One of the phenomenon that occur in our country that I fail to understand is the breed specific bans that have been implemented in various regions in the United States. These bans make even less sense to me when you look at it from the perspective of other things that we choose not to ban. The most obvious item to look at here is guns. We do not ban guns but we do ban dogs.
There apparently are people in this country that view certain breeds of dogs as inherently dangerous. This inherent danger that these breeds of dogs posses in their eyes warrants their being banned. Guns on the other hand are inherently dangerous. The very purpose of a gun is to cause destruction of objects, injury, and death. The primary reason people own dogs is for companionship. The primary reasons people own guns may be for hunting (killing things), protection (threat of injury or death), or target shooting (destruction of objects).
I won’t argue that dogs don’t have the potential to be dangerous. However, there is no breed of dog that is in and of itself born dangerous. I would argue that any dog raised in a good home and has its needs met including proper socialization and training is a friendly dog to people.
Of course dogs can be trained to be a weapon as in the case of the police or military, but I would argue that those dogs are the least likely to be dangerous to anyone other than criminals because they have had extensive training and are handled by people with extensive training. Dogs have to be trained or conditioned to be made any danger.
Guns are dangerous right out of the box no training required.
Lets look at the statistics.
“Man and woman’s best friend bites more than 4.7 million people a year…. Each year, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of these are children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about 16 die.” (Dog Bite Fact Sheet, CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/dogbite-factsheet.html)
From a report you can generate on the CDC website at http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp using 2009 statistics there were 8,021 fatal firearm deaths in just 16 states in the United States. (CDC, SAS output http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/nvdrs/nvdrsController.jsp) 16 states is roughly 32% of the US population. According to a report generated by the CDC website there were 73,505 gun shot wounds in 2010. (CDC, WISQARS Nonfatal Injury Reports, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html)
I will admit to being surprised by the number of dog bites that occur each year. There is one glaring difference that cannot be ignored. Dogs cause 16 deaths nationwide while guns caused 8,021 in just 16 states. So dogs may cause more overall injuries but guns clearly cause excessively more deaths in comparison. Also not all dog bites require treatment in an emergency room. In fact less than half do. I am pretty sure that most if not all gun shot wounds require an ER visit.
There is another way to look at the statistics. I am not sure if there is any way to get solid data for this but think about how often each thing is present in daily life. Dogs are much more frequently present in our daily lives, even for those that don’t own a dog. I think it is likely that most people at least see a dog every day if they are out and about. Now think about this. How often does the average person see a gun? I know I can count on my fingers the number of times I have seen a gun maybe even on one hand. A gun owner may not even see a gun every day. My thinking on this topic is for the amount of time a gun is present in daily life they cause more injuries. Guns are only present in certain circumstances. They are not present at all times like dogs are. So the opportunity to cause injury or death is greater for dogs because they are present more of the time yet guns still cause way more deaths than dogs do. To me that tells me that guns are much more dangerous.
I know many people that hunt and I enjoy eating the deer meat they have as a result of hunting, but there is no question that the sport of hunting is inherently dangerous. Many people are accidentally shot and sometimes killed across the United States while hunting. These are supposed to be people who have knowledge of guns and know what they are doing and yet accidents still happen during the limited time they are around guns. On the other hand I have never heard a report of a dog and their owner running the agility course at a dog show and suddenly their dog attacks and mauls them.
A good dog owner brings joy into the lives of others by having their dog around. A bad dog owner can potentially be a dangerous situation. A good gun owner may be able to put their firearm to good use, but they may also have an accident and shoot someone. A bad gun owner is dangerous to everyone.
My point is that if it is OK to ban dogs because they have the potential to be dangerous then it is at least equally acceptable to ban guns for the same reason.
Guns have many legitimate uses but there is no arguing that the purpose of a gun is to allow a person to kill something.
The purpose of a dog is to give big wet slobbery kisses.
Which sounds more dangerous to you.
I want emphasize I am not advocating banning guns simply drawing a compassion of banning guns and dogs.
I would encourage people to comment and defend with rational logical thoughts why it should be acceptable to ban dogs but not ban guns.
Saying the second amendment gives us the right to have guns is not a logical and rational defense. This amounts to saying my mommy said so when you were a kid as justification. I want to hear your own thoughts and opinions not those of people who are long since dead.