You must log in or # to comment.
A true badass has no qualms about carrying their woobie in public.
Show this dog a picture of Xi Jinping.
Our Great Dane was like that. Always had to have his moose or lamb chop
Pitbulls need a muzzle and a cage.
Edit: I don’t know who’s downvoting the truth because it’s inconvenient, but I sure hope a Pitbull doesn’t catch you with your head in the sand 🙄.
Edit 2: funny how you can easily compare the people who deny reality in the comments below with MAGA, seeing as both groups look at data and choose to ignore it.
Edit 3 because people don’t believe a single source apparently:
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
That’s not a pitbull, it’s a Cane corso or another type of mastiff. That people so frequently misidentify various breeds as “pit bulls” is one of the factors that makes the statistics you cite unreliable. Even “pit bull” isn’t a specific breed designation. Any breed or mix with a boxy head and deep chest is likely to be mistaken for a pit bull.
If the police shoot it and it doesnt look like a Rottweiler or Doberman, its a pit bull.
I’m not going to engage with this poster specifically since they seem to be trolling, but if anyone else cares I did some research.
The image they posted is from a site called World Animal Foundation, and their information comes from only one source: dogsbite.org (incorrectly spelled Dog Bite org above).
dogsbite.org’s primary concern is self-disclosed as being the gathering of data of fatal dog attacks in an effort to increase knowledge of what they consider to be dangerous breeds with what they say is the intention of advocating for victims.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php
This means the organization is not focused primarily on non-biased academic research. They’re interested in proving a theory that they believe to be true, primarily, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
Their methodology involves primarily scanning a vast amount of media outlets for dog attacks with some supplemental coverage. Their identification methods seem to primarily be photos and social media. They do not mention DNA or professional veterinary verification.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatality-citations-data-collection.php
I would determine the organization’s data is compromised by several forms of bias, including reporting bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, and observer bias. You can find a brief overview of biases in the link below.
https://casp-uk.net/news/different-types-of-research-bias/
Proper data collection should be handled by a third party and the research should also be reviewed by a third party.
An article published by JAVMA in 2000 investigates the issues of expensive DNA testing, and the importance of reliable identification.
Another article published in 2022 by the National Canine Research Council concluded that breed was not a good indicator for behavior.
**tldr; **
Maybe don’t just blindly trust a single infographic from random strangers on the internet.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
For anyone reading the above comment, please note the dishonesty in the presentation of the studies. One of them states:
In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).
So just be careful in taking anything in the comment at face value.
For anyone reading what this person is saying X note that they’ve provided no sources at all.
You provided the source for that quote. So, yeah, technically true, I guess!
I was attacked by a pitbull/boxer mix, in my own bed! Luckily I was able to subdue the creature, leaving it incapacitated.
Rub his belly! And chin. Immediately.
The problem is the misuse of statistics. I want to see a chart that looks at number of child attacks based on if the dog was trained to attack people or defend a home. From there, look at breed.
People buy and train pitbulls for protection. It’s called a confounding factor.
If you look at just the result but not the cause you miss the point. That’s how people use statistics to lie. That’s why you’re getting shit.
Ah yes, just ignore the confounding genetic factor while at it. That’s surely a scientific approach to all this. 🙄
You need to get better at this, troll.
Source?
Where’s yours?
I’ve provided one so far, but who the fuck are you again? That’s right, no one. You’ve contributed nothing to this conversation except asking the one who provided a source for another source.
So fuck off, baiter.
You provided a source showing genetics is a confounding factor to your original graph?
Do you not know what confounding means?
Oh they’re confounded alright.
You have not provided one proving your point either. So it seems I’m the only one required to, because you’re a hypocritical troll.
Having grown up with a pitbull I am afraid you are full of it. They are great dogs, but no matter how well trained they are unpredictable. Until you have seen a pitbull latch onto something that is alive you will never understand what this bread is capable of.
I absolutely loved that dog and I would never recommend the bread for anyone. That is how unpredictable it is. I know of seven people with facial scars from pitbulls. There is no other bread like it.
This “data” may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady…
DogsBite.org accuses several organizations of being “co-opted by the ‘pit bull lobby’, a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters.”
“The site’s founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as ‘science whores,’ which alone is enough to discredit her claims.”
In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org’s claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading.
When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.
