Is it fair for cities or states to ban certain breeds? My state

>>2111047
Yes. It's unfair to ban a lot of things because of a small percentage of people.

I think there should be background checks for certain breeds.

>>2111052
No blacks.

>>2111050
I only ever see the same type of people that own them. See OP pic.

>>2111050
Ya this
>>2111057
That's probably because the area you live in. Come up to northern california and there are lots of well behaved pits and pit owners.

>>2111093

I dress my pitbull in numerous outfits to accommodate the current season and occasion, it's expensive but that is the price to be fashionable.

>>2111047
Let's be real, we're talking about pit bulls. This isn't a breed ban, it's a ban on bully breeds or dogs that look like them as a whole.

Pit bulls are trash dogs for trash people.

They should definitely be banned.

>>2111098
True, but I still prefer them to yippy little toy dogs and genetic abominations like pugs.

>>2111104
>I prefer danger to minor annoyances
you're stupid trash though, so nobody cares what you want

it's a bandaid solution that doesn't work. in the UK they banned pits, and the number of bites actually went up. you can keep banning breeds, but the public will just keep buying puppies of whatever breed is marketed as dangerous and fuck up raising them. it's a gigantic waste of money that could be spent on education and spay/neutering to low income individuals

>>2111168
please provide proof they are inherently prone to aggression towards humans. not some bullshit bite "statistics" cherry picked from news headlines, but actual studies on dog behavior

>>2111179
Not that guy but I never understand people like you. They're bred to be aggressive (a nice way of putting it), yes?

>>2111179
actually they only have to be good at mauling OR inclined to maul. They're both, but either alone would be bad enough.

>>2111192
they were specifically bred away from people-aggression, even in their "fighting" days. dog aggression and people aggression are two very different things. there's merit to the argument that they're potentially dangerous to other dogs, but towards people? not so much.

>>2111199
>They're both
please provide proof of them being more likely to maul a human than the numerous other breeds that are capable of doing so

>>2111200
>dog aggression and people aggression are two very different things.
now that's a claim that needs some proving.

>>2111209
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159108001147

this study even talks about how pitbulls are more likely to display dog-aggression, but not aggression towards humans

>>2111216
>he present study surveyed the owners of more than 30 breeds of dogs using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire
uh huh

>>2111218
you are a fine example of cognitive dissonance, my good man

and beyond that, why the hell do you think studies on dog behavior/aggression commonly categorize them as separate types of aggression? like this http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9227747. it's the same reason stranger and owner aggression are categorized differently.

>>2111098
>>2111104
>>2111168
people who have these kind of strong sweeping feelings about certain types of dogs don't know anything about them and should be banned from keeping them

>>2111275
They know they will never experience true happiness