Yeah, we need more laws, particularly BS legislation: `breed specific legislation’. Maryland, the rotting California of the east coast, says so. With more laws, why, there should be less crime: like gun control in Chicago.
Forget about Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes, German Shepherds, St. Bernards, et cetera and so forth and so on, and the terriers proper, and forget that the breed most likely to bite is the effervescent dachsund.
Set aside the invidious breed discrimination and forget that there are several types of `pit bull’ terriers, and several types of bulldogs, and that the majority of dogs awaiting death in animal shelters are some mixture of `pit bull terrier’ so that the law is vague to the point of being unenforceable, or gives government carte blanche to serve as President Obama’s rolling meat wagon.
That must be it: Zero is next door and he’s a-hongry. More laws: good!
1) Breed “discrimination” makes sense because most breeds will NEVER or almost never kill or critically injure anyone. A few other breeds (including some you mentioned) do rarely cause such harm. Pit Bulls and to a lesser extent Rottweilers are responsible for the vast majority of dog bit fatalities. How many people were killed by Daschunds last year or in the last 30 years for that matter.
For the law to treat Pit Bulls the same as Beagles or Poodles would be as ridiculous as requiring the same training, licensing and insurance for a 4 year old riding a tricycle and a truck driver hauling hazardous materials.
2) All this ruling does is hold Pit Bull owners strictly liable for damage caused by their dogs. If your Pit Bull is a “good dog” and doesn’t harm anybody, this ruling will not affect you at all.