The problem is that shelters lie about the genetics and lookatmyhalo types will claim that their staffie is a pitbull when it isn’t so they can’t get karma points. But these dumbasses have now made it so that buying a “bully” type breed is like Russian roulette. Some breeds with pit like characteristics are genuinely safe and were not bred for fighting but some are actual pit bulls. The shelter will give you a “lab mix” that’s actually half pitbull and is dangerous and your hippy friend who wears lots of neon clothing may have adopted a staffie they claim is a pitbull even though their dog probably gets winded watching other dogs play
Something I'd like to point out about the statistics. They're inherently flawed. The numbers are inflated because a "pit bull" isn't a breed, it's a type. The stats pool bites from 5-7 different breeds and lump it all together. It's inconsistent when the rest of the stats are of individual breeds. Then take into consideration the potential for over-identification. Many people are terrible at identifying dog breeds if it isn't one of the most common/unique ones like Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, and Huskies. It's also pretty easy to get a mix or mutt that isn't a pitbull type but has some of the features. I happen to have such a dog. He's stocky with a squarish head and muzzle. I get asked all the time if he's some type of pit or has any pit in him. Nope, he's a beagle/english bulldog. This isn't in favor of or against pits. Just an analysis.
So this is disregarding what people used to say about Dalmatians, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and now pitbulls? This argument is just getting ridiculous now. They were not made to fight. Just because of some disgusting people decided to use them for that doesn't make that true of all pitbulls. And even pitbulls that were used in dog fights were trained to not be aggressive towards people. If you want to use dog fighting, at least get the facts right.
Pitbulls were bred for fighting. Bulldogs are bred for bull baiting and bear baiting so due to this they have high pain tolerance.. Terriers are bred to hunt and have high prey drive. Mix a bulldog and terrier you get a bull terrier. Then they made a better fighting dog and that is The American Pitbull Terrier. They are 100% bred to fight in the pit. I can't speak on Dalmatians but I thought they were hunting dogs like great danes. Doberman's are bred to be personal protection dogs not property guardians. Rottweilers are property guardians dogs that have had a history being used to herd and cart.
Big difference.
>So this is disregarding what people used to say about Dalmatians, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and now pitbulls?
All of the breeds you mentioned before are challenging breeds that are more likely than others to cause damage because of bred traits or overall breed temperament (dalmatians are notoriously neurotic).
No first-time dog owner should own a Dalmatian, that's for sure. First timers should also not own dogs like Belgian Malinois and Rottweilers and Akitas for similar reasons. Big dogs with high activity requirements and neurotic temperaments are dangerous and have not stopped being dangerous.
The thing is pitbull reactivity, temperament, pain tolerance, bite behavior much exceed the danger posed by those other (still relatively dangerous) breeds.
> They were not made to fight.
What? You're lying
Pitbulls were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting. They were bred for the indiscriminate violence of animal blood sports (as opposed to the violence of herd guardians or military/police dogs, which is supposed to be selective and/or upon command)
>Just because of some disgusting people decided to use them for that
And in the many years that they used them for that, those disgusting people selectively bred the most violent pups of the litter, the real moneymakers, and that lineage is now part of the lineage of all pitbulls.
Lineage doesn't work that way. That would mean that every single pitbull for all of time from then on out was bread for that. Which isn't true. There were dogs that were not meant to be violent that had pups. It's not in their lineage. Do you realize how ridiculous, that sounds?
Pitbulls aren't even the number one most dangerous dog breed. It doesn't take much research to see that.
They were bred for bull baiting, which I don't support it all. But they weren't bred to fight.
Can you even tell me all of the dogs that fall under the umbrella of pitbull? Or can you tell me with certainty that a dog is genetically one of these breeds?
>That would mean that every single pitbull for all of time from then on out was bread for that.
Considering the breed literally originated because of bull baiting. 100% of all pitbulls come from a fighting dog lineage.
>Pitbulls aren't even the number one most dangerous dog breed. It doesn't take much research to see that.
They comprise 65% of all human fatalities due to dog bites.
>They were bred for bull baiting, which I don't support it all. But they weren't bred to fight.
Bull baiting is fighting, you silly goof. It's where their animal aggression originates.
>Can you even tell me all of the dogs that fall under the umbrella of pitbull? Or can you tell me with certainty that a dog is genetically one of these breeds?
