My question at issue is whether or not pit bulls are dangerous by nature and should be banned or if they are just perceived to be more aggressive because of their reputation as fighters dogs. The main problem associated with this issue is that cities around the world and in the United States are passing laws that ban pit bulls, because they are thought to be vicious creatures and will attack without warning. According to one of the sources I found while doing research, pit bulls are more dangerous than German Shepards even though they were less likely to bite. This is because pit bulls were more likely to attack without being provoked, which showed they were more aggressive (Avner, Baker, 1991). This article did not seem very reliable or thought out. To say that attacking without a reason is worse than attacking for a reason seems flawed. Both dogs still did something wrong, I think it relates to ethics when comparing two men that steal. One does it for his family and the other does it for fun. Should they not be punished the same? Are they both not classified as thieves? My second source had a good point of bringing up the fact that the name pit bull is a general name and is not only referring to one breed. This makes it hard to really believe if what the victims think was a pit bull was in fact actually a pit bull (Collier, et al., 2001). This means that without an actual definition and description of what breeds fall under the name pit bull, there is no telling if a dog is one or not, at least in legal terms. Each person can have a similar image in their head of what a pit bull is, but even then everyone’s image will be a little different. This causes problems with BSL, because how is it that someone can ban a certain breed if there isn’t one to ban?