So this graph is representative of data over a twelve-year period? If so, that means all the dogs in that graph are entirely less dangerous than anyone would make them seem.
No it does not. 66% is 2023 alone.
“Pit Bulls were responsible for approximately 66% of fatal dog attacks in 2023.”
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
I don’t see it as the person you are replying to is talking about the ratio, but the absolute number. Even if it was the case, your “no” to their statement is just wrong. It is literally the next sentence in your quote:
Pit Bulls were responsible for approximately 66% of fatal dog attacks in 2023. Historically, they have accounted for 66% of fatal attacks—346 out of 521 deaths between 2005 and 2019
Those are the numbers in the infographic. That is a 12ish year period. “No”, is just such a misleading statement. And by your own admission, that is the numbers by “Dog Bite org”.
You’re not even on the right website, troll.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
Can you then elaborate on the little reference tag – I assume it is a reference – to “Dog Bite org”?
Alright, wanna play that game? Here come the sources then, idiot:
I could keep going.
You’ve provided: absolutely jackshit
Ignoring the previous discussion and talking about those new screenshots, the third looks very untrustworthy at first glance.
Emotional images, pitbulls named by name in the header navigation, sounds like a single-purpose activist page. It’s like going to peta expecting honest information about changing to a vegan diet or smthn.The second image (srsly you could have put links below ffs) I dug up and it’s some kind of property developer, could well be they profit off of fear of dogs or smthn, and going to the actual page they just quote other articles incorrectly anyway. They also misleadingly throw rottweilers into it for some reason, while in the linked article it’s 60% with at least partial pitbull bloodline (note this being incorrectly simplified to “pitbulls”, which is at best sloppy), and 7% rottweiler bloodline, which is just misleading throwing those together without further comment. That also ofc fits the idea that the page just wants to stir up fear for whatever reason.
Both of these pages are, frankly, trash. Do yourself a favor and remove them as arguments. If your point is correct, those would still make you look so dishonest in arguing it, it makes it look wrong; they are worse than not citing anything.
Now painfully scraping out the wiki article (Fatal dog attacks in the United States) -fucking link your shit man-, that article seems unproblematic at first glance.
Going into the actual sources now, the 60% thing linked earlier refers to “fuicelle & lee” which is not a paper to the best of my search ability, and is only ever mentioned on other pages copying the exact same paragraph around, … so yeah that’s sketchy.
The wikipedia thing I just hope is accurate (I’ll take lt as accurate without checking here), but you gotta note it is a low sample size, half the percentage your other stuff claims (28%), and from seemingly only 2 specific locations.I’d sure be interested if you can find any other statistics that don’t just evaporate when you look for a source tho.
Starting another topic, what if you had clear statistics that a lot of dog damage is done by pitbulls? That doesn’t instantly get you to proving the issue is with pitbulls. It’s ye olde correlation isn’t causation problem.
One example: Imagine insecure people compensating with pitbulls due to their brand image. Then those people tend to suck as dog owners so you get cases of horrible mistraining. Now if you were to ban pitbulls, or make their ownership “non-badass” via say cage or muzzle requirements, the badass dog brand would shift and those people would mistrain other dogs, the statistics would change to a new breed and the deaths would not decrease. Because in that chain of causation the core issue is the group of owners, and you merely measure the average type of dog those problematic owners get.This is a hypothetical naturally, but that’s why a simple “x % of deaths are caused by y dogs” isn’t enough.
Before you argue allegiances, I don’t like dogs, especially not ones with jumpy or agressive character. I also don’t have experience with dogs.
Your arguments and my checking of them was the first actual argument on favor of pitbulls I have seen in a long time, I could still be convinced pretty easily that there is some issue with the breed.I should be the prime target audience for you to convince. Uninformed, heard anecdotes about pitbulls bad, absolutely no inherent favor or attachment to the breed (they just don’t look good sorry dog people). I should be trivially easy to convince, so please work on your argument.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
That’s better.
Your first source is good, no issues there.
The second one is a law review, which is not a relevant paper (and I think not a paper at all but I’m not a law student). So it’d only be worth anything if a witness had suffient credentials, and no alternate motive, and then it’d still lack peer review, academic oversight, …
The paper needs to be on-topic, I can’t expect a biology paper to get art history right. Usually papers constrain themselves to topics they know for that reason, but for a law review I can see why that isn’t possible.
