It makes more sense to consider dogs individually rather than to condemn all of a breed as genetic offenders.
There are many contributing factors that determine the aggressiveness of a dog. No particular breed of a dog is naturally born aggressive. Like humans, all dogs enter the world innocent. The surrounding environment and the way they are disciplined and raised directly correlates to their disposition towards humans. Like ignorant parents who don't teach ethics to their children, irresponsible dog owners who fail to discipline their dogs will naturally raise dangerous dogs that can be harmful to society. If common sense is any guide then it is possible to infer that dangerous dogs are a result of poor ownership. .
Even if dangerous breeds of dogs were banned the most significant issue would be of identification. Federal Minister Harry Woods addressed the parliament in a recent discussion and reported that "there is no DNA test available to differentiate between breeds and it seems unlikely there will be one developed within the next the next 50-100 years." This means that it would be virtually impossible to identify whether or not as dog is of a dangerous breed other than through anecdotal evidence, which is prone to distortion and inaccuracy. .
Victims of dog attacks may argue that specific breeds are more inclined to be violent than other breeds and, therefore, should have strict regulations imposed to control their freedom and opportunities to attack. Although this is a convenient line of argument it is insubstantial because of its failure to consider the motivation for dog attacks. All dogs require some provocation before they will react violently. No dog strikes another living being just for the enjoyment. There is a serious reason for any attack, whether it is someone crossing its "boundary", being provoked or even for self-defence. If common sense prevailed in our society, it would seem fair to presume that a dog will only attack if stirred.