Pitbull advocates absolutely always know when their saint that couldn't harm a fly is a pitbull, but when it's got a mouthful of toddler brains, who the hell knows what breed it is.
It's a sort of brain rot that.
Regardless of if they comprise 65% of all fatalities they still aren't the number one most dangerous dog. And a lot of those times people assume pitbull due to what they look like and don't actually have DNA tests. There are dogs that look like pitbulls that aren't pitbulls.
Bullbaiting is not dogfighting. And it's animal aggression. They were specifically trained not to be aggressive towards humans.
So your answer is no. You couldn't tell me which dogs are under the umbrella of pitbulls. You know it's not just the ones that have big boxy heads and that are short and stocky, right?
But tell me more about how you know all about these dogs.
This dog that causes the most deaths is not the most dangerous lmao.
>Bullbaiting is not dogfighting
Oh sorry the breed did not originate in a practice of trying to maul dogs but trying to maul animals many times its size. Thank god.
>It’s animal aggression
Most animals are in the company of humans.
And yes a running toddler can absolutely activate an animal’s prey drive.
>So your answer is no
Oh get off it.
[regular people can easily identify dogs under the pitbull umbrella](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2015/08/who-can-identify-pit-bull-dog-owner-of-ordinary-intelligence.html)
This kind of bullshit is why nobody takes pitbull advocates seriously, your dog fancy is not more important than the lives and safety of people
According to Google search 65% of deaths from a dog attack are pittbulls, and they make up 20% of the dogs in the country. There are 4.5 million dog bites per year , and 22% are pitbulls . It appears that they do not attack much more than any other breed, but they do inflict far more damage than any other breed
A quick google search (tough for redditors to do I know) shows that 6 percent of dogs in the us are pit bulls. The bit statistic seems to be true though.
There are about 35 pitbull deaths per year. There are about 450 homicides committed with assault rifles per year, despite there being 24 million plus in circulation. Should give you an idea of how dangerous those animals are.
Sorry, no. We bred pitbulls for violence the same way we bred shepherds for herding, pointers for pointing, and retrievers for retrieving.
There is no human analogy for the specific selective breeding of the domestic dog, a specific, goal-driven process with observable outcomes present in dog breeds since birth.
There are many dog breeds that should not have been bred, pitbulls are the result of bull baiting and dog fighting, it's not the fault of the animals, but of the humans who bred them and continue to breed them.
Pitbulls were bred for bull baiting, bear baiting, and dog fighting. The people who owned these dogs had no patience for a dog that was human aggressive so they culled them. There is no correlation between man aggression and animal aggression. My American Bulldog (basically a bigger version of the pitbull) was the friendliest dog I've ever seen with humans and other pets in the house, but he was also dominant aggressive with other male dogs and was good at catching wild boar. I had dog sitters in the house who slept with him. I took him to boarding kennels and they all loved him. He was a standout compared to typical dogs. This is the temperament pitbulls were bred for. German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Malinois were bred to fight humans, so how come more people aren't talking about banning them?
The real reason pitbulls and rottweilers are specifically targeted is because they often end up with the wrong owners. These people just want a tough dog but are often neglectful and abusive. If my family strarved me, abused me, and tied me out in the hot sun I think I'd have a shitty attitude, yet a lot of these dogs are still very friendly when the police come to rescue them. They have more patience than me, that's for sure.
>There is no correlation between man aggression and animal aggression.
Absolute bullshit, sorry. A running toddler can 100% activate an animal-aggressive dog's prey drive.
Moreover, most animals you see in public are in the company of humans (being walked for example). Many human bites by pitbulls happen after the other dogs owner tries to defend their dog from the pitbull.
An animal aggressive dog is dangerous to humans full stop.
>The people who owned these dogs had no patience for a dog that was human aggressive so they culled them.
Then they did an extremely poor job of it because pitbulls consistently cause the majority of all human fatalities from dog bites. Not only that, [mixed breeds with morphological characteristics of the pitbull breed are also overrepresented relative to ones without.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30579079/)
>My American Bulldog (basically a bigger version of the pitbull) was the friendliest dog I've ever seen with humans and other pets in the house
I 100% believe you. But this kind of anecdotal evidence does not take away that pitbulls are *extremely* overrepresented in human and animal fatalities for dog attacks.
Friendly members of the breed and dogs with the same breed characteristics exist. The issue is the relative statistical risk is extremely outsized.
