Debate: After a teenager was killed in an attack, should the Government ban ownership of more breeds of dog?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
What's going on?
A 14-year-old teenager died on Tuesday after she was mauled by five out-of-control dogs while visiting a friend's house.
Police expressed frustration that no charges will be brought as the dogs - bull mastiffs and bull terriers - appear to have been bred legally.
The attack, which took place in Wigan, has reignited calls for the Government to take a stronger stance on the control of dangerous dogs.
Victim Jade Anderson is believed to be the 9th teenager killed by dogs since 2005 and it is estimated that 210,000 attacks take place each year.
Four breeds including the pit bull are banned under current legislation but campaigners have warned others can be equally dangerous without the right kind of training.
Should more be made illegal?
Case for: Family benefit
Aside from boosting the egos of owners, what possible good comes from allowing rough breeds of dog to be kept as pets? These animals - mastiffs, Japanese akitas, Rottweillers - have earned the label "status dogs". Unlike other species, they're time-bombs - even more likely to explode when trained to be aggressive (as many have been). Any number of breeds exist that that pose no threat to society and fulfil the basic role of 'man's best friend'. Banning certain breeds would not only make life less fraught for neighbours - especially those with young children - it would end the horrifying spectre of fatal dog attacks.
Case against: Owner's fault
You can't start banning every species of dog that has ever bared its teeth. That four breeds have been taken off the market is adequate; it must be seen as an owner's responsibility to look after their pets - that means neither letting them run wild nor encouraging aggressive behaviour. Those owners who fail in this duty should face tougher prosecution. Moreover, existing laws need to be better enforced. It is people we need to watch out for first and foremost - well-trained and well-loved dogs pose only the very smallest of risk.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments