Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrucial
I think I've said this on the forums before but it keeps coming up.
The part that frustrates me about the dog argument is it never starts from an argument of good faith. I've had people tell me "all dogs are capable of biting". But I can't take the discussion seriously if that's where we're starting.
It's like saying handguns and assault weapons are on equal ground. Sure we know both CAN do damage. And we know gun owners are expected to be responsible for the damage they do (like dog owners).
But if we're being honest, one type is just capable of doing more damage.
I can love a big goofy pitbull. But if you're trying to tell me a corgi is at the same threat level, we aren't have a real conversation.
|
I don't think the "capability" is exactly the point. I think "likelihood" is the point. In the "likelihood" discussion the analogy w/ gun types is actually inverted; the handgun is far more likely to be used illegally and violently than the rifle. I think this is also apt in this analogy to make the point that just because something may scare you or looks scary isn't the point. It is about which thing is more likely to actually do the harm we are concerned with.
To further elucidate the issue with capability being the metric of measure I would argue there are more capable things to kill your child than a pit bull but it is the likeliness that makes pit bulls/bully breeds the issue. Example - A Kangal, Anatolian Shepard, Great Pyrenees, and arguably to use Keith's example a Rotty, are all more capable to kill a child but a pit bull is FAR more likely to actually do it.