Spurious argument number one against breed specific controls: Small breeds are just as dangerous as protection/fighting breeds

Mia says that she would be more afraid of her min pins than her Doberman, the implication being that 80lb Dobermans are no more dangerous than 15lb min pins.

Mia is certainly not the only one to use this argument. It is used frequently, but even if used a million times, it still will never be logical. A small dog with attitude is a joke, a large dog with attitude is dangerous.

Logically, a child can protect themselves from a 15lb dog, but not even an adult can protect themselves from an 80lb dog.

Not all 80 lb dogs need to be restricted either, only the ones that do the most damage. The statistics show which breeds those are.

Logically, this argument is not about the number of bites, but the severity, so it is illogical to argue that there are more bites from cocker spaniels, retriever and poodles. One reason for more bites from these breeds (if this statement is even true) is that there are so many more of them than pit bulls and Rottweilers. What logical point is made by saying that cockers are responsible for more bites than pit bulls? We can live with bites, it is maiming and death that must be prevented.

All fighting/protection breeds dogs are inherently more dangerous than other breeds or there would be no purpose in breeding them. But even German shepherds do not go in for the kill, they typically bite once, twice and then stop. They do not inherently keep biting and ripping until the person or animal is dead, nor do they lock their jaws on the person or animal in a powerful grip. The dogs that do that, in almost every case of severe attack, are pit bulls and Rottweilers.

This argument, logically, is about which breeds are mainly responsible for maiming, crippling, and killing most frequently and whether, in civilized society, we permit the increasing size and numbers of those breeds.