After the chimpanzee attack that made the news recently, people are clamoring for new ban laws. NO ONE, they say, should be allowed to have such animals.
But what about the case of the attack on the police officer? Shouldn't we ban those animals, too?
Oh, wait--I haven't told you what kind of animals I'm talking about.
They're Chihuahuas. That's right, little Paris-Hilton-type dogs. They're also number 7 on the Texas Department of Health list of most dangerous breeds.
Now, just to be clear, I am NOT advocating banning Chihuahuas, even though they appear quite high in lists of "severe animal attacks". What I am advocating is that people think about things.
ONE animal attack is supposed to indicate that ALL such animals must be banned. This is pure and utter non-thinking nonsense.
The impetus behind such nonsense is that the chimpanzee is not a "common animal". Arguments for a ban are simply hide-under-the-Snuggly unthinking fear of something different.
And if we can turn ONE attack into a ban against ALL such animals, how long before statistics like these:
The most recent official survey, conducted more than a decade ago, determined there were 4.7 million dog bite victims annually in the USA. A more recent study showed that 1,000 Americans per day are treated in emergency rooms as a result of dog bites. In 2007 there were 33 fatal dog attacks in the USA. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with over $300 million paid by homeowners insurance.turn into the government taking away all our pets?
There are people that desperately want that.
You have to think about these things.
Update, from later the same day...
I see I'm already too late to ask people to THINK for a change; our lawmakers are too busy trying to look good to bother to think... Article in Scientific American.