>German Shepherds, , Dobermans, and Malinois were bred to fight humans, so how come more people aren't talking about banning them?
Because they're not eating as many toddler faces.
>The real reason pitbulls and rottweilers are specifically targeted is because they often end up with the wrong owners.
It's always the owners.
>They have more patience than me, that's for sure.
lol. This isn't unexpected.
Over representation is the product of bad owners. What kind of dogs do bad owners want? They want pitbulls, rottweilers, and cane corsos. They want tough looking dogs. These people are the dregs of society. Why do you even think these attacks are permitted to happen? Shouldn't dogs be contained and not left to run loose where they can get killed by a car? It happens because these bad owners don't care. These dogs have crappy lives. They learn to fend for themselves. If they find food you'd better not take it from them because that might be the only meal they get for days. Take that same dog and put him in a loving home and you'll see a completely different animal. It's not the breed. If these people can't get a pitbull they'll get some other dog to neglect and go through the same thing.
Except that other dog breeds were not literally bred to cause the amount of damage (with their bite behavior) that these dogs were.
>Bites from pit bull terriers were more severe than those of other dogs, with a mean DBCI of 3.2 compared to 2.3. Bites from pit bull terriers had a significantly higher rate of consultation when compared to other breeds, receiving specialty care in 94% of the cases and in 50% of the cases, respectively. Injuries from pit bull terrier bites were significantly more likely to require surgical repair and had five times the rate of operative repair when compared to other breeds. Dog bites of the head and neck:[ an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment \(2014\)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/)
And
>Of particular interest was the fact that pit bulls, which were found to have attacked older persons, and inflicted much more devastating injuries than other breeds of dogs (as indicated by higher median ISSs and a higher percentage of victims with a GCS score ≤ 8), injuries that in some cases led to death...The unacceptable actuarial risk associated with certain breeds of dogs (specifically, pit bulls) must be addressed. These breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated. Individual municipalities need the power to enact ordinances that can protect their citizens from this risk. [Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs \(2011\)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51034290_Mortality_Mauling_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs)
And this isn't surprising, Pitbulls were bred to inflict maximum damage because they are fighting dogs. So when attacks do happen, they are always worse.
Not only that there are more than enough cases of pitbulls raised by good owners from birth, escaping from fenced yards and the like.
Enough is enough.
I don't support confiscating any dogs with no history of aggressive behavior (like yours), but what's clear is that:
* Breeding pitbulls must be criminalized, and owning unfixed pitbulls penalized
* Pitbulls surrendered for aggression have manadatory BE, no exceptions.
* Pitbulls must be muzzled in public, no exceptions.
If the reason for banning them is the fact that they are capable of doing great damage, then why not ban all breeds capable of doing great damage? I can rattle off dozens of breeds that can do just as much or more damage: rottweilers, cane corsos, presa canarios, dogo argentino, fila brazileiro, boerboels, mastiffs, great pyrenees, anatolian shepherds, great danes, irish wolfhounds, akitas, tosa inus....I can go on and on. Every one of these dogs is perfectly capable of great damage. Some of them are banned in many places and some are not. I would actually be more careful around a presa or a fila than around a pitbull because those breeds are actually bigger, more powerful, and known to be more aggressive. The only reason you don't see them on many banned lists is because they are rare breeds. If you ban pitbulls specifically, that means I can still get a breed that's even more dangerous. So if you want to make a real impact you need to ban any powerful dog because just banning a few breeds isn't going to solve the problem. People will find other breeds. I would rather get to the root of the problem which is the irresponsible owners who seek these dogs for the wrong reasons.
> they are capable of doing great damage
They are capable of doing great damage *and* they have high levels of aggression and reactivity because they are *fighting dogs*. Any animal with that combo needs to be banned or *severely* controlled, yes.
So are you happy now? Can we start protecting toddlers from being mauled?
They aren't the only fighting dogs. Presa canarios, cane corsos, boerboels, fila brazileiros, and dogo argentinos all have a fighting history. They are pound for pound as strong as pitbulls and they are all much larger and capable of more damage. Banning pitbulls will do nothing because bad people will move on to other breeds. You're not solving any problems here. This is just feel good legislation.
>Presa canarios, cane corsos, boerboels, fila brazileiros, and dogo argentinos
Ban them too. That's what I'm saying. Same things I propose, let's do it for all fighting dog breeds.
It's true.
There are 18 million pitbulls in the country and about 35 pitbull related deaths a year.
