Pitbulls Used to Be Considered the Perfect "Nanny Dogs" for Children --

[Moonwalk]

196. The analogy CAN'T be exact. Dogs are living creatures with their own thoughts and instincts...

...guns are inanimate objects. A gun does nothing until the owner picks it up and starts using it. The dog, however, will do a lot of things whether the owner is there or not. A dog that isn't feeling well, or is responding to a powerful instinct might snap or growl or, yes, bite no matter how fantastic the owner, no matter how well trained. I assure you, strangers can yell at my gun and threaten it and it will still be up to me, not the gun, to kill or hurt that person. The same can't be said of a dog. I could be away and my dog, if he/she feels threatened enough, could react badly to a stranger irregardless all the training I've given that dog.

Furthermore, a gun does one thing and one thing only. It shoots out bullets. You may want it for target practice or hunting or killing another person, but that's all it does. One doesn't buy a dog to do one thing. This is why the comparison of guns to cars is absurd. You don't buy a car to kill people (usually), you buy it to transport you. You don't buy a dog to kill people either--in fact, a dog isn't a very reliable killing machine compared to a gun.

Which is to say, you may be right that if well trained any dog can be trusted, but given that each dog is different--an individual--each owner different--aware or not aware of how to train their particular dog given the dog's breed, personality, background, the comparison really can't be made between dog and gun. Whether a gun kills anyone is wholly the owner's responsibility. The dog, being a living thing, has reactions, thoughts and acts according to how it's feeling, according to fight/flight/fear. Sorry. No comparison to the gun.