Pit bull ownership should be regulated by the state.

"The reason for this statistic is the popularity of this breed in the US, so it is logical that the frequency of attacks would correlate in this manner." well you are right that they are popular. they are almost as popular as Labradors and Retrievers. Yet you completely ignore the fact that this one, single breed. is responsible for 62.3% of ALL dog related deaths. http://www.dogsbite.org... your claim that they are well mannered in laboratory type settings makes no difference when it comes to the fact that they are responsible for nearly 2/3rds of dog related deaths. These studies may very well be true. but i am not dealing with studies. I am dealing with what has actually happened in the real world. "They did better than many other breeds including the Golden Retriever" Then why arent Golden Retrievers even on the map when it comes to dog attacks? Why? If pitbulls are more well behaved than golden retrievers why are they responsible for 206 deaths and golden retrievers are responsible for 2... How is that possible? You seriously need to answer that question. I mean are you seriosuly going to sit here and say golden retrievers are more aggressive than pitbulls when faced with statistics like that? or are you willing to admit that study was either deeply flawed and does not reflect reality or was perhaps totally fabricated by the pro pit bull crowed? "In some areas of Canada for example the most fatal dog attacks are mainly attributed to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies" And? Perhaps I could find you some statistic from Tajikistan where the deadliest dog is a miniature poodle. what difference would that make? these are isolated territories you speak of. There may not be a single pit bull in that isolated region of the globe. so this has no bearing on anything. furthermore. several places in Canada have rightly outlawed pit-bulls. so of course there are going to be far less pit bull attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org... "this argumentation does not serve your racist thesis that only pit bulls should be regulated because the need to properly train your dog exists among all breeds." you must be a liberal. Only a liberal would try to silence opposition by screaming racism. Perhaps I would require it for rottweilers as well. they account for 11.7% of deaths. but since pit-bulls are 6X as dangerous I thought that would be a good start. "Also I dont think that this course you are describing should be a requirement to owning a pitbull, but it could maybe be a requirement if you already had one or multiple cases of you dog harming someone." You must be completely off your rocker. first of all. If you already own a pit-bull and it has already bitten somebody. not only should the animal be euthanized, you should be charged with assault, possibly with a deadly weapon. You think they should be just slapped on the wrist and let go to have their dog maul a few more people? no. this class would be for fine upstanding dog owners with no history of having ill trained dogs. at this point I would like to add that I think ALL dog owners, cat owners, pig owners, you name it, should have to sign a similar document stating that the actions of their pet are solely their responsibility in ALL legal matters and will be treated as if they did the action themselves. BUT as far as dogs go only with the pit bull would it be necessary to have this class since they are so dangerous. 62.3% people. come on. this is not unprecedented. There are licensing processes for many dangerous animals. You can own a bear, lion, tiger, poisonous snakes, etc. You can own them all as long as you go through a process where you show you are competent and capable of handling these creatures. and quite frankly I think you will find lions and tigers and bears are actually far safer than pitbulls given they haven't killed near as many people. I look forward to your rebuttal. perhaps you can figure out some way to call me a sexist this time?