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

  • dan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well the black market doesn’t exist because it’s not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can’t take outside?

    My point is if you ban breeding but you don’t ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.

    • OskarAxolotl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You only allow people who already own a banned dog to keep it. After a few years it will become obvious that anybody who owns a young illegal dog must have purchased it after the ban.

      • dan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).

        So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.

        • OskarAxolotl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think there is a proper short term solution to this problem. At least dogs don’t live forever. A gun bought now can still be used to shoot somebody in a hundred years, a pitbull, on the other hand, has an average life expectancy of 12-14 years.