>Unless you mean to say that as long as dogs exist in a public space, your child’s existence is threatened.
No, I am saying that public places are not allowed to say a dog cannot exist there, so effectively my choice (and more often than not these days) is to take my kid and leave, or have my kid be in the same space as the dog. This includes playgrounds, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. Every dog is a service dog.
>Untrained pitbulls can be dangerous, but did the dog display any aggression at any point?
Why would I wait for it to display aggression? Just like any other animal that is capable of causing a lot of damage, I would be on alert, and preferably keep my kid away. There is obviously no possibility to react quickly enough to stop a large animal from hurting someone a few feet away.
>Or is the whole story just “a well trained dog was in the vicinity of children, presumably not off leash, and I did not like that because I fear for my children all the time”?
How is someone supposed to know it was well trained? Especially given the prior probabilities of the type of people who own large pitbulls in the first place. Just like you evaluate the type of people you're around (for example those with loaded weapons, brandishing knives, etc), why would it not make sense to evaluate the type of animal that is around?
>Btw this is what I meant when I pointed that most discussions are emotional than rooted in reality.
I don't see evaluating potential consequences as being emotional. You might ascribe a lower probability of injury, but I don't see it as consistent to give large dogs the benefit of the doubt just because they are dogs. Especially when all the stats indicate increased damaged from certain types.
> This includes playgrounds, restaurants, grocery stores, etc
Dogs are most definitely not allowed in playgrounds, restaurants (unless it’s for an outdoor seating) and grocery stores.
Everything else you described is mostly you expressing your discomfort around large dogs, stemming for your parental instincts to protect your child. Which is by definition an emotional response.
> Just like you evaluate the type of people you're around
Btw there are two types of evaluations. One is situational awareness and the other is stereotyping. Looking at a large dog that’s minding its own business but complaining about it because it’s a pitbull and COULD be dangerous, fits the second type.
> Just like any other animal that is capable of causing a lot of damage, I would be on alert, and preferably keep my kid away. There is obviously no possibility to react quickly enough to stop a large animal from hurting someone a few feet away.
It's almost as if you don't realize that humans are even larger animals, also capable of causing a lot of damage.
No, I am saying that public places are not allowed to say a dog cannot exist there, so effectively my choice (and more often than not these days) is to take my kid and leave, or have my kid be in the same space as the dog. This includes playgrounds, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. Every dog is a service dog.
>Untrained pitbulls can be dangerous, but did the dog display any aggression at any point?
Why would I wait for it to display aggression? Just like any other animal that is capable of causing a lot of damage, I would be on alert, and preferably keep my kid away. There is obviously no possibility to react quickly enough to stop a large animal from hurting someone a few feet away.
>Or is the whole story just “a well trained dog was in the vicinity of children, presumably not off leash, and I did not like that because I fear for my children all the time”?
How is someone supposed to know it was well trained? Especially given the prior probabilities of the type of people who own large pitbulls in the first place. Just like you evaluate the type of people you're around (for example those with loaded weapons, brandishing knives, etc), why would it not make sense to evaluate the type of animal that is around?
>Btw this is what I meant when I pointed that most discussions are emotional than rooted in reality.
I don't see evaluating potential consequences as being emotional. You might ascribe a lower probability of injury, but I don't see it as consistent to give large dogs the benefit of the doubt just because they are dogs. Especially when all the stats indicate increased damaged from certain types.