Why Dogs Should Be Banned Essay
It is Not Their fault
If you are going to ban one dog, then why not just ban all of them? People are discriminating against dogs just because of one little incident that had happened before. The government is allowing the insurance companies to deny people coverage, just because of the type of dog they decided to own. It is not the dogs fault if the owner does not know how to control their dog or allow them to get energy out so they don’t become aggressive. People should be allowed to own whatever kind of dog they want without their insurance threatening their coverage. Insurance companies are denying people coverage, just because they chose to love and care for a dog that the companies have on their “dangerous dog” list or the “Blacklist”. Most insurance companies base their lists off of what they hear about on the news. If a dog attack is heard about on the news, the insurance companies will place …show more content…
When a person is attacked by a dog, that person sometimes develops some emotional anxiety when around a dog of the same breed. An example of someone who developed this issue is my cousin. When she was little, my cousin had been attacked by a rottweiler. After the attack, she had been afraid of any rottweiler she came upon. That was until she meet my dogs. After she got to meet my rottweilers, she had gotten over her fear of the dog and now comes up to see the dog any time she comes over to my house. This proves that even if one dog seems dangerous, not all of that same breed is dangerous. Dog owners should not have restrictions on where they live depending on the type of dog they have chose to love and care for. There is no reason for why an entire dog breed should be labeled “dangerous” just because of one dog getting into the news. Do not allow people to deny you coverage and discriminate against your dog just because one person does not know how to control their
If you are going to ban one dog, then why not just ban all of them? People are discriminating against dogs just because of one little incident that had happened before. The government is allowing the insurance companies to deny people coverage, just because of the type of dog they decided to own. It is not the dogs fault if the owner does not know how to control their dog or allow them to get energy out so they don’t become aggressive. People should be allowed to own whatever kind of dog they want without their insurance threatening their coverage. Insurance companies are denying people coverage, just because they chose to love and care for a dog that the companies have on their “dangerous dog” list or the “Blacklist”. Most insurance companies base their lists off of what they hear about on the news. If a dog attack is heard about on the news, the insurance companies will place …show more content…
When a person is attacked by a dog, that person sometimes develops some emotional anxiety when around a dog of the same breed. An example of someone who developed this issue is my cousin. When she was little, my cousin had been attacked by a rottweiler. After the attack, she had been afraid of any rottweiler she came upon. That was until she meet my dogs. After she got to meet my rottweilers, she had gotten over her fear of the dog and now comes up to see the dog any time she comes over to my house. This proves that even if one dog seems dangerous, not all of that same breed is dangerous. Dog owners should not have restrictions on where they live depending on the type of dog they have chose to love and care for. There is no reason for why an entire dog breed should be labeled “dangerous” just because of one dog getting into the news. Do not allow people to deny you coverage and discriminate against your dog just because one person does not know how to control their