Pit bull attack on two girls reignites the dangerous breeds debate

Pit bull attack on two girls: ban or regulate?

Anyone can own a dog bred for fighting; not anyone can own a gun. That asymmetry has come back into focus after an episode in which two mothers suffered serious injuries while protecting their 2- and 3-year-old daughters. The incident, captured on security cameras, has reignited the controversy over keeping potentially dangerous dogs.

Among the victims was Juliany Rabelo, the municipality's Secretary of Social Assistance, and her sister-in-law Lidiane. Both were seriously injured as they placed themselves between the animal and the girls. The swift intervention of several residents and of Lidiane's husband prevented a greater tragedy, but the video has thrown an uncomfortable question back into public debate: how much is a child's safety worth compared with the whim of owning an aggressive dog?

A pit bull's genetics can't be fixed with training

The controversy has an uncomfortable core for the animal's defenders: the pit bull is not an ordinary dog. It is the result of a cross between terrier and bulldog, selectively bred in Britain in the mid-19th century for fighting. For generations, the most combative specimens with the most destructive bite were chosen. It is not just a matter of upbringing: it is a matter of artificial selection.

Some argue that centuries of instinct cannot be silenced by a few months of training. On the other side, those who defend the dog point out that behavior depends on the owner: a 40-kilo animal with an irresponsible owner is a weapon; with a capable owner, a stable animal. But that nuance offers little comfort to anyone who has seen a 60-kilo pit bull drag a person down the street.

Ban the breed or hold the owner responsible

Opinions split into two camps. One side calls for a ban on breeding and keeping these breeds, arguing that genetic selection makes them ticking time bombs. The other demands tougher ownership conditions: licensing, insurance, muzzles, and effective incivil liability for the owner.

The comparison with gun control is inevitable. In almost any country, it takes more paperwork to get a shotgun than to acquire a dog capable of disfiguring a child. The paradox is served: you can keep a dozen pit bulls at home, but not a pistol to defend yourself from them.

The economic cost of the attack: who picks up the bill

The economic angle of the issue is mentioned less than it should be. Bite injuries generate medical costs, rehabilitation, time off work and, in some cases, permanent consequences. That bill is paid by the victims and the public system, not by the animal's owner.

The most skeptical data suggest that owners of dangerous dogs rarely end up before a judge. The difficulty of proving negligence and the lack of complaints turn liability into empty words. The risk is socialized: we all pay the price of irresponsible ownership.

What the video doesn't show: how to release a bite

There is a detail few people mention: the video shows several people trying to separate the animal for what feels like an eternity. Self-defense manuals insist that a biting dog does not let go when hit. The most commonly cited techniques involve pressing the trachea or inserting an object into the dog's mouth to force it open. These are brutal measures, but they can make the difference between life and death.

Meanwhile, security cameras once again capture an attack that could have been prevented. The question that remains unanswered is why the law does not treat the owners of these breeds with the same seriousness as those who handle firearms. How many more videos will it take for someone to take responsibility?