Generalization In Malcolm Gladwell's Essay Troublemakers

Malcolm Gladwell’s 2006 essay Troublemakers provides an interesting discussion about how we use generalizations in organizing and regulating our society. He frames his discussion with a consideration of the 2005 law banning pit bulls in Ontario, but in between he refers to generalizations in insurance (young male drivers pay higher premiums), medicine (overweight males will be counseled to have their cholesterol checked), law enforcement (what markers are used to identify terrorists) and our perceptions about crime rates in New York City. The pit bull ban is the only law that he considers, the rest are practices or perceptions. Gladwell concludes that the ban on pit bulls is overbroad, because not all pit bulls are dangerous, and that it
Gladwell states that laws are often based on generalizations, and in this article he makes a point about how the pit bull law is a “generalization of a generalization of a trait”. Second it is important to use evidence to try and choose an appropriate generalization, because being too vague or too specific can have negative influences on the enforcement of said law. And lastly in an ideal world, lawmakers would periodically review the generalizations that they have based laws upon to ensure the generalization was or remains
He suggests that in the case of the pit bull ban, the Ontario Legislature chose the wrong generalization because the real behaviour to be targeted is bad breeding, bad training, and abusive ownership. He refers to evidence that many pit bulls are gentle, which means the law is too broad, and that many other breeds have caused serious injury to people, which suggests a ban on pit bulls only is too narrow. I disagree with Gladwell on this point. I think that the generalization is a good one, and that Gladwell’s conclusion ignores some of the evidence that the Ontario courts looked at. For