It's ridiculous because guns are tools with a single purpose (destroying things, whether they be inanimate targets or teens of color) while dogs are living beings with complex socialization patterns but this conversation has already reached the unironic advocacy for wiping out an entire breed so I don't know why I'm bothering.
Guns are tools, as are dogs. Granted dogs are more varied in what they were bred for. Companionship, hunting, guarding, etc...
Devo and a few others on the last page seem to concede that pits are bred to be more aggressive. With the argument being that if you banned pit ownership or wiped pits out, people would just move on to fucking up another breed on a genetic level.
Dogs aren't tools. You're trying to sail an entirely different concept in the place of symbiosis.
There are instances of dogs being drastically changed over time while the larger conversation about dog aggression persists. The bulldog cannot perform the functions it served to earn the bull in its name anymore while we're talking about the pit bull menace, for example. It's perhaps a specious argument, but on its face enough historical evidence exists to not dismiss it out of hand.
Likening the argument made to that of one of the talking points peddled by the National Rifle Association not only assumes an audience is ignorant of relative bedrocks in science like evolution, but it's a distasteful attempt to draw equivalence between a statistical event and the demonstrable problem of gun violence in the United States.
