Back in 1991, as a result of human deaths caused by dogs, a few breeds of dog were banned:
* Pit Bull Terrier
* Japanese Tosa
* Dogo Argentino
* Fila Brasileiro
So now we fast-forward to the current day. The breed XL Bully is still allowed in the UK. Here's some statistics:
* Less than 1% of dogs in the UK are XL Bullies
* 70% of humans killed by dogs in the UK are killed by XL Bullies
I haven't seen a statistic for what percentage of XL Bullies in the UK have attacked a person, but I reckon it's very low, probably something like 1%.
Now the first thing I'll say here is: It's not difficult to play around with factual statistics to manipulate people's thinking. People have written books about how to manipulate people with factual statistics.
Looking at the two factual statistics so far though, it would seem that if the XL Bully were to be banned in the UK, then dog-human fatalities would drop by 70%. That's quite a drop.
So let's make a comparison here with another real-life scenario: 99% of terrorists are Muslim, but less than 1% of Muslims are terrorist. So in theory, if a country were to be able to keep all Muslims out, then it would succeed in keeping out 99% of terrorists. But of course, none of the developed countries in the world have a Muslim ban.
Also XL Bullies are different to Muslims in two ways:
(1) Muslims are people (XL Bullies are animals)
(2) A person can falsely report their identity (A dog can't lie about its breed)
Breeders of the XL Bully argue that a dog's aggressiveness is not because of its breed, but rather because of its upbringing. So I think the argument here is that if a dog is vicious towards people, then it's not because of behavioural genetics, but rather because of how the owner treated the dog. My own take on this is that behavioural genetics does play a role in dog behaviour. I think that a poodle will probably behave like a poodle, and that a rottweiler will probably behave like a rottweiler. Of course though, I think that you can make a poodle vicious, and also I believe that you can have a placid rottweiler.
But if you want to train a dog to be placid and timid, you'll have a lot more ease of success if the dog is a poodle. If you want to train an attack dog, you'll have a lot more ease of success to train a rottweiler.
Breeders of the XL Bully argue that any breed of dog can become vicious and attack a person. But even if we ignore for a moment:
* Behaviour genetics
* How the dog is treated
There is still another thing to consider:
* The size of the dog's oral cavity
* The force of the dog's bite
Making a comparison to another real-life situation, some people say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The argument here is that the problem is the homicidal intention of the person, rather than the availability of a gun. The thing is though, if a person with homicidal intentions has access to a gun, they can do a lot more damage a lot more quickly than a person who doesn't have access to a gun.
Is it fair to ban the XL Bully in the UK if less than 1% of XL Bullies have attacked a person?