• Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Germany looks at patterns. Bully XL isn’t even accepted as a distinct race and you don’t need to ban it, it just needs to hit certain traits and it will be considered a dangerous dog breed regardless.

    • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think I answered that. Or I don’t understand your question. Just keep banning what?

      I suppose I assumed the aim of the policy is “to stop fatal dog attacks in the UK”. I also assumed that was the reasoning behind the pitbull ban too, and look where we are. We could learn from history, or we could just keep banning them. This is all just repetition of my previous comment though.

      I guess if the aim is to ban breeds of dogs then sure, why not keep banning them.

      • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        and look where we are

        Um, a bit safer with fewer mental dogs running about

        • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This would go a lot easier if you would please read my initial comment. Both of your comments are answered in there.

          [Edit, both comments aren’t you, my bad. So far everything asked is addressed in my initial comment though] there also aren’t fewer dog attacks now than compared to before the pitbull ban.