In retaliation to the Pit bull haters,
In retaliation to the Pit bull haters,
Teddy (left), and Sampson (right)
You're viewing a single thread.
I am convinced this is a troll.
Retaliation to haters posted in a wholesome sub.
Pit Bulls being the most hated breed of dog out there (and for good reason).
OP calling everyone a "Dog Racist"
Each year 60% to 80% of dog attacks are caused by a single breed, fuck these animals. A Chihuahua may be more aggressive, but a person can easily fight those things off, a pit will lock onto anything and won't release till they're dead.
Retrievers retrieve, Pointers point & Pit Bulls are made to fight, its in their nature.
Edit: go ahead and down vote OP. Watch as that doesn't change my opinion.
Just a head's up but not a single police department in the nation DNA tests or even has a spot on their reports to label which specific breed of dog caused the attack, there is also roughly a dozen different breeds on the list of dogs commonly mistaken for pits.
Anybody telling you pits are responsible for any percentage of dog attacks is lying by giving a number not scientifically achieved.
there is also roughly a dozen different breeds on the list of dogs commonly mistaken for pits.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement? It would need to be pretty substantial to offset the large proportion of Pit Bull breeds.
I dont say this to be dismissive, I would actually be pretty interested in reading what you have.
< crickets >
When my dumb ass downstairs neighbor hears the kittens playing, she flies into a rage about my pitbull making noise. The hate causes the statistics, not the breed.
Here is a list of 10.
https://pethelpful.com/dogs/10-Breeds-Most-Commonly-Mistaken-For-Pit-Bulls
Just a head's up but not a single police department in the nation DNA tests or even has a spot on their reports to label which specific breed of dog caused the attack.
Your link doesn't address the point you made above, it's just a list of dogs mistaken for specifically "American pit bull terriers", it doesn't mention police DNA tests or reports, it says nothing.
Besides im talking about Pit Bulls in general which (Per the statement I made previously to another commenter on this post) is an umbrella term for several types of dog believed to have descended from bull and terriers. In the United States, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
Additionally the list you provided is half-filled out by the dogs that come under the pit bull breed. It even states that many dogs fall under the pit bull specification, which is why it singles out the American pit bull terrier in order to draw a distinction to them rather than say American Bullies.
The world's first ever police DNA program started in the UK in 2021, and it was created for dog thefts, not dog attacks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-57578701
And seeing that there is no national database of all precinct's police reports, you will have to go to your police department and see for yourself that they are not even cataloguing the breeds per attack.
As for your comment that there are 5 dogs that fall under the umbrella term of pit bull, that actually helps my original point that these lists are unscientific. Chihauhas aren't lumped together with Mexican shorthairs when the numbers are tallied, neither is any dog lumped with their types. These lists also don't break down which of the pit types are most responsible for the most attacks.
- because the numbers aren't collected by anybody, meaning the lists are lying, and
- if the pit types were separated by their actual breed, the numbers would show an average or a slightly higher rate of aggression, not the majority of all attacks.
I would also point out that almost none of these lists you read online include German Shephards, which is strange since they tend to be the only dog in the US that is commissioned as Police Officer and are frequently attacking people as part of their job. Further evidence that these lists are unscientific and politically motivated.
not a single police department in the nation DNA tests.
So you made this statement without knowing if it was true or not as you go on to say that "there is no national database of all precinct's police reports, you will have to go to your police department and see for yourself".
Bad faith arguments always end with "go and find out for yourself".
Can I ask what do you think the word breed means? It's not a specific dog, it's a term to describe a grouping of dogs (Shepards for example). And out of the 300 plus recognised groupings/breeds of dog, Pitbulls kill more than all of them combined. Even if you split it down to each sub-grouping, the dogs under the umbrella term "Pit Bull" still vastly outstrip all other dogs in attacks and fatalities.
I would also point out that almost none of these lists you read online include German Shephards, which is strange since they tend to be the only dog in the US that is commissioned as Police Officer and are frequently attacking people as part of their job. Further evidence that these lists are unscientific and politically motivated.
In this post I provided another commenter a breakdown of fatalities caused by dogs and the graph shows German shepherds specifically cause less than 3% of fatalities over 16 years. Meanwhile the 5 dogs that make up Pit Bulls are responsible for an average of 67%.
Again, there is no database of dog genetics that police maintain in the US, unless it was created after 2021.
Meaning all the stats you have are based solely on media reports of dog attacks and not actual dog attacks.
You can also contact the people compiling the lists. If they respond, they will admit that they do not track the rate of attacks committed by German Shepherds in the line of duty.
We also know that Cane Corso's probably attack a few people per year, yet almost every list excludes them... Because they are counted towards pit bulls.
