Campaigners have welcomed the move to outlaw the breed they argue is "a clear and present threat to public health", but concerns have been raised it may not be practical and lead to other kinds of dogs being prohibited.
Yup. The vast, vast majority of pit bulls legitimately are the lovable dorks that their owners say they are. I’ve lived with several of them, I would know. It’s just hard to reconcile statistics with personal experience, so people who own only know the statistics tend to disregard the latter, and people who own pits tend to disregard the former.
Thanks for all the downvotes! It feels just like reddit again :)
If you’re a dog owner and you’re paying attention, then your personal experience should include the following truth: any dog can go postal. If you then combine this with the knowledge that pitbulls are much more deadly than other dogs when being agressive, then you must reach the conclusion that this breed should be banned, even though that is admittedly a sad conclusion.
I’ve been a dog owner, and know many dog owners, and have never personally known someone whose dog went “postal,” including the many pit bulls I’ve met and the several that I’ve lived with.
I didn’t make it up. Given the number of pit bull attacks on humans and other animals every year in the US (because that’s where I found the data), and the number of pit bulls in the US, roughly 1 in 10,000 pit bulls will attack someone or something in a given year. Assuming an average lifespan of roughly 10 years, there’s a roughly 1 in 1,000 chance that a given pit bull will ever attack a human or animal.
Can this possibly be true?
If a dog switches to aggressive mode and stops listening to commands, trying to attack (another dog, a cat, a deer, a bird, a human) that’s what I mean by “going postal”. In most cases they are restrained on leash. The outcome, and the target (for the sake of this argument) are not important. It is not possible to predict accurately when they will do this.
Well surely it’s a spectrum that people are advocating an arbitrary line be placed on. Once this breed is gone, what about the next most aggressive breed? They then become the most aggressive breed and there’ll be calls to weed them out too. Dogs kill more humans than any other non-human vertebrate in the world by a very long shot - getting rid of one breed isn’t going to reduce that number to zero.
To clarify, I’m not against the move of banning the breed at all, I’m just acutely aware that it’s making an arbitrary distinction.
Pitbulls are deadlier than all other breeds combined. They are 10 times as deadly as the next most aggressive breed. You don’t need to pull out the slippery slope fallacy, when the line is very clearly at pitbulls.
Dogs kill more humans than any other non-human vertebrate in the world by a very long shot
I looked into this, based on some other comments. Turns out it’s snakes. Various sources list dogs at between 13,000 and 35,000 deaths per year, and snakes in a range of 75,000-100,000.
Edit: but if we’re talking one species, dogs might edge out the deadliest snake. Really hard to say, based on the data I was able to find.
People with access to verifiable data overlook the appearance of safety to express a legitimate concern about a breed that’s demonstrably more likely to kill? What dorks!
No. People who spend all their time online and have never interacted with a pit bull in real life tend to overlook the fact that 999 out of 1,000 pit bulls will never attack someone, and that 999 out of every 1,000 pit bull owners aren’t lying about their dogs being good.
Thank you for providing an example of someone who completely disregards the latter!
My childhood pitbull bit me in the face and I have permanent face scarring from it. I had to get 60+ stitches to reconstruct my face.
It’s not a valid point to say “most don’t attack people” when the breed is much more likely to attack a person compared to other breeds. Then it’s made worse by the fact they’ve been bred to be extra good at attacking.
I’m sorry you were attacked by a pit bull. I’ve already acknowledged that they’re both more likely to attack people than any other breed, and more dangerous when they do. I’m just trying to balance out the undue hate for them as an entire breed. Given the comments on any post relating to the breed, one would think that every pit bull, or at least the majority of pit bulls, are violent, when that’s far from the case.
Yup. The vast, vast majority of pit bulls legitimately are the lovable dorks that their owners say they are. I’ve lived with several of them, I would know. It’s just hard to reconcile statistics with personal experience, so people who own only know the statistics tend to disregard the latter, and people who own pits tend to disregard the former.
Thanks for all the downvotes! It feels just like reddit again :)
If you’re a dog owner and you’re paying attention, then your personal experience should include the following truth: any dog can go postal. If you then combine this with the knowledge that pitbulls are much more deadly than other dogs when being agressive, then you must reach the conclusion that this breed should be banned, even though that is admittedly a sad conclusion.
Pitbulls are not the deadliest dog out there. Not by a long shot. They’re just the ones people like to make aggressive.
Except they are, though. They’re bred to be as deadly as possible. This is a verifiable fact.
I’ve been a dog owner, and know many dog owners, and have never personally known someone whose dog went “postal,” including the many pit bulls I’ve met and the several that I’ve lived with.
I know a handful of pits who have bitten and severely injured people. For your positive anecdote there is a negative to match.
Statistically, for every negative anecdote, there are about 1,000 positive anecdotes
Technically it is disengenuous to say statistically and then make up a statistic
I didn’t make it up. Given the number of pit bull attacks on humans and other animals every year in the US (because that’s where I found the data), and the number of pit bulls in the US, roughly 1 in 10,000 pit bulls will attack someone or something in a given year. Assuming an average lifespan of roughly 10 years, there’s a roughly 1 in 1,000 chance that a given pit bull will ever attack a human or animal.
So 1 in every 1000 will attack a human? Is that actually a good argument for pit bulls?
i am a dog owner, and know many dog owners, and have personally known 2 neighbors who lost pets due to pits who went ‘postal’
anecdotes gunna anecdote
Can this possibly be true?
If a dog switches to aggressive mode and stops listening to commands, trying to attack (another dog, a cat, a deer, a bird, a human) that’s what I mean by “going postal”. In most cases they are restrained on leash. The outcome, and the target (for the sake of this argument) are not important. It is not possible to predict accurately when they will do this.
Ok. I guess by that definition my family’s black lab has “gone postal.” I’ve never met a pit bull that ever did, though
I mean that’s fairly obvious from subtext. If you had, you would most likely be too traumatised to be defending them on an online forum.
by that logic you would ban every dog on the planet
Every dog on the planet is more aggressive than all other dogs on the planet?
Each more similar than the last!
Well surely it’s a spectrum that people are advocating an arbitrary line be placed on. Once this breed is gone, what about the next most aggressive breed? They then become the most aggressive breed and there’ll be calls to weed them out too. Dogs kill more humans than any other non-human vertebrate in the world by a very long shot - getting rid of one breed isn’t going to reduce that number to zero.
To clarify, I’m not against the move of banning the breed at all, I’m just acutely aware that it’s making an arbitrary distinction.
Pitbulls are deadlier than all other breeds combined. They are 10 times as deadly as the next most aggressive breed. You don’t need to pull out the slippery slope fallacy, when the line is very clearly at pitbulls.
I looked into this, based on some other comments. Turns out it’s snakes. Various sources list dogs at between 13,000 and 35,000 deaths per year, and snakes in a range of 75,000-100,000.
Edit: but if we’re talking one species, dogs might edge out the deadliest snake. Really hard to say, based on the data I was able to find.
That is not a good argument, it is dishonest and disingenuous.
You’re actually using the same logic people used to try and avoid gay marriage.
I like to use statistics to decide what creatures should be destroyed.
Like the Nazis.
People with access to verifiable data overlook the appearance of safety to express a legitimate concern about a breed that’s demonstrably more likely to kill? What dorks!
No. People who spend all their time online and have never interacted with a pit bull in real life tend to overlook the fact that 999 out of 1,000 pit bulls will never attack someone, and that 999 out of every 1,000 pit bull owners aren’t lying about their dogs being good.
Thank you for providing an example of someone who completely disregards the latter!
My childhood pitbull bit me in the face and I have permanent face scarring from it. I had to get 60+ stitches to reconstruct my face.
It’s not a valid point to say “most don’t attack people” when the breed is much more likely to attack a person compared to other breeds. Then it’s made worse by the fact they’ve been bred to be extra good at attacking.
I’m sorry you were attacked by a pit bull. I’ve already acknowledged that they’re both more likely to attack people than any other breed, and more dangerous when they do. I’m just trying to balance out the undue hate for them as an entire breed. Given the comments on any post relating to the breed, one would think that every pit bull, or at least the majority of pit bulls, are violent, when that’s far from the case.
Just stop. You can’t even put a decent argument together and you aren’t helping anyone. Please, just stop.