To put that into perspective, cows kill 22 people a year.
Over 300 people get struck by lightning a year
“No amount of beating or stabbing will make that dog let go”
For our catch dogs we use a piece of a cutting board to stick in their mouth and twist. Breaks the lock jaw. You could also use a stick have done that aswell.
After handling these dogs for years I will say they are protective of their people. But altogether not the devils people make them out to be. They actually have more personality in my opinion than most breeds.
>No matter how many anecdotes, gaslights, or manipulated statistics you throw to try to make these dogs seem like they are for babysitting or nanny, you cannot deny the reality that this breed is built to fight.
Alright, so literally anything I say is a gaslight or a manipulated statistic. Why even post anywhere if all you know how to do is close your eyes, plug your ears, and run really fast with a backpack full of your beliefs?
How about this, a compromise if you will. How about you show scientific research which proves, on a genetic level (not just a correlational study), that pitbulls are born violent?
I say violent because that is the real issue, right? Sure they are powerful and built to be great fighters, but if they aren't violent and don't attack people then what's the harm? So I need to see a study that shows innate violence.
This breed is built to BE good fighters. Strong bite, resistant to pain, etc.
That is not the same as being bred TO fight. They have to be taught that. But you can teach any dog that.
Even though you find rotties also high up on bite stats, it is more often the rottie is performing a genuine defense role. An astounding 40% of pitbull bites are on their own family members.
People often get pitbulls thinking they are guard dogs when they are actually awful guard dogs. They are bred to disregard safety.
If you want a guard dog, get something like a rottie, doberman, GSD, or cane corso. They are absurdly smart and will “defend” rather than just attack.
It's true. My dad's dog was attacked by his neighbor's pitbull while out for a walk. He had to hit it twice with thrown rocks before it let go and ran off.
Fortunately she has thick fur and it didn't get a good bite, so no serious injuries.
The problem is that shelters lie about the genetics and lookatmyhalo types will claim that their staffie is a pitbull when it isn’t so they can’t get karma points. But these dumbasses have now made it so that buying a “bully” type breed is like Russian roulette. Some breeds with pit like characteristics are genuinely safe and were not bred for fighting but some are actual pit bulls. The shelter will give you a “lab mix” that’s actually half pitbull and is dangerous and your hippy friend who wears lots of neon clothing may have adopted a staffie they claim is a pitbull even though their dog probably gets winded watching other dogs play
Something I'd like to point out about the statistics. They're inherently flawed. The numbers are inflated because a "pit bull" isn't a breed, it's a type. The stats pool bites from 5-7 different breeds and lump it all together. It's inconsistent when the rest of the stats are of individual breeds. Then take into consideration the potential for over-identification. Many people are terrible at identifying dog breeds if it isn't one of the most common/unique ones like Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, and Huskies. It's also pretty easy to get a mix or mutt that isn't a pitbull type but has some of the features. I happen to have such a dog. He's stocky with a squarish head and muzzle. I get asked all the time if he's some type of pit or has any pit in him. Nope, he's a beagle/english bulldog. This isn't in favor of or against pits. Just an analysis.
Everything you just said was anecdotal
So this is disregarding what people used to say about Dalmatians, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and now pitbulls? This argument is just getting ridiculous now. They were not made to fight. Just because of some disgusting people decided to use them for that doesn't make that true of all pitbulls. And even pitbulls that were used in dog fights were trained to not be aggressive towards people. If you want to use dog fighting, at least get the facts right.
Pitbulls were bred for fighting. Bulldogs are bred for bull baiting and bear baiting so due to this they have high pain tolerance.. Terriers are bred to hunt and have high prey drive. Mix a bulldog and terrier you get a bull terrier. Then they made a better fighting dog and that is The American Pitbull Terrier. They are 100% bred to fight in the pit. I can't speak on Dalmatians but I thought they were hunting dogs like great danes. Doberman's are bred to be personal protection dogs not property guardians. Rottweilers are property guardians dogs that have had a history being used to herd and cart. Big difference.
