You are conflating 2 different things there.
No, I'm not.
Secure asked Ellal why haven't we banned vehicles yet then?"
Secure was making a false equivalence between an (inanimate) vehicle, and a sentient creature (dog).
I was making the point that a vehicle, per se, is safe.
And that I wholly disagreed with his position (in that we effectively mitigate the risks from vehicles through licencing, insurance, et al, so the same would apply for a dog..)
If you want to make that argument, it should be car driver compared to dog owner.
IF.
I never did.
I didn't.
If I wanted to, I would have done.
It doesn’t matter if the dog has a mind of its own, a responsible dog owner mitigates that by sensible ownership.
I know that, and do not disagree, up to a point.
All things can "have a bad day".
Unless you watch and control a dog 24/7, it will have the opportunity to do as it pleases, every now and again.
But that is a diversion of yours; I never said anything about banning all dogs, or even about licensing their owners.
I refer you again to my OP.
Your argument of “dogs aren’t guaranteed to be safe” is based in purely binary terms, it’s the same argument anti vaxxers use when they say “the vaccine cannot stop transmission”
No; it is factually correct (the dog bit).
But, you are doing a Karen, and getting all hyperbolic - probably because you love your dog so much - that you're throwing up strawmen.
I never did anything beyond offering the opinion that a dog that is so powerful that it cannot be repelled by a reasonably-able adult has no place in our country,
The risk of death or injury from a small breed dog which has been bred for good temperament and well trained by its owners, is incredibly small. That is the real argument: nuanced with context.
Read my OP.
Banning of dogs? That's someone else's opinion; not mine.
If you are going to argue with me about things I didn't say, I'll point it out to you.