I'm doing a debate on the subject of 'banning dangerous dog breeds' and my team's for this, but everywhere i look it says the same thing - a dog's breed can't determine it's behaviour, the owner is usually to blameNow i think that's true as well. How can all dogs of 1 breed be dangerous? But I can't really argue against my own team in the debate Are there really any points as to why dangerous dog breeds shoulb be banned??

All dogs have the "potential" to become aggressive.So why would you want a dog who could "potentially" not just bite you but kill you. Because (Lets say a pit bull) bite can be a fatal bite as apposed to a lab. although both would be a "bad" bite the "pit bull" has the ability and the instinct to kill.

you should do a debate on the owner how they treat there dog a dog learn what he is taught and that is by a human

All I know is, for as long as I've been around, a pit bull will get loose every so often and ravage someone's child. It happens in every community I've lived in so, why do we still take chances on it. There are safer breeds for dog lovers.

I have never done a survey on this subject but my observations usually arrive at all dangerous dog breeds are usually owned by guys on council estates, the owners are usually big burly ugly guys with shaven heads and tattoos, these same guys never have say a poodle, a labrador or border collie, they always have Bull terriers or Rotweilers. I suppose it gives them some importance in the world of being hard and not to be messed with, in turn the dogs tend to be encouraged to have the same attitude and always look threatening as they walk along the street.For the life of me I do not know why anyone wants to own these dogs, I'm sure they are all not dangerouse but they look it, and thats why I think they tend to be owned by these people because they look it too.

A dog is only as dangerous as the owner makes him, or how he's treated. The breed has no bearing on his behavior.

It is not the breed itself that is to blame, but irresponsible owners and breeders. I have known many very lovable pit bulls and rottweilers.However, that does not help your side of the argument, so I will play devil's advocate and add this. The origin of pit bulls and sharpeis were to breed a dog to fight. The original breeders bred the strongest, toughest and most ferocious dogs to create the line. It is a breed that was bred to be mean. This is perpetuated by irresponsible breeders who inbreed and by owners who take a dog with a genetic propensity for aggression and chain them in the yard with no outlet for their energy EXCEPT to build aggression.Sadly, we cannot regulate everything that the owners do, so we are left with having to remove the potential from them and ban the breeds altogether.

Search the web in NSW Australia, we have just banned a lot of high risk breeds and all individual "dogs and bitches" of the banned breeds have to be desexed and housed so they can't get in any trouble and are no risk to anyone.The laws are actually still getting tighter, cross breeds are are being looked at as well.

I know a lot of people that have or had Pitbulls. None of them have ever hurt anyone on purpose. The problem is that some of the "dangerous" breeds are big animals and can get very playful. Some people confuse this as attacking and try to fight back. That's usually when they actually attack. Then again in some cases they are actually attacking, but that's usually the owner's fault because they raised them like that or just don't know how to raise them right.