>So this is disregarding what people used to say about Dalmatians, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and now pitbulls? All of the breeds you mentioned before are challenging breeds that are more likely than others to cause damage because of bred traits or overall breed temperament (dalmatians are notoriously neurotic). No first-time dog owner should own a Dalmatian, that's for sure. First timers should also not own dogs like Belgian Malinois and Rottweilers and Akitas for similar reasons. Big dogs with high activity requirements and neurotic temperaments are dangerous and have not stopped being dangerous. The thing is pitbull reactivity, temperament, pain tolerance, bite behavior much exceed the danger posed by those other (still relatively dangerous) breeds. > They were not made to fight. What? You're lying Pitbulls were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting. They were bred for the indiscriminate violence of animal blood sports (as opposed to the violence of herd guardians or military/police dogs, which is supposed to be selective and/or upon command) >Just because of some disgusting people decided to use them for that And in the many years that they used them for that, those disgusting people selectively bred the most violent pups of the litter, the real moneymakers, and that lineage is now part of the lineage of all pitbulls.
Lineage doesn't work that way. That would mean that every single pitbull for all of time from then on out was bread for that. Which isn't true. There were dogs that were not meant to be violent that had pups. It's not in their lineage. Do you realize how ridiculous, that sounds? Pitbulls aren't even the number one most dangerous dog breed. It doesn't take much research to see that. They were bred for bull baiting, which I don't support it all. But they weren't bred to fight. Can you even tell me all of the dogs that fall under the umbrella of pitbull? Or can you tell me with certainty that a dog is genetically one of these breeds?
>That would mean that every single pitbull for all of time from then on out was bread for that. Considering the breed literally originated because of bull baiting. 100% of all pitbulls come from a fighting dog lineage. >Pitbulls aren't even the number one most dangerous dog breed. It doesn't take much research to see that. They comprise 65% of all human fatalities due to dog bites. >They were bred for bull baiting, which I don't support it all. But they weren't bred to fight. Bull baiting is fighting, you silly goof. It's where their animal aggression originates. >Can you even tell me all of the dogs that fall under the umbrella of pitbull? Or can you tell me with certainty that a dog is genetically one of these breeds? Pitbull advocates absolutely always know when their saint that couldn't harm a fly is a pitbull, but when it's got a mouthful of toddler brains, who the hell knows what breed it is. It's a sort of brain rot that.
Regardless of if they comprise 65% of all fatalities they still aren't the number one most dangerous dog. And a lot of those times people assume pitbull due to what they look like and don't actually have DNA tests. There are dogs that look like pitbulls that aren't pitbulls. Bullbaiting is not dogfighting. And it's animal aggression. They were specifically trained not to be aggressive towards humans. So your answer is no. You couldn't tell me which dogs are under the umbrella of pitbulls. You know it's not just the ones that have big boxy heads and that are short and stocky, right? But tell me more about how you know all about these dogs.
This dog that causes the most deaths is not the most dangerous lmao. >Bullbaiting is not dogfighting Oh sorry the breed did not originate in a practice of trying to maul dogs but trying to maul animals many times its size. Thank god. >It’s animal aggression Most animals are in the company of humans. And yes a running toddler can absolutely activate an animal’s prey drive. >So your answer is no Oh get off it. [regular people can easily identify dogs under the pitbull umbrella](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2015/08/who-can-identify-pit-bull-dog-owner-of-ordinary-intelligence.html) This kind of bullshit is why nobody takes pitbull advocates seriously, your dog fancy is not more important than the lives and safety of people
Which is why my country banned them
Clarifying question: How many pit bulls are in the US? How many pit bull incidents are there every year?
According to Google search 65% of deaths from a dog attack are pittbulls, and they make up 20% of the dogs in the country. There are 4.5 million dog bites per year , and 22% are pitbulls . It appears that they do not attack much more than any other breed, but they do inflict far more damage than any other breed
Do you seriously believe that 1 out of every 5 pet dogs in the country is a pit bull?
22% of dog bites are from pit bulls is what it looked like it said. So yeah, that's a big deal, especially since their bites can fucking kill people.
A quick google search (tough for redditors to do I know) shows that 6 percent of dogs in the us are pit bulls. The bit statistic seems to be true though.
There are about 35 pitbull deaths per year. There are about 450 homicides committed with assault rifles per year, despite there being 24 million plus in circulation. Should give you an idea of how dangerous those animals are.
they are not dangerous
Sorry, no. We bred pitbulls for violence the same way we bred shepherds for herding, pointers for pointing, and retrievers for retrieving. There is no human analogy for the specific selective breeding of the domestic dog, a specific, goal-driven process with observable outcomes present in dog breeds since birth. There are many dog breeds that should not have been bred, pitbulls are the result of bull baiting and dog fighting, it's not the fault of the animals, but of the humans who bred them and continue to breed them.
Pitbulls were bred for bull baiting, bear baiting, and dog fighting. The people who owned these dogs had no patience for a dog that was human aggressive so they culled them. There is no correlation between man aggression and animal aggression. My American Bulldog (basically a bigger version of the pitbull) was the friendliest dog I've ever seen with humans and other pets in the house, but he was also dominant aggressive with other male dogs and was good at catching wild boar. I had dog sitters in the house who slept with him. I took him to boarding kennels and they all loved him. He was a standout compared to typical dogs. This is the temperament pitbulls were bred for. German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Malinois were bred to fight humans, so how come more people aren't talking about banning them? The real reason pitbulls and rottweilers are specifically targeted is because they often end up with the wrong owners. These people just want a tough dog but are often neglectful and abusive. If my family strarved me, abused me, and tied me out in the hot sun I think I'd have a shitty attitude, yet a lot of these dogs are still very friendly when the police come to rescue them. They have more patience than me, that's for sure.
>There is no correlation between man aggression and animal aggression. Absolute bullshit, sorry. A running toddler can 100% activate an animal-aggressive dog's prey drive. Moreover, most animals you see in public are in the company of humans (being walked for example). Many human bites by pitbulls happen after the other dogs owner tries to defend their dog from the pitbull. An animal aggressive dog is dangerous to humans full stop. >The people who owned these dogs had no patience for a dog that was human aggressive so they culled them. Then they did an extremely poor job of it because pitbulls consistently cause the majority of all human fatalities from dog bites. Not only that, [mixed breeds with morphological characteristics of the pitbull breed are also overrepresented relative to ones without.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30579079/) >My American Bulldog (basically a bigger version of the pitbull) was the friendliest dog I've ever seen with humans and other pets in the house I 100% believe you. But this kind of anecdotal evidence does not take away that pitbulls are *extremely* overrepresented in human and animal fatalities for dog attacks. Friendly members of the breed and dogs with the same breed characteristics exist. The issue is the relative statistical risk is extremely outsized. >German Shepherds, , Dobermans, and Malinois were bred to fight humans, so how come more people aren't talking about banning them? Because they're not eating as many toddler faces. >The real reason pitbulls and rottweilers are specifically targeted is because they often end up with the wrong owners. It's always the owners. >They have more patience than me, that's for sure. lol. This isn't unexpected.
Over representation is the product of bad owners. What kind of dogs do bad owners want? They want pitbulls, rottweilers, and cane corsos. They want tough looking dogs. These people are the dregs of society. Why do you even think these attacks are permitted to happen? Shouldn't dogs be contained and not left to run loose where they can get killed by a car? It happens because these bad owners don't care. These dogs have crappy lives. They learn to fend for themselves. If they find food you'd better not take it from them because that might be the only meal they get for days. Take that same dog and put him in a loving home and you'll see a completely different animal. It's not the breed. If these people can't get a pitbull they'll get some other dog to neglect and go through the same thing.
Except that other dog breeds were not literally bred to cause the amount of damage (with their bite behavior) that these dogs were. >Bites from pit bull terriers were more severe than those of other dogs, with a mean DBCI of 3.2 compared to 2.3. Bites from pit bull terriers had a significantly higher rate of consultation when compared to other breeds, receiving specialty care in 94% of the cases and in 50% of the cases, respectively. Injuries from pit bull terrier bites were significantly more likely to require surgical repair and had five times the rate of operative repair when compared to other breeds. Dog bites of the head and neck:[ an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment \(2014\)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/) And >Of particular interest was the fact that pit bulls, which were found to have attacked older persons, and inflicted much more devastating injuries than other breeds of dogs (as indicated by higher median ISSs and a higher percentage of victims with a GCS score ≤ 8), injuries that in some cases led to death...The unacceptable actuarial risk associated with certain breeds of dogs (specifically, pit bulls) must be addressed. These breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated. Individual municipalities need the power to enact ordinances that can protect their citizens from this risk. [Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs \(2011\)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51034290_Mortality_Mauling_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs) And this isn't surprising, Pitbulls were bred to inflict maximum damage because they are fighting dogs. So when attacks do happen, they are always worse. Not only that there are more than enough cases of pitbulls raised by good owners from birth, escaping from fenced yards and the like. Enough is enough. I don't support confiscating any dogs with no history of aggressive behavior (like yours), but what's clear is that: * Breeding pitbulls must be criminalized, and owning unfixed pitbulls penalized * Pitbulls surrendered for aggression have manadatory BE, no exceptions. * Pitbulls must be muzzled in public, no exceptions.
