       Have you ever been in a public place that has signs that say "No pit bulls"? Well you're not alone, around the country in public places such as college campuses, open markets, or even common areas, the pitbull or bull terrier has been banned with a connotation that these animals are natural born killers and will try to attack any human in sight. The matter of the fact is that these laws fail to provide a safer environment and take away from the freedom and public image of these animals. 

These breed specific laws take away from the power of these dogs and the abilities of a human to train a dog a specific way. An animal behaves how it was brought up, so well housed dogs bring forth public decency that isn't threatening towards other people in public places. To add to these points, these laws are plainly unjust. They keep proud owners of pits from expressing their dogs' freedom or allowing it their animal to exercise. 

 The values that come along with these laws imply that people don't have the capabilities to train a dog or take well enough care to allow it to understand and have a mindset that isn't of a killer. You have to value the dog and take it as the responsibility it 

Being as I am a pit owner, ive had many occasions where im taking my dog for a walk through my local town and im stopped by officers or people to question me about my dog and tell me that im not permitted here with him. These orders infuriate me as they don't understand that my dog walks past others without so much as a growl or a bark. The way you raise your dog goes a long way in his obedience. 

As Ive said, owning a pit bull and experiencing first hand the discrimination that comes with these laws makes me want to fight for their side because my dog should be able to go anywhere another person pet is going. 

ASPCA released an article discrediting breed specific legislation. The main focus of this article was to insist that these laws, in fact, don't provide safer public areas and do more damage to the freedom of these bully breeds. These laws can lead to a host of problems, like legal fees, relinquishment of the animal or evictions. It's nearly impossible to adopt these dogs around these banned areas leaving the effected breeds sitting in kennels and shelters until they are eventually euthanized by the facility. 

The ASPCA gets across a point that these laws cause owners and the dogs themselves to suffer. They stake a claim that these well-mannered animals have no place being banned and that this "quick-fix" solution to a problem with dog attacks in the past is doing more harm then good. 

Though the ASPCA is a credible source for information, the bias in this article is an obvious fall back. The organization itself is established to fight against laws and problems like this. Their stance on the issue is preset due to the nature of their organization and doesn't allow them to see both sides clearly and may cloud one side of judgment. 

Another article is one done by Shaw Williams called "attacking the innocent" in it, he takes his stance that these breed specific laws are problematic and could never reach their desired effectiveness. He brings up the history of the laws and why the animal attacks caused these laws to be put in place, he addresses debatable court cases dealing with these laws and he concurs that enforcing these bands are costly and in efficient in public areas. He finishes his article with other ways to address these issues and substitutions to these breed specific legislation. 

Shaws' main claim is that these laws were an unexamined patch to attack problems that has become out of date and problematic to owners and dogs. The stance against breed specific legislation is clear and the points and facts are well managed. 

The credibility of the article is questionable but the facts are there and with facts comes proof and that's credible anywhere. Bias doesn't seem to be evident as opinions aren't stated much in the article. He sees the facts and the laws and feels that the laws are unjust on that basis. 

Anthony Abordo presents an article that examines the breed specific legislation and takes the side against it as it discredits the laws. It stated that the laws don't take into effect the training that keeps a dog from being vicious and implies an idea that mere existence has a relation to the aggressiveness and dangerousness of the dog.  

The main claim is that these laws are flawed and need to be redone or nullified completely. To enforce these laws causes suffering for owners and pets alike. The legislation seems ridiculous and a bit over kill. 

His credibleness seems evident as he cites experiments and analyses that these laws are discredited to its citation of dog bites as evidence of aggressive behavior while the other experiments actually put the breeds together and the evidence disputes the false claims that these laws are based on. His biasness seems split, he states facts and argues a valid point with many supporting details. He states both sides and give a solid argument for the rights of bully breeds. 

