There are pros and cons for breed specific legislation (BSL) for pitbulls. The BSL is a term for controlling what breeds of dogs get restrictions. Society automatically claims that pitbulls are bad dogs and should not be owned. However,there are pros and cons to this statement, pitbulls should not have a restriction. Where do you stand on this argument?
According to pro con.org, another con states about how the BSL does not make the community safer just by restricting pitbulls. The counterargument to this states how the BSL does make the community safer before the dog bite can happen. However, in reality we can see that any dog breed can bite someone and injure them not just pitbulls, it does not seem fair that pitbulls have this regulation when other dogs can also injure someone. As stated in pro con.org, one of the pro’s states that the BSL is there to
…show more content…
The counterargument of this is that pitbulls are not aggressive just from dog fighting it is also the way the owners raise the dog breed, you could personally raise another dog breed besides a pitbull and they could lash out as well and be into dog fighting also, why should we blame the pitbulls. A pro stated from pro con says that pitbulls have the automatic nature to be aggressive and bite people. This is not true at all; there are very nice pitbulls out there who are not aggressive or bite at all. The counterargument to this statement is that, Pitbulls are not aggressive or dangerous they are just like and other dog breed if they are raised incorrectly or get raised into dog fighting they will be aggressive, but if you raise them properly and don't dog fight they are the most gentle breed of dogs out there. Some questions you may be asking could be, Should places have this pitbull restriction? The answer to this question is no, we