If you can provide an actual scientifically validated list, I am happy to see it. Otherwise your numbers are fiction and you know it.
Again, there is no database of dog genetics that police maintain in the US, unless it was created after 2021.
Many organisations provide data/breakdowns of dog attacks, just because there isn't (or you are unable to provide) a centralised police data base that lists this information doesn't mean the statistics dont exist.
Meaning all the stats you have are based solely on media reports of dog attacks and not actual dog attacks.
Again you are making assumptions here, can you prove this or am I going to be told to go and find out for myself again?
Your original point was that the police don't perform DNA testing so how can we know, but you have given me nothing that confirms that. I don't even understand your point anymore; It's like you are throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks.
Your sources are a personal injury law firm and a victim's advocate website.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Your first source says 60% of dog fatalities are from dogs with Pits in their bloodline....
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Which further confirms my statement that you do not have true scientific numbers to support your claims. Ambulance chasers are not scientists. I don't think that needs to be explained to you.
Ok so you cannot prove your original point and refuse to even discuss it. Got it.
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Can you define a pure breed pit bull? All dogs are cross bred, its why these umbrella terms exist. And because you can't confirm a pure bred dog then all statistics about these animals should be dismissed. Additionally you are pinning your entire argument on a lack of a centralised police data base: as if they are the only authority regarding dog breeds.
Such a reductive argument. I also doubt you read both my links considering how quickly you replied. My second one provides yearly breakdowns with incident listings and the source confirming breed, gender and causes for the attacks.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Maybe read what was provided to you and find out for yourself.
The American Temperament Test Society tests aggression in dog breeds in controlled environment. Participants self select, so there's that, and ultimately I think the test says more about the owners than the dogs. Nonetheless, per the ATTS , the american pit bill terrier passed 87% of the time while the Australian shepherd only passed 83% of the time.
In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/
In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/
In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.
Found the bot with the copypasta.
Your data was true 13-15 years ago, doesn't mean it is true today.
Doesn't mean it's wrong either; try to provide something to say otherwise.
Also how old does data need to be before it's dismissed as 'too old'?
That's up to you.
What other subjects do you accept almost 20 year old data on? Do you go back 50 years? What is the cut off for you in all subjects, or is pit bulls the only subject you don't have a standard for?
did pitbull behavior change in 20 years. they suddenly became goody good dogs?
i'd say it's relevant until today and well into the future.
breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2% and German Shepherds were the third most dangerous breed, involved in 17.8% of bite incidents.
where the fuck do you get 60-80%???
also, 100% of dog fights use pit bulls…
abused dogs lead to bites….
aka, it’s the owner’s fault.
This is bullshit. In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that's the end of your line of reasoning. You simply don't know and cannot say their "nature."
They were bred for hunting. Some people used some of them for fighting dogs years after they were first bred and used for decades as hunting dogs. Of the few that were used in fighting, dogs that bit humans were not allowed to fight and so were euthanized
Edit: abject know-nothings and science deniers downvoting me.
In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that's the end of your line of reasoning.
Are you able to provide a link or a study stating this, or are you just providing your opinion here? Happy to have this discussion. But you seem to just be angrily dismissing my comment out of disagreement rather than facts.
The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting. It was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog. To produce a lighter, faster, more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
They were made primary for dog fighting, and fighting is ingrained into their nature, in the same way that retrievers were made to retrieve. I have also provided information in another comment here that breaks down the fatalities caused by dog breeds each year and pit bulls kill more than all other breeds combined.
Even if they were bred for something else entirely a singular breed of dogs causing the majority of fatalities each year is clearly dangerous. So dangerous that something should be done to ensure the public's safety.
Every study states it itself. There's always a category for "unknown," and if for some reason there isn't such a category, you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push pseudo genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.
Your narrative from Wikipedia is some hysterical author focusing on one group of dogs. It's also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics, so let's assume they were bred for fighting other dogs at a dog fight, so what? What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It's a stupid argument you're making.
you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.
Evidence that this Wikipedia article is any of the things you are rambling about here? Or do you just dismiss all Wikipedia articles.
It's also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics.
More unfounded statements, again I ask you for evidence. Show me something that indicates that an animal's nature can be completely overriden by training; then tell that to Siegfried and Roy.
What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It's a stupid argument you're making.
You don't even have an argument, evidence and dare I say it a brain.
You're delusional bro. Read a book.
Provide evidence bro.
They were bred explicitly for fighting. First fighting bulls in pits, hence Pitbull. That was outlawed. It was deemed unfair to pit different animals against each other in a fight. So pitbulls were then bred to fight other dogs.
Pitbulls were killed when they wouldn't fight, or were beat by another dog. The breeders didn't care about them bitting humans. They wouldn't keep them as pets as they were for fighting.
