I don't disagree with you but asking to get your view changed in a community whose entire purpose is to have the same view might not be very productive.
It works fine. The vast majority of people who will see the post are not community members.
When pit bulls get banned, owners just switch to some other breed and that one becomes the new highest recorded dog attacks.
In fact often banning pit bulls makes dog attacks go up, not down.
Owners that raise dogs to attack others choose pitbulls specifically often.
Banning pitbulls has never been shown to have any impact on rates of dog attacks anytime it was done.
The numbers simply just can't be argued with, it's been tried multiple times by various cities, it doesn't fix anything because it has nothing to do with the species and everything to do with the owners.
Can you cite the sources for your claim that an outright ban shifts the numbers to a different breed?
You seem to be implying bans would be futile if the intention is to reduce attacks because other breeds will simply start attacking more. Am I misunderstanding your assumptions? That sounds like a bizarre position to take.
The other breeds are still much safer. I trust a rottweiler more than a pit bull, their rate of bites is much lower.
Agreed, it’s not surprising a dog breed raised for dog fighting is dangerous.
