Its all good man, no need to apologize. I dont take any of these post that seriously. Its a contentious debate. I dont mind talking to reasonable people. However, there are many ignorant, evil, & authoritarian air heads in this thread who want to do some pretty terrible things to innocent dogs & responsible families. Thanks for clearing up your stance on some of it
My thing is this....The data, classification, and qualification used to justify Pitbulls being bad was "they are deadly weapons that killed X amount of people. "
Thats the identical argument for gun control. So the fact that you guys act like it's a reach to compare 2 deadly weapons is disingenuous & ridiculous. Its not a reach. Its very much on the mark.
I also acknowledged many posters counter argument of dogs being sentient beings. I factually countered that with the whole concept of being responsible. However, that part is completely dismissed, ignored, & not acknowledged directly.
Again, another point that is being dismissed and not addressed is that factually and by the same death statistics sighted to demonize these dogs as deadly weapons....unattended firearms kill & are responsible for way more deaths. Your gun doesn't have to self fire. The # of guns & idiot irresponsible owners that leave them out or "advertise" them for a sentient low life loser to steal and commit deadly/violent crimes with is pretty high.
So I dont disagree with what you're saying. I just believe people are conveniently not telling the whole story.
You can't logically say guns are safe due to a human element and being able to contain them, then pretend the same human element and containment doesn't also exist for domesticated pets. All while ignoring the data of deaths related to guns as you site lower death #s by pitbulls. Its a logical fallacy.