How? How will a ban on pit bulls be any more effective than a ban on alcohol, radar scanners, fatty foods or hate speech?
And I still don’t understand why people who oppose animal ownership would be arguing that most dogs are safer than pit bulls — if I wanted to end dog ownership, I’d be taking the pro-pit-bull side’s argument — “Pit bulls kill people, but so do every either dog — they are all just as dangerous as pit bulls, so we should ban all dog ownership, to protect our children”. How exactly is the “anti-ownership” side advanced by an argument that only a couple of breeds are actually dangerous?
Because if they can get you panicked enough to invite the government's regulation of one breed...one 'dangerous' breed...they know that you can't very well argue that pits are dangerous and rottweilers are not, right? Heck, mastiffs have been bred for hundreds of years to attack human poachers, and a 150lb mastiff can do a lot more damage than a 60lb pit. And German Shepherds have been specialized for police work for many generations now...Pretty dangerous to have a dog like that around your children. Bull dogs, rhodesian ridgebacks, high-strung labradors, malamutes, they've all attacked. Australian Cattle Dogs are at the top of the list for attacks in Australia, so they're probably just as dangerous here in the USA. And as long as we're being protective, Cocker Spaniels have VERY high bite statistics! Sure, they may not be able to kill a kid, but do you really want even one child living with the heartbreak of permanent disfigurement? It's only one more breed, and isn't peace of mind worth it? Besides, you don't even own a Cocker Spaniel! It's not going to affect you any...
And if you think this could never happen, take a moment to meditate on low-flow toilets, CFL bulbs, and Cap&Trade. Think those things are totally unrelated?
It is a lot easier to ban the ownership of a dog than any of the other things you listed. How would you hide the ownership of a pit bull? First, a person would have to find someone selling a pit bull illegally. Sure, criminals could still buy the dogs from other criminals, but the issue here isn't street thugs, it's the random neighbors whose dogs aren't dangerous, until one day they kill someone. Most people won't break the law and seek out criminals to purchase a dog.
And once you have the dog, how do you hide ownership of a dog? Well, you could do so by keeping the dog inside all the time -- but frankly, that would solve the problem, because if the dog is in your house, it can't kill my children. In fact, if it didn't seem cruel to the dog, one could argue that instead of banning the dog, just make it illegal to allow the dogs outside the house.
The problem with the slippery-slope argument is that government already bans ownership of animals it deems dangerous. The precedent is already set. If it was proven that pit bulls were in fact a dangerous breed with no redeeming qualities, a vast majority of people would be happy to let government ban ownership. You wouldn't be breaking down any barriers of existing jurisprudence.
However, the pro-pit-bull argument goes a long way to encouraging people to ban all dogs, or at least most dogs. Because if all dogs can kill kids without reason, and all are equally dangerous, why not allow neighborhoods to ban dogs, to keep their children safe?
I support arguments that discuss whether pit bulls are in fact dangerous or not. I don't think arguing that government has no business banning dangerous animals is a rational argument -- I expect government to take actions to protect my private property rights from acts of others that clearly threaten my life, liberty, and use of my property.
Which again is why I came to this thread, to note that the coconut argument was silly and fallacious.