Why Pit bulls should not be banned

The controversy surrounding particular breed of pit bulls is hidden from nobody these days. It is believed that the controversial rumors intended to attach a horrendous and notorious reputation to these dogs are specially appreciated by those who do not own one of these themselves. In contrast, the proponents of pit bull bans argue that dog bite epidemic has become a recognized problem in the US lately and it is high time now that weight actions at superior level be made to pin down the reports of pit bulls killing and maiming people. Facts and discussion presented in this essay are meant to illuminate the reality of the claim that pit bulls should not be banned rather efforts should be directed at educating the dog owners and people and passing the strictest criminal and dog control laws. There is an increasing need to acknowledge the fact that on grounds of only a few nasty and sorry incidents, not all pit bulls should be banned because unreasonable aggression is not a part of their nature and they tend to attack only under certain stressful or perilous circumstances. Not just pit bull but any other dog also would feel compelled to attack upon being annoyed by owners or other people who are not properly educated about a certain breed’s specifics which implies that people are to be blamed for the pit bull bite problem and not the entire breed itself. The idea of banning pit bulls should be condemned by everyone as one argument against implementation of breed specific laws reasonably suggests that banning a breed is like human racial discrimination (Phillips). …
roponents of pit bull bans claim that not only pit bulls but all closely related breeds should be banned which reflects a severe violation of animal rights because if it is really desired to put an end to the dog bite issues in the US, then those criminal minded dog owners should be apprehended and interrogated who subject the pit bulls to insanely hard to believe cruel and atrocious treatment as a way of making them violently dangerous. Why pit bulls are judged in such a negative and biased manner and arguments are made to ban them when they are not the culprits in the first place but innocent victims of severe abuse and cruelty? The proponents of pit bull bans should actually question their own flawed argument to ban pit bulls and their closely related breeds (Phillips). Another popular argument enthusiastically spread by the proponents of pit bull bans is related to the extreme danger associated with pit bulls because apparently this danger is so well established that these dogs are held responsible for about 75% of all reported canine-inflicted human deaths in the past two decades (Phillips). What is sad is that the large group of advocates openly supporting the breed bans also includes some respected figures like Ingrid Newkirk whose opinions are trusted and considered valid. But the important thing is not to blindly believe someone else’s beliefs but to responsibly take up an issue to explore it in an impartial manner and reach decisions as objectively as possible. Considering the long history of cruel treatment of pit bulls at hands of the inhuman owners, the banning argument loses its validity along with the claim that pit bulls and other closely related breeds account for majority of all canine-inflicted deaths reported in the US. This is because