Papers also make their statements more directly, so you would find a more clear statement about breeds and attacks. The fact this is missing should give you some warning signs.You did well then digging out the third source, which is fine again. You should have just skipped the second one entirely, since it’s not primary anyway, just citing.
This third might be what wikipedia was using, numbers look familiar.Fourth source looks fine.
It is about a different topic, agression not violence, but you use it relevantly.
While checking the first source I saw the full results section, containing “Prior to 1980, the majority of dog bites reported in peer-reviewed literature were attributed to the German Shepherd breed (68.4%). From 1981–2000 German Shepherds still accounted for the largest minority of breeds identified (20.1%), with mixed breeds (19.6%) and Pit Bull type breeds (14.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minorities. Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%) […]” continuing with your quote.
It is interesting to note that German Shepherds apparently used to take the same statistical position you are arguing pitbulls hold in the present.
Ok now. You mentioned “Notably you’ll notice that a ban […] was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).”.
That is mostly meaningless for our purposes, i.e. determining what factor dog breed plays in dog-human harm.
Firstly, it’s a ratio, so speaking of reduction is incorrect. Reduction refers to numbers, so you need to consider the total amount. If the total number of dog attacks remained stable, then this would be accurate.analogy
A simple example for this problem: If most people were driving small cars, most pedestrian deaths would be caused by small cars. If you then ban small cars, the pedestrian fatalities caused by small cars should go down. As both a ratio and in absolute terms. However the total number of pedestrian fatalities by all cars should go up, since people would mostly be pushed into large cars, that kill more people per driving hour, while hours driven by car shouldn’t be overly affected.
This here isn’t even considering driver mentality, it’s merely a consequence of not factoring in usage rates (or breed populations for dogs).analogy 2
Now for the other effect, take suicides. If you consider suicides per rail mile, you could find train infrastructure particularly prone to suicides. But if you then ban trains you will see a decrease in rails suicides but a corresponding increase in say bridge suicides, so all of a sudden a different infrastructure becomes equally problematic, because the ground cause here is mental health of people, not suicide-enabling infrastructure.
This would be the analog to problematic owners finding a different breed or animal to make problematic, making breed bans a hopeless case of whack-amole.If that were the case though, it would be precisely not the point you wanted, since it would mean banning pitbulls did nothing for the underlying problem: dog-human harm (not pitbull-human harm).
I saw the third article have a discussion on more useful metrics for judging pitbulls, but ima just roll my own rq:
As mentioned above the next step would be seeing if limiting pitbulls reduces dog attacks in total, not just pitbull attacks. That would cover cases like problematic owners shifting breeds.
An even more general one, one the article makes, is factoring in total dog ownership. That also checks if maybe reduczions are just people having less dogs in general.Basically you’d want the same you have for for example large medical studies, factoring in many quantities and doing a multi-variable correlation analysis to hopefully determine all the various independent correlations and have a better chance at establishing causes.
After that you could see further. You may for example reach the conclusion that the only way is either adressing owners, or banning all large dogs, which if the case should change your strategy for action. If in that case you had already banned pitbulls you’d have shot yourself in the foot, since them people would be sick of it, the motivation would be used up, and you’d have to more than start over for the next breed or the actual wider methods.
On the other hand if it is indeed mostly a breed issue you would have far better arguments for getting breed-specific regulations.
The 4th source is a good start for establishing hypotheses if pitbulls are shown to be a problematic breed. You would need another metric like harm potential for the strenth, bit damage, etc. of dogs, since an agression rating led by chihuahuas is perhaps not the most useful here. Then you can multiply agression and harm potential for an estimate of natural inclination to endanger humans.
I haven’t looked deeper into the paper as to how “aggression” was measured, that method would also have to be airtight against training, so probably measured for dogs trained in a controlled environment etc…If you do find a controlled link between such a harm potential rating and actual human harm using the methods of the last section, then that would immediately show both problem and solution. You would have a method by which to rate any new breeds or vatiations and could write regulations to target that. So even if someone creates new breeds to target the aggressive dog market, the regulations would cover that without any new changes. And similarly you could breed pitbulls to be more passive and get that variation exempt from limitations. That should probably cover most peoples interests in this debate.
Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.
Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.
None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.
I’ve provided a source. You doubting me puts the burden of proving me wrong on YOU.
Wanting me to do all the work is typical troll fashion, when you’ve given nothing to back your point that DogBite is an invalid source.
