I'd go as far as saying that law is a step in the right direction, more emphasis should be placed on the owner to be responsible, it's much better than outright banning dogs just because it's a certain breed. All the US has to do is look to western Europe to see that passing laws that outright ban certain breeds of dogs just doesn't work.

For instance the UK passed the DDA act over 20 years ago that banned a number of breeds including the APBT, this has had no effect on either dog bites or the amount of "Pitbull type" dogs on the streets of the UK. Only 3 years ago there was a fatal attack by an APBT on a four year old boy, Jon-Paul Massey and a few years before that, Ellie Lawrenson. Proof enough the DDA act doesn't work ?

Shortly after the DDA act was passed the majority of western Europe passed BSL type laws that banned the APBT, including the Netherlands, who I believe passed their laws around the same time as the UK, only the Netherlands have been the only country so far to scrap their BSL laws, stating they don't work..

The point i'm trying to make is that the US is doing nothing but wasting it's time in introducing laws to ban the APBT, the only people to suffer from these laws are the responsible law abiding pet owners. Instead of wasting time passing laws to ban the breed, they should be focusing on passing laws that affect the irresponsible owner that this breed attracts, like the original post in this thread.. If someone wants to own an APBT, then they sure as hell should be responsible for that dogs actions. Holding people accountable and fully responsible for the actions of their dog and giving them stiff penalties, might just make the retards think twice about either; owning this breed in the first place or taking the responsible steps to make sure their dog isn't a threat to the public.