Nah, read the book. The dude that bred them has multiple books about what he did and when. You're making shit up.
I'd love a study on what kind of masters the bloodthirsty dogs have. I'm willing to bet those dogs had masters that encouraged the behavior or got them because the breed is macho and never intended to be responsible about it.
Plenty of breeds of dogs are bought by bad owners with the intention of being used as attack dogs. But there is no way you can write off such an overwhelming percentage of pit bull attacks to this reasoning.
Every time a pit bull attacks anything you will always see this argument brought up to defend the breed. If this was truly the case other breeds of dogs would be high up on the list too (Rottweilers and German Shepards come to mind). But they aren't even close to the percentage of Pit attacks.
Some attacks can be attributed to this fact, but because pit bulls alone make a majority of attacks across all breeds indicates that this cannot be the case.
Additionally out of all breeds of dog, I couldn't think of a worse breed biting me. All dogs attack, but many bite and release, pits don't.
Yeah, pitbulls aren't dangerous for the occurrence of attacks but because when they do they cause the most damage. Most people don't report a small dog if they cause no major damage.
Exactly. Which is the main reason I posted the fatalities graph instead of just attacks. People aren't as likely to report a small dog biting them, but you have to keep a report of deaths caused.
And an average of 67% of all fatalities is far beyond the expected amount caused by "bad owners".
This graphic lumps together at least 8 breeds under the umbrella of "pitbull", which is rather strange. Sure, if you group many breeds into the same category before comparing it to a singular breed it's going to look bad.
Also, you need to show per-capita to prove anything here. Sure, the absolute number may be high, but how does that compare to the absolute number of pitbulls? How does that compare to the per-capita of other breeds?
A breed can contain multiple dogs, here is a Wikipedia definition -
Pit bull is an umbrella term for several types of dog believed to have descended from bull and terriers. In the United States, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog, along with any crossbred dog that shares certain physical characteristics with these breeds.
People just assume breed means a singular type of dog; it doesn't. This applies to all breeds of dogs (Retrievers and Shepards for example). There are over 300 breeds and this one causes more deaths than the rest combined.
Again, this is why we need per capita instead of an absolute number. We are comparing an umbrella term to something more specific.
We need data that shows they are more likely than other dog breeds. This does not show that, as we don't know the percentage chance one pit bull may attack vs any other breed based on this information.
This is the problem with statistics. If we select the right method, group things the right way, from the right time, and use specific methods we can prove anything we want. That's why an understanding of how the field works is so important.
Sorry for the late reply btw, and thank you for continuing this conversation in good faith
Sorry for the late reply btw, and thank you for continuing this conversation in good faith.
All good man. Always happy to have these discussions and it's nice to find someone willing to engage in good faith rather than anger fueled rantings. Feel free to take as long as you need too.
In response to your comment. I can agree that data can be twisted to present a false truth, which is why we need to pull from a variety of data points to construct a clearer image of what is happening.
But with the information at hand it's my opinion that this specific grouping of dogs makes up the majority of deaths caused yearly (in the US anyways) and even if we were to list each specific dog instead of breed groupings the numbers of fatalities would still show that Pitbulls cause more deaths than any others.
I also want to state that I am not calling for the extermination of all Pitbulls across the country, I just want laws to ensure that only trained individuals have access to them. All dogs attack, but pit bulls seem to be dangerous as they lock their jaws and never release.
Again, thanks for engaging me in this discussion. It's a breath of fresh air here.
I did not call everyone a dog rasict, I called the person say it was good that pitbull were being put down in the UK a dog rasict. But by your logic, we should have killed all Germans in WW2 because Germany was the home on the Nazi party and killed millions of people, but that's wrong because not every Germany killed a person. And to say that we should kill something because it's "in there nature" is harmful to all life because it sets an unrealistic expectation of what it is like. I'm not gonna deny that pitbulls attack people, but a dog rarely attacks people for nothing, and often the reason is out of fear or abuse.
Dude if you have to bring up Nazi Germany to defend your stance then you have already lost.
There are over 300 recognised dog breeds, and one of them is responsible for more than half of all attacks.
There are over 1300 recognized dog breeds. And one category, pitbulls, is responsible for over 70% of all serious dog bites.
Dogs aren't people. We kill it eliminate troublesome breeds/species all the time. Ex: Japanese hornet
Japanese hornet was an invasive species to the Americans and thus was removed, but it's not being exterminated in mass in Japan and other areas the hornets call home. And for you to say that because an animal isn't human is basically saying it has no soul and doesn't feel emotions, or at least that how you come across.
- No proof souls exist
- Are you a strict vegan? Otherwise you recognize animals are below humans.
- Animals obviously feel emotions.