So keep trolling. We both know I’ve provided infinitely more than I should have since you’re clearly not arguing in good faith, troll.
Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.
The question was for the source of the image, not the general point. You can restate your point with new sources, but then say that.
The og image provides what looks like a source, and ofc it could be that wikipedia etc. also cite that, or “dog bite org” cites one of them (and thus the image isn’t sourced correctly), however your screenshots don’t even match the 66% figure, all giving different values, so clearly they are not the source or using the same source as the image.
I don’t know why you brought that discussion up when the dog in the picture is clearly an all-black mastiff…
That sort of misidentification is another reason that dog bite statistics are unreliable; they depend not on rigorous breed identification but on amateurs’ identification based on physical traits shared by bull dogs, mastiffs and terriers. Artificially group dog bite reports involving a dozen unrelated breeds or mixes together under the misidentification “pit bull” and yeah, you make pit bulls sound scary.
Even when properly applied to pit bull type dogs, the term “pit bull” is imprecise because as wikiipedia states “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.”
Anyone who argues that breed is a reliable indicator of violent behavior and refuses to acknowledging the lack of reliability of eye witness breed identification on the basis of appearance is arguing in bad faith.
That illustrates a point though. Pit Bulls tend to get bought by violent owners because of their infamy, which reinforces it and gets more people to recognize them, which yields more taught violence, and so on…
Okay it’s still mastiff
It is not “taught violence”, it is inherent. Educate yourself on dog aggressiveness based on breed.
It’s also inherint in Dalmations who are surprisingly aggressive creatures, but people wishing to intimidate won’t be using a Dalmation as their guard dog.
Whataboutism doesn’t help anyone.
There are shitbull defenders on Lemmy? I thought only retarded rightwingers were dumb enough to do that
I’m literally telling people to muzzle them. I’m not a defender here.
Yeah, I was commenting on how that many people had down voted you
Hm, Berlin has statistics for dog bites and the Pitbull hasn’t bitten the most people. Link: https://www.berlin.de/sen/verbraucherschutz/aufgaben/hundehaltung/hundebiss-statistik-1485418.php
Edit: Also found the Austrian statistics. The Pitbull is still not the dog with the most bites. Link (there is a csv download on the site): https://www.data.gv.at/katalog/dataset/bissstatistik#resources
The data is for the US. Your anecdotal evidence for other places with less pitbulls thanks to them having regulations is just an attempt at trolling.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
Lol, what is this dumb shit? Obviously you can rank it when pitbulls are consistently the breed with the highest violence and attacks.
I think it’s a casual argument. People are saying pitbulls are not inherently more violent, they just tend to be the dog of choice for people who want violent (guard) dogs. They are then taught violent behaviors by their owners.
I think you meant causal but I get your point.
I believe that dog breeds have inherent traits that they are bred for. Yes of course the nature vs nurture argument always comes into play but it’s not a coincidence some dogs love water and will naturally point without any training and others won’t.
Also that’s not even getting into the physical make up of a pit bull. They just are more dangerous by that alone, higher bite force, harder to get them to let go, fat head, big chomps - I think it’s irresponsible and morally reprehensible for them to be bred.
Short of mass euthanasia they are not going away but I wholeheartedly believe they shouldn’t be rehomed or kept in shelters so I suppose inevitably my belief would lead to them being euthanized instead of ever adopted out.
There is no good solution and I get people have pitbulls that don’t attack or harm people but their proclivity for violence is well documented and understood. It’s just that people would rather believe their feels over facts and black and white statistics.
Haha yes, I did mean causal.
The first dog to bite me was a schnauzer.
They’re obviously inherently violent and must all be put down.
deleted by creator
The most unfriendly dog I ever walked as a volunteer for a dog rescue was a black lab named Charlie. Instantly wanted to tear the throat out of anyone who looked at him.
Black labs are inherently violent. They should all be put down.
You know damn well we’re talking about aggregate numbers and breed specific traits, like being bred to be aggressive. I’m not acting like a single dog is what I’m talking about and your rebuttal of a single dog vs talking about trends and large numbers across the country is disingenuous.
Corgis are herding dogs. They’re bred to nip at the heels of animals like sheep. They’ll do this to children, too. Toddlers.
They’re bred this way on purpose. They’re inherently violent and should all be put down.
