KEY POINTS:
Here we go again. Two savage dog attacks, one leaving a mother dead, and where are we heading? Up a cul-de-sac fretting whether tougher controls might infringe the rights of dogs. Meanwhile a Greek chorus of dog lovers is chanting the mantra that there are no bad dogs,
only bad owners.
They'd have us believe these beasts are just naughty children in need of better parenting. With one victim in her grave and an 85-year old woman nursing bites to her face, how nuttily irrelevant is that?
A few days ago we were all fixated by the latest mass shooting rampage in an American school, and wondering once again how a civilised country could make the sale of hand guns as easy as buying a dozen beer.
Self-defence is the American explanation for having a deadly weapon in every bedroom dresser. From Murupara, scene of the latest deadly mauling, the excuse is eerily similar. The killer dogs were needed because the neighbourhood was unsafe.
And as so often happens in America, the victim in Murupara was a member of the family the weapons of death were supposed to protect.
In this case she was the innocent aunty of "Spider," the de facto owner of the deadly pitbull and staffordshire crossbreed.
We don't allow the sale of hand guns because guns are deadly in the wrong hands. It's the same with dogs. An ill-trained guard dog, especially one that is genetically short-fused, is a potential killer.
I've never understood the Anglo-Saxon fixation with dogs as part family member, part fashion accessory.
Luckily, as my neighbourhood has gentrified, the dog population has tended to change too. Now it's mainly squeaking lapdogs, or tubby labradors panting at the end of a lead as they and their power-walking "mums" try to lose a little weight.
In meaner streets, fashion dictates a rottweiler, or a pitbull or a staffy, or something mongrel that looks as threatening.
These are the dogs that we most fear, for the very sane reason that they've had aggression bred into them over centuries.
As SPCA prosecutor, Jim Boyd described them after the mauling four years ago of a young girl in Westmere, they are "genetic time bombs" and "loaded guns" at loose in our streets.
In response to the 2003 attack, dog control legislation was toughened, banning the import of four breeds.
Any already in the country were to be classified "menacing" and required to be fenced in at home, and wear a muzzle and be on a lead when on the street. The local council had discretionary powers to have it neutered as well.
In the Murupara case, the two dogs ran out on to the street and killed a passerby. The stricter regulations failed.
We can point the finger at the local council for not enforcing the regulations. But there were plenty of warnings in 2003 that loading onerous new responsibilities on to local councils without any Government funding was unjust and likely to result in at best patchy compliance. And so it has proved.
One possible solution would be to hand responsibility for controlling potentially deadly dogs to the police.
But with that should also come still tougher regulations. The Government wants more dogs designated as dangerous or menacing.
But Prime Minister Helen Clark worries that it is a complicated matter.
At the risk of sounding flip, they are only dogs. I suspect most New Zealanders would say that if a dog looks and walks and snarls like a pitbull or one of the other banned breeds, who needs a breeding certificate?
Let's err on the side of the human and snip its back wheels and muzzle it, just to be safe. I'd go a step further and bring out the syringe as well.
I'd also be more draconian about strays and any dog that leaps and bites, whether on or off lead.
I'd present them with a one way ticket to the pet-food factory.
Dogs don't belong in suburbia. But if we have to put up with them, dogs and their owners should understand, it's under sufferance. And if they step out of line, bye-bye.