Correlation Is Not Causation: Breed Specific Laws Are Cop Outs

There are approximately 14 communities around Michigan that ban pit bulls outright and many more that restrict them, or label them "dangerous" or "vicious." Recently Lansing Mayor Virg Benaro announced that residents of his city were "living in fear" of vicious dogs and asked the City Council to draft an ordinance. Apparently, the members of the Council, also residents of Lansing, weren't living in as much fear as the Mayor indicated and they demurred. "Committee Chairwoman Jody Washington said the body was “nowhere near” writing an ordinance and said the committee had no plans to include breed-specific provisions targeting breeds allegedly more prone to violence."

Good. Breed specific legislation follows the same logic as assuming since the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says the Dodge Ram 1500 is rated the most dangerous car made we should pass a law banning pickup trucks, or at least Dodge pickup trucks.

Certainly the safety features built into the truck play a role, just as the size of pit bulls contribute to the fact that where there are incidents, they are more likely to result in serious injury, or even death, meaning we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if drug dealers had opted for Papilons to guard their stash, and rich dilettantes for pit bulls instead of purse dogs as a fashion accessory. Anyway, in the vast majority of cases the person behind the wheel, or on the other end of the leash is a major contributing factor. 

If you or I operate our vehicles negligently and cause someone harm, we don't get to blame the car. Even if we have an accident, the headlines will not read "Ford Focus injures three." No one is "living in fear" of a Toyota Camry.  On the other hand, it is just as certain that when incidents involving pit bulls are reported the headlines will not read "Violation of leash law leads to injury of three," and instead will contain words like the above mentioned "vicious," or "dangerous."

Now, you may think the analogy breaks down at this point because cars are inanimate objects incapable of independent action, whereas dogs are living creatures, but it's not quite that simple. Just as cars are bound by the laws of physics, dogs are bound by the dictates of their environment and training (or lack thereof). Dogs are not moral philosophers, they will act in very consistent, linear patterns around issues like safe and dangerous, food and not food, pain and pleasure. The fact that they are sentient creatures capable of altering their behavior gives us the opportunity to shape those choices into more socially acceptable patterns, but just as a car can't suddenly decide to fly, a pit bull can't suddenly decide to ruminate over the implications of getting out of the yard if the gate is left open.

In short, we're supposed to be the responsible ones here.

Breed specific laws do have two elements which seem to be primary ingredients in a lot of decisions our politicians make these days though, they are cheap and easy. Cheap and easy, but not smart or effective. As the Lansing City Council heard in testimony:

...[S]uch laws don’t work, opponents said at the committee meeting, noting that even the American Bar Association announced its opposition to breed bans and restrictions because taxpayers often foot the bill for genetic testing to determine dog breeds, and the animal's care and housing while the testing is being completed. Instead, the city should focus on better enforcing its own leash laws, they said. A representative from the 54A District Court noted that the Lansing Police Department wrote only two tickets in 2012 for violations of the city’s leash law.

Thankfully, in this case the Council listened, which is encouraging I guess because it shows that, like pit bulls, legislators are trainable. Apparently the residents of Lansing do not need to "live in fear" of their legislators. Well, maybe except for the mayor because he seems to be a dangerously uninformed, but as long as the Council keeps him on a short leash...