This. Humans like keeping dogs - I have one - but some dog breeds have been bred specifically to fight, guard, warn off etc. I vividly remember sitting in a house in Brighton and hearing this rumbling noise - I literally thought somebody was taking a jackhammer to the pavement. No, it was a rottweiler straining every fearsome muscle and sinew - along with its owner, desperately struggling to hold it back - from tearing into a terrified alsatian. It would have been an awesome sight in a wildlife documentary, but it was deeply wrong on a busy thoroughfare. A child would be a mere rag doll in that animal's jaw, and indeed adults are sometimes taken out too. By contrast my cockapoo struggles to even hold onto a rope with his weedy jaw when I try to spar with it. It's crossed with a working cocker, so has a strong prey instinct - it goes nuts for squirrels cats, etc - but on the few occasions it's got close to one it's like it doesn't know what to do, it just sort of nudges them with his nose! That's the other side of breeding. I know which side I feel more comfortable with.
I'd like to ask the owners of dangerous breeds how many child deaths per year do you consider an acceptable amount for you and your fellows to be allowed to keep the types of breed you do? Five, ten...? And do you suppose the people whose dangerous breed did kill a child are longing to own another dog the same?
