breeds? Just because we differentiate at one level of classification doesn't mean we should at another, at least not without more supporting such differentiation.

But I'd be foolish not to do so.

I do not feel that I should have to seal all entrances to my house to prevent stray or errant dogs from entering. I have enough issues with manx cats, possums, and ‘coons. (I do not care what you say about possums, I loath them, and I have a manx cat issue, wild ones.). I should not have to seal my house against errant dogs. If I live in the woods, I should have to protect my house against bears and such. I should not have to ensure my screen door is closed against the neighbor’s dogs, ditto my doggie door for my own dog.

While not relevant, but sure to pull at your heart, is that Ms. Gorman’s dog is an assistance dog, trained to tell when its owner is about to go into a seizure. The dog attacked isn’t just a pet, it is a service dog.

What we have here is a neglectful owner. It turns out this was NOT the first issue with these dogs

Since 2000, Pierce County authorities have responded to 16 complaints involving dog problems at the home of the two pit bulls who attacked the disabled woman Tuesday.

It is the owners wanting a mean dog. It isn’t the breed, it is the owners, though generations of owners wanting a mean dog results in many of the dogs being mean. And some are still good dogs.

I still blame the owners.

I don't see where we disagree. I think people should think about their lifestyle and then look into what dog fits that lifestyle. If you live in a high rise apartment with little room, then having a Great Dane is probably not a good idea.

From reading your post I'd guess you see dog ownership as making a commitment to the dog and to the people around you (neighbors, people you see on your walks, etc.). I couldn't agree more.

I wish fewer people had them and more people had Cavs or bichons because that's what their lifestyles and temperaments are suited for.

I can't agree more. Don't get this dog because it looks cool, makes you look tough or is the new fad dog. Exactly the wrong reasons to own the dog. Same with the rottweiler. Lots of people want them for protection but don't understand that these are smart, loyal and courageous dogs, but also dogs that can be stubborn, assertive and challenge their owners on occasion.

My opinion of this entire subject is that people should own dogs whose characteristics are appropriate to their lifestyles. Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers, for example, are so bound to water that many breeders have “proximity to water” clauses in their sales contracts. Very, very few people have Toller lifestyles.

My own breed, the Samoyed, is a very active, work-loving, talkative, notoriously difficult to train, high maintenance breed. We work our dogs, groom them incessantly, and put out the effort necessary to own this great breed. It's not for people with low energy levels.

Most of the breeds that people buy for “protection” e.g. Akitas, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, and so on require owners who are tough, discplined, and tenacious and know what the heck they're doing with dogs and are dedicated enough to give these dogs the kind of socialization and training they need. Vanishingly few people have those qualities.

In your several posts on bully breeds you've written all the right things that tell me that you're prepared to be an owner of one (or more) of these great dogs. I wish fewer people had them and more people had Cavs or bichons because that's what their lifestyles and temperaments are suited for.

I oppose breed specific legislation for the reasons you've listed. I do wish that we had an enforced proctor system of the sort they have in some European countries and that there was some sort of certification or licensing program for owners of dogs of difficult breeds.

Any dog can be dangerous given the right situation so your solutions and arguments are ineffectual and, frankly, stupid. For example,

Far better to take a sweeping action, one that may limit the choice of some dog owners, but not limit any of their constitutional rights, than to rely solely on the prosecution of bad owners, after the fact - after someone has been mauled or killed.

Actually you might be on Constitutionaly questionable ground here, although IANAL. Breed bans have been found in some cases to be unconstitutional, not from the perspective of the dog, but from the perspective of the owner. In many cases, IIRC, they violate the constitutional right to due process. A breed ban assumes that my property (the dog) is dangerous irrespective of the individual nature of my property, my own knowledge and training, and care for my property.

Second, even if you ban breeds X, Y and Z, you can still be bitten, mauled and even killed by breeds A, B, and C. There is virtually no dog of any size that has not been involved in at least one fatal dog attack--i.e. even the tiny pomeranian has at least one fatal dog attack associated with it. Guess we should ban that lest another infant gets killed.

An appropriate law would restrict ALL dogs from public places in urban areas and, like Steve suggests, have harsh penalties on irresponsible dog owners.

Municipalities already have scores of laws restricting ownership of various types of animals for reasons of public safety.

Banning a breed may be overkill, but so what? Far better to take a sweeping action, one that may limit the choice of some dog owners, but not limit any of their constitutional rights, than to rely solely on the prosecution of bad owners, after the fact - after someone has been mauled or killed.

Banning a breed certainly does help with the underlying problem of bad owners - it keeps dangerous dogs out of their possession.

And banning the breed does not preclude also having laws in place against bad owners raising other breeds to be dangerous. Nor do I think that the "false sense of security" argument flies. No one is claiming that pit bulls are the only problem - merely the most prominent.

Nor do I see much real harm to responsible dog owners. There are many breeds of dog that make wonderful pets to choose from. Choosing a family pet that REQUIRES skillful and vigilant training to avoid a disaster is pretty irrational, and hardly deserving of much consideration.