Eric, at Classical Values, discusses an attempt to do away with Pennsylvania’s ban on dog-breed-specific legislation:

I deeply and bitterly resent this profound abuse of logic. Dog A is not controlled by his owner and attacks Dog B, so they want to punish owners of Dog C, because Dog C allegedly resembles Dog A. By definition, this is bigotry. Every dog is different, just as every person is different. There are good dogs with good owners and there are bad dogs with bad owners. People should be making up their minds about individual dogs and individual owners based on the conduct of the individual dogs and individual owners. There are leash laws, and laws against allowing dogs to run loose. If violators of these laws own ill-behaved pit bulls which are allowed to run around and wreak havoc, they’re like criminal gun owners who engage in drive-by shootings. Show me a bad pit bull that attacks innocent dogs or people, and I’ll show you a bad dog owner. (IMO, the popularity of strong dogs with criminals is a result of the drug war, which is another topic…..)

Emphasis Mine

In 2004, my family’s pet Boston Terrier was killed by a neighbor’s Rottweiler. The Rottweiler in question was known to have attacked other dogs, as well as acting very aggressively toward people^[a]. When I got home and learned what had happened to our dog, I was furious.

My anger was very, very specific. I was angry at the individual dog that killed ours, and I was angry at the owner, whose irresponsibility and selfishness had caused the dog to be free. When it became obvious later that the county authorities were completely incompetent and unreliable when it came to issues like this^[b], I was also angry at them.

I was never angry at Rottweilers in general. I have known Rottweilers that were gentle, or at least as gentle as their size allowed them to be — any dog that weighs more than a hundred pounds is capable of doing damage, even when they’re trying to be gentle. The problem here was not the breed of the dog, but the actions of the owner and the individual dog itself.

Near the end of the post, Eric explains that this issue is more emotional for him than the gun rights issue:

While I try defend my right to keep and bear arms as often as I can, there’s something about this that rankles me in a way that the gun control debate does not. That’s because a gun is a tool, and not a member of the family, and people who want to take them away are not threatening to take away and kill a member of the family.

My dog Coco is not a gun.

I’ve always loved dogs and can completely understand Eric’s vehemence over this issue. They are more than mere possessions, and individuals like Eric who own well-behaved animals who happen to be of a breed that is often considered “dangerous” are right to be offended when their loved one is lumped in with other dogs simply because they look similar.

1. In particular, the dog once attempted to bite my grandfather when he was tending to his cattle. [↩]
2. To be fair, I don’t think the government of Clay County was — or is — competent or reliable on any issue. [↩]