Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    People often hold strong beliefs that are not related to personal gain nor particularly rational. I don’t think their intent is nefarious, but I think it’s likely mistaken.

    • Audbol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If research is determining otherwise then what would it take to convince you to accept this?

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:

        1. Statistics about serious injuries to people supported by reliable breed identification. Asking a victim or police officer what breed of dog caused the injury is insufficient.
        2. At least some some supporting evidence that the breed is inherently more dangerous than other breeds of the same size instead of simply being popular with people who train their dogs to be aggressive.
        3. Legislation focused on breeding bans, neutering mandates, and a mix of fence/muzzle requirements and temperament testing rather than confiscation or euthanasia individual dogs that have not shown signs of aggression.