Why does quoting the UK Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 attract disapproval every time?


Clearly this is the law of the land and have been for nearly 20 years. So why does merely mentioning it when asked almost always draw criticism? I did not write the directive. But it is the law. We can't choose to obey the ones we close to and disobey the ones we dislike.
I know some people that own dogs like Staffies, pit-bulls and rotties, and though they are unanimously good and nice people and honest dog-owners and act responsibly, they seem to can`t stand it when you mention some of the recent incidents regarding those types of dogs. It's as if it's a personal attack on themselves whenever people ring for banning due to the odd irresponsible dog owner allowing his dog to attack a child or something.

Perhaps individuals will take things to heart though. Whenever anything gets aimed at surrounded by the media, such as smoking, drinking, use of cannabis etc etc, people other get 'uppity' and tend to take it as a personal attack on their civil rights to do what they want. The decree seems to be in strict black and white, and it doesn't allow for 'sensible' travels by 'responsible people.
Because that law is ridiculously undeserved and has no basis within fact. It is also vague and applied subjectively, and If it be here, we would call it 'unconstitutional'.

Related Questions: