Obviously, you can't discriminate against a minority without violating the constitution, assuming you live in a constitutional democracy. That's a given.

Enter the well orchestrated propaganda campaign against 'pit bulls' and 'dangerous dogs' which has been designed to make dog owners into second-class citizens. The handmaidens in the media, like the political hacks, have become 'useful idiots' for an agenda geared towards the banning and eventual elimination of pet dogs. The imaginary breed, the 'pit bull', is the poster kid for that campaign.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the popular notion that 'pit bulls' are responsible for more bites and attacks than other types.

The CDC studies, usually quoted by those who haven't researched the subject, are not scientific studies. They are flawed. The info came from news reports - no offense, but not the best source for accurate information about dogs, dog breeds, dog attacks, etc. Even the authors of the CDC reviews of a news database done in conjunction with HSUS (red flag there) have publicly stated that the studies were not meant to be used the way they have been by the media. They've gone so far as to state they wish they had not published them.

Example: Under 'purebred' dogs, they list 'pit bull' - this is not a breed of dog but a slang term for over 20 purebreds and an unknown number of randomly bred, unrelated mongrels. These dogs could not possibly all exhibit the same characteristics. They do this with 'husky' as well.

Example: In many cases, there were no death certificates available - this is stated right in the study.

Example: Breed identification by the public is a major confounder, as stated by the authors in the study. This is why they did not attach much credibility to the breed ID portion of the articles. Think about your neighbour. How many pure breeds can she/he accurately identify? Nobody, anywhere, can accurately identify a mixed breed dog - it's just a guessing game.

Example: The most widely touted study ended in 1998 - almost ten years ago. Even if the numbers were accurate and even if the catch all 'pit bull' type category could have been broken down accurately into actual purebred dogs, the work is still almost a decade out of date. While 'pit bull' types purportedly topped the stats for eleven of the past hundred years or so, they did not top them before the study period (conveniently including the same eleven years) and they haven't topped them since.

Example: Focusing on fatalities leads to specious reasoning. Dog bite-related fatalities are so statistically rare that they cannot be used to predict any kind of trend. Your chance of being killed by a dog is roughly 1 : 16,000,000. Compared with other causes of death by misadventure, that makes dogs one of the safest things around.

Example: You'll sometimes hear people say that 'pit bulls' and 'rottweilers' were responsible for 67% of fatalities blah blah blah. What you don't hear is that this refers to a one-year period when the total number of fatalities in the US was 27 and 67% of that was 16. Like every other dog owner, I'd like the number to be zero but unfortunately the numbers will likely remain stable, as they have for decades, unless some major educational and enforcement initiatives are undertaken.

I could go on but you get the idea. Anybody who quotes the CDC papers, found through Google, isn't even close to being informed on the subject.

I do not own a bull and terrier type and never have although I'm familiar with many people who fancy them. I just know a bit about dogs and value my civil rights. I'm an out of towner, from Ontario, Canada, who hopes your town council snaps out of it and looks at proven, effective ways to control incompetent and criminal dog owners.