[crazywiggy]

Simonmaal - maybe this will help you decide....

I have certainly heard a lot of people use the pit bull's size and strength as a erason to ban it (the newspapers make a big deal about this!) As you say - the theory is that although all breeds can bite, a pit bull can do more damage than a yorkie!

Two things to consider...

1) Yes, a larger dog can more more damage than a small dog. However, this does NOT mean that the small dog can not do damage. Both can cause injuries serious enough to require stitches, remove fingers, cause permanent scarring etc. This is even more true where children are concerned - as fatalities have also been cause by dachsunds and pomeranians. Being small does not automatically make them safe!
(To make this even more clear I know someone who required a trip to a+e and stitches for a guinea pig bite!)

2) Even if we were to agere on large dogs causing more damage, does this mean we should ban all the large dogs?

Let's use the pit bull as the starting point as they are the most demonised, often banned breed. Obviously they are larger than yorkies, but they are not really that big in the scheme of things.
What about some of the giant breeds, such as the newfoundland or the Irish wolfhound? These dogs are truly massive, both in terms of weight and height. The newfoundland is powerful enough to save drowning people by dragging them out of the water. The wolfie was developed to be large and powerful enough to take large, dangerous game (ie wolves). Yet these are two of the most gentle, affectionate, good natured breeds in existence. They generally have no aggresive instincts (towads either people or other dogs), are not nippy like many terriers or herding breeds, and are renowned for their love of children. Would you ban these because of their "potential" to cause a lot of damage?

What about the ever popular labrador retirever - should we ban them? I mean they are both taller and heavier than the APBT, so could potentially do more damage.

Enough about the larger dogs - what about the smaller ones?

What about the beagle, described as a "hardy" and "sturdy". They are not much smaller than a pit bull - a large beagle could be similar in size to the smaller pits. If a pit bull can do enough damage to cause them to be banned, why not the beagle?

And when you get to the point that even the smallest breeds have been responsible for serious injuries and even deaths, you realise that size isn't everything.