Introduction
Pit bulls, popular pets in many American households, have been at the center of a legislation controversy since the year 1989 and early 1990. It was during this period that the local government of the city of Denver, Colorado banned the ownership of this breed of dog. Society remains torn on the issue of whether or not owning a pit bull should be made illegal. While the rift still exists in public ideology and opinions, the reasons why people hold the opinion they hold vary from one individual to another, with some describing the pit bull as a threat to human safety, and others pointing out that the pit bull was a threat to other breeds. While some hold that the increased number of pit bull bites are a result of the innate characteristics of the breed, others believe that it is a result of human behavior. The issue is a major issue of concern and many people should get concerned because, the number of pit bull bites is ever increasing across the major cities of United States of America. The principal reason why people should endeavor to find a legal solution to the menace is because keeping a pit bull in the neighborhood is a matter of life and death. Cases of pit bull attacks leading to death have been in the news for quite a long time. This has been especially so, where the victims of the attacks were children. Many pit bulls have been beaten to death causing issues with the animal activists who argue that killing animals, especially domestic animals, is a heinous act that violates animal rights.
Context of the issue
Apparently, talking of pit bull bites, the context in reference is the human residence, where man and pets coexist. Considering that the controversy as well focuses on the manner in which the pit bull attacks other breeds, it is only reasonable to conclude that the context of the controversy revolves around the relationship between the law, man and the pit bull as well as other dog breeds. The context is in American states as many cities are considering the legislative move. With 230 cities and 32 states having banned the keeping of pit bulls, it is worth saying that the issue is awarded more prominence in contemporary American society than any other place around the world (Webber 1). According to DogsBite.org, from January 2006 to December 2008, “of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DosgBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59%” (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period.
Rhetorical analysis of the sources
The anti-banning argument
Many arguments have been advanced in opposition of the idea of banning the ownership of the pit bull. Worth noting, however, is the actuality that such arguments revolve around the fact that the aggressive nature of the pit bull is triggered to a great extent by human behavior. The opposing parties to such legislation argue that it would be unfair to lay such a ban, when the tendency of the pit bull to bite humans is a making of the humans (Webber 1). Councilman Martin Brennan in responding to Webber argues that the only difference between the pit bull and other breeds is the fact that the pit bull is fierce, strong and naturally powerful (1). Such innate qualities, coupled with the fact that human behavior may provoke it, make the dog particularly dangerous. However, some researchers such as Jamey Medlin argue that it is not the dog to be focused on, but rather the owners (4). Medlin points out a number of reasons and human acts that cause the pit bull, just like other breeds, to be aggressive. Among the primary reasons is tendency of people to glorify dog fighting. Researchers explain that such things as irresponsible ownership, where the owner lets his or her dog wander out of his custody are the reasons for the increased attacks. The anti-ban activists argue that the ban is costly and considerably ineffective.
The qualified argument
Some scholars hold qualified ideas. By qualified, it means that they support the keeping of pit bulls under certain conditions. Believing that human behavior of irresponsibility is the primary reason behind the dog bites, many argue that laying a total ban on the pit bull won’t solve a thing. This is because human behavior won’t be changed by such legislation (Webber 1). Human behavior will continue impacting on the other breeds left, and just like the pit bull, such dogs will bite people as well as other animals. The solution, therefore, will not come by the law, but rather by encouraging change of conduct among the owners of the pets. Scholars argue that the ultimate solution to the whole issue lies in proper training of the pets and responsible ownership. In her research, Medlin argues that unsupervised dogs and children, irresponsible breeding and regular abuse of the pit bull could be the cause of the tendency to bite. As such, the solution would be to do the reverse of these. In straightforward terms, the owners should be sufficiently coached on how to handle the dogs, they should be trained on how to train the dogs and should learn to practice close supervision and care for both dogs and children.
Pro-banning argument
Other people hold the opinion that the ownership of pit bulls should be strictly prohibited. Such people believe in nature over nurture. In other words, they believe the tendencies of the pit bulls to bite people are rooted in their genetic makeup. In carrying out her research, Zoe McKnight quotes one interviewee “I used to think it was the owner, but now I don’t. I think it’s the breed. I think there’s something in them, the way they were bred, they can just snap.” Such people see the pit bull breed as a threat, not because of any factor to do with the owner, but rather everything to do with their nature. As much as statistics indicate that pit bulls were responsible for only 59% of the bites, people still believe that the pit bull is dangerous and a pit bull specific ban should be enacted as the dog a threat to human life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is straightforward to see that the issue of having the ownership of pit a bull prohibited is a controversial issue in, not only the wider American social order, but the rest of the world. Those against the idea of banning pit bull argue that the tendency of the breed to bite is rooted in such human inefficiencies as irresponsible ownership, unsupervised children and dogs, poor training, glorification of animal fights, irresponsible breeding, and animal abuse. Such experts as Michael Webber argues that the legislation is impracticable as it is difficult to establish where to draw the borderline as all dogs are aggressive if carelessly handled. The recommendation for this issue would be to have high animal registration fee accompanied by lengthy legal formalities, making it mandatory to have all dogs muzzled when out of owner’s home and instituting a liability insurance policy worth more than 100,000. These would cultivate a sense of responsibility among people.
Works cited
McKnight Zoe “Pit Bull Attacks on Children Lead to Renewed Calls for B.C. Ban.”The Vancouver Sun, August 2012. Print
Medlin, Jamey. Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factor Affecting Canine Behavior. DePaul Law Review, summer 2007. Print
Webber, Michael. “Pit Bulls: To Ban or Not To Ban.” Rochester Media, 2011. Print
