After someone gets bitten by a dog — especially if the incident is a lurid one — communities often demand their lawmakers act. Sometimes, legislators respond by outlawing certain breeds of dog within their jurisdiction. But is that a wise tactic? Probably not. Here’s a post I put up on the subject; it has a link to a New Yorker story on the subject by Malcolm Gladwell, who writes that the strongest predictor that a dog will become dangerous is not the dog’s breed, but the choices and behavior of the dog’s owner.
Now Oregon has passed legislation that apparently avoids banning breeds, while strengthening penalties for people whose dogs bite someone. This is the only article that I can find on it, though, so I’m not sure what the law’s exact wording is. If anyone knows more, drop me a link by email or in the comments, okay? Thanks :-)
“Certain breeds are more likely to bite than others, so let’s outlaw those breeds.” Is that the gist of the “logic?”
Okay, let’s extend that a bit. Statistically men are much more likely to commit murder than women, so maybe we should… No, I’d better not go there. A bunch of female legislators may like the idea.
John
No, John, let’s not go there!!!
lol — my spidey sense is tingling!!!