BSL Laws Should NOT Be Banned

Family’s loving pets are being ripped from their grasps because of BSL laws. What’s up with that? BSL means breed specific legislation and it’s laws are made to help protect people and communities from “blacklisted” dogs, but does BSL actually do what it’s meant for and really stop dog attacks. Many people are agreeing that breed specific laws are not helping. Here is my opinion on this controversial argument. BSL laws should not exist and do more harm than good, not just to the “blacklisted” dogs but also to the people that own them too.
In the Netherlands, Pitbulls were banned because of their bad reputation in the Netherlands itself and other states around that were untrusting of the dog breed. Pitbulls and breeds similar were banned because
BSL raises your insurance rates. “Insurance company may be less than thrilled to take on the liability of covering any injury claims your pet may be involved in. Any dog can bite if it is threatened or scared, but some breeds such as pit bulls are naturally more aggressive than others. Many insurance companies will insure homeowners with pit bulls at least until the dog is involved in an injury claim.” Why do insurance companies immediately put risk and liability together at the mention of a “blacklisted”
Any dog can bite no matter what breed it is, the risk of getting bit is only lowered when a dog is properly trained and comes from a good environment. So why have a ban on the breeds of dogs that were trained to fight, it’s not the dogs fault. On multiple occasions dog whisperer Cesar Millan says “People are the problem.” which is what I believe a dog can’t abuse or train itself but the person that own the dog can. We should have more programs where allow owners no matter what kind of do they have can learn to train a dog, wich will definitely help lower risks of getting bit. “Blacklisted” dogs should have a chance to live as a normal dog