I am not trying to misrepresent your points. I apologize if I am doing so.
I still feel like the entire argument of forcing a species to not exist is only justified when you ignore nurture. And if we are going to go down that road why start with a domesticated dog breed? How about people that keep Pythons or poisonous snakes? Or maybe tigers? The fact the animal is potentially dangerous does not mean its incapable of sharing love and affection or that it has no place around people.
And the 'slippery slope' does exist. If we take out one breed why would we stop there? I truly believe if we are going to start removing species from existence a domestic dog should be very far down on the list of priority's.
For the gun control line I was only pointing out that if the animal has zero agency the conversation would shift to them functioning as a tool. I think that we can agree that is absurd but the fact they do make decisions and that they do have intelligence means their behavior can be modified. If you are interested someone I follow is an ex seal named Mike Ritland who trains dogs.
I still feel if we are going to take the position that genetic traits should determine if a creature exists it gets really ugly very quickly. Conditioning and training make a massive difference in an animals behavior and if we are going to ignore that as a factor theres a ton of other animals that should be eliminated.