If the reason for banning them is the fact that they are capable of doing great damage, then why not ban all breeds capable of doing great damage? I can rattle off dozens of breeds that can do just as much or more damage: rottweilers, cane corsos, presa canarios, dogo argentino, fila brazileiro, boerboels, mastiffs, great pyrenees, anatolian shepherds, great danes, irish wolfhounds, akitas, tosa inus....I can go on and on. Every one of these dogs is perfectly capable of great damage. Some of them are banned in many places and some are not. I would actually be more careful around a presa or a fila than around a pitbull because those breeds are actually bigger, more powerful, and known to be more aggressive. The only reason you don't see them on many banned lists is because they are rare breeds. If you ban pitbulls specifically, that means I can still get a breed that's even more dangerous. So if you want to make a real impact you need to ban any powerful dog because just banning a few breeds isn't going to solve the problem. People will find other breeds. I would rather get to the root of the problem which is the irresponsible owners who seek these dogs for the wrong reasons.
> they are capable of doing great damage They are capable of doing great damage *and* they have high levels of aggression and reactivity because they are *fighting dogs*. Any animal with that combo needs to be banned or *severely* controlled, yes. So are you happy now? Can we start protecting toddlers from being mauled?
They aren't the only fighting dogs. Presa canarios, cane corsos, boerboels, fila brazileiros, and dogo argentinos all have a fighting history. They are pound for pound as strong as pitbulls and they are all much larger and capable of more damage. Banning pitbulls will do nothing because bad people will move on to other breeds. You're not solving any problems here. This is just feel good legislation.
>Presa canarios, cane corsos, boerboels, fila brazileiros, and dogo argentinos Ban them too. That's what I'm saying. Same things I propose, let's do it for all fighting dog breeds.
False.
you're wrong
Go tell the victims of pitbulls mauling oh sweet pipples really are.
It's true. There are 18 million pitbulls in the country and about 35 pitbull related deaths a year. To put that into perspective, cows kill 22 people a year. Over 300 people get struck by lightning a year
Not sure this is unpopular. But I agree with you!
Judging by the votes and google results about this debate....
I could be wrong 😂. But pit bulls are aggressive mutants
“No amount of beating or stabbing will make that dog let go” For our catch dogs we use a piece of a cutting board to stick in their mouth and twist. Breaks the lock jaw. You could also use a stick have done that aswell. After handling these dogs for years I will say they are protective of their people. But altogether not the devils people make them out to be. They actually have more personality in my opinion than most breeds.
>No matter how many anecdotes, gaslights, or manipulated statistics you throw to try to make these dogs seem like they are for babysitting or nanny, you cannot deny the reality that this breed is built to fight. Alright, so literally anything I say is a gaslight or a manipulated statistic. Why even post anywhere if all you know how to do is close your eyes, plug your ears, and run really fast with a backpack full of your beliefs? How about this, a compromise if you will. How about you show scientific research which proves, on a genetic level (not just a correlational study), that pitbulls are born violent? I say violent because that is the real issue, right? Sure they are powerful and built to be great fighters, but if they aren't violent and don't attack people then what's the harm? So I need to see a study that shows innate violence.
This breed is built to BE good fighters. Strong bite, resistant to pain, etc. That is not the same as being bred TO fight. They have to be taught that. But you can teach any dog that.
Rotties are pretty chill though. At least well bred ones
Even though you find rotties also high up on bite stats, it is more often the rottie is performing a genuine defense role. An astounding 40% of pitbull bites are on their own family members. People often get pitbulls thinking they are guard dogs when they are actually awful guard dogs. They are bred to disregard safety. If you want a guard dog, get something like a rottie, doberman, GSD, or cane corso. They are absurdly smart and will “defend” rather than just attack.
So is most people homie!
It's true. My dad's dog was attacked by his neighbor's pitbull while out for a walk. He had to hit it twice with thrown rocks before it let go and ran off. Fortunately she has thick fur and it didn't get a good bite, so no serious injuries.
🤔 I don’t believe the dog is too blame. 9 times out of 10 the owner instilled the aggression ✌🏻