In the article, “We are safer without pit bull bans” the author attempts to present evidence in support of the title, which incites the idea that a ban against pit bulls would put people in greater danger. The articles begins with a story that presents a pit bull as a symbol against crime; he was “the first dog ever to be used by the Los Angeles Police Department.” His specialty was to detect narcotics, after a successful career the hero dog later died of cancer. I believe he begins his article with a light hearted story about the pit bull breed to begin to change the reader’s preconceived thoughts about the breed.
His argument arises after news of Montreal’s recent ban against pit bulls because of their supposed threat to human safety. One of the problems being the bans vague breed categorization especially, because any dog that resembles the breed may be potentially be euthanized. He argues by labeling the ban stupid, for lack of better words I believe. Another point in his argument is that resources which are already limited would be focused on animals that haven’t presented a reason to be captured, other than their fault to resemble a dog that has been deemed to be dangerous.…show more content… The article also includes bits of history about other breeds banned in the past, breeds that were banned because it was believed they were more susceptible to rabies. Other breeds like the German Shepard were urged to be regulated because they were “bred from wolves’, this even to me sounds ridiculous because all dogs originated as wolves. Wolves learned that if they protected and cooperated with humans they would be fed, and that’s how the companionship with the dog today