Anecdotally speaking, I walk around town for exercise and I’ve crossed paths with a disproportionate number of Pit bulls/Pit mixes and the only dog to ever bite me while I was out was a goddamn Bichon Frisé.
Cool, back that up with data then, because my numbers are fact. Yours seem like something a child would have written.
lol it’s the asshole owners. Pits with good owners have no issues, it’s why it’s not 100% of pits.
every pit i’ve met has been a huge sweetie, and i’m instinctively scared of dogs since i got bit when i was a small child. i think they can smell it and turn on the love, kind of like when a cat can tell you’re allergic and wants to make you more allergic.
english bulldogs, on the other hand, i am not comfortable with. maybe it’s because the one family in town who has them are assholes.
Your Message is Crazy Anecdotal
So yeah, it’s the YMCA
It’s social media not a submission to Nature
Yep tell that to the people harassing me for my choice of source while providing nothing at all in return.
First off, the infographic you posted doesn’t even spell the name of the propaganda site it cites properly (dogsbite[dot]org). Just because it’s a .org doesn’t grant it instant legitimacy. It’s one woman (Colleen Lynn) with a vendetta. (You don’t still believe the disproven and later retracted “study” about vaccines causing autism now, do you?)
Second, engage in some critical thinking. (I know, you weren’t bred to do so - but it isn’t your fault!). Do many people keep these several dog breeds for home and family protection, and do they similarly neglect and fail to train their dogs? To use your own irresponsible analogy where several breeds of dogs = guns, yes, many people own guns and don’t follow proper safety practices with them. And we’ve also decided as a society that even with many undereducated people doing stupid things with guns that education is part of a larger solution. Please educate yourself further, unless you’re just here to stir up trouble.
Oof" my sister thinks .org means trustworthy. I can’t convince her otherwise :[
Wrong website, troll. Educate yourself further.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
So you didn’t even look at the picture you posted. Thanks for confirming that you aren’t engaging in good faith. Easy block.
Lmao.
For someone who didn’t provide jack all you’re sure proud of yourself, idiot.
So far you’ve just called people trolls and kept posting the same link, it seems without even reading the comments you’re responding to thoroughy.
The charity you’ve linked, world animal foundation seems to be a respectable charity. The problem; and what you’re being critisized for; is the source of the statistic they use, which you keep quoting.
A quick google search shows that that statistic ( from dogsbite.org, as shown on your linked article) does not reflect actual results, as shown by studies from both the american dog breeders association and the national library of medicine.
Another article from world animal foundation paints a picture of pitbulls as not significantly more aggressive than other breeds if you ignore the statistics provided by dogsbite.org, which I hope at this is no longer considered a legitimate source [1, 2 ].
If you can list any sources not originally from dogsbite.org or quoting them, I’d be happy to read through those and reconsider my position.
EDITS: formatting
He’s just projecting that he’s the troll. He literally doesn’t want to hear about any nuance, and the extended list of other sources go straight over his head.
If the account isn’t a bot then they’re living a sad life
Congrats on being entirely useless to this conversation.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
You’re being downvoted because of your ignorance
Keep feeding children to dogs then, if that’s the hill you want to die on, I’m sure there’s plenty of pitbulls waiting for you there.
My point is data-driven, yours is emotional drivel.
And this is why you are ignorant
You’re saying nothing at all. Keep trolling.
It’s Lemmy. Trolls are all we have. I’d hoped that enough people would see the problems with monolithic social media companies that we’d get a decent population of people who were here for that reason and were capable of forming a decent community, but instead all we’ve got are the people who were such miserable wastes of space that even Reddit wouldn’t have them.
Don’t expect a decent discussion about anything here. Just expect personal attacks whenever you have any kind of disagreement. No arguments, just insults. Usually about personal details that the commenter pulled completely out of their ass.
The reason for the “poor discussion” is because that infographic comes from the only “source” the anti-pitbull types have that supports their argument, and we’ve been telling them for probably over a decade now that their source is shit and has been debunked countless times my new information. So we’re all a bit tired of seeing the same misinformation over and over again.
In other words, find a new slant.
“we’ve been telling” WOW! What a fantastic source of information. 😐
don’t buy a pitbull then
Oh I won’t.
Oh shut up.
oH ShuT uP, yOu’rE hUrTinG mY FeElIngS
😘
Oh God fucking dammit, you people are here too?!
What a bad attempt at bait.
pit bull is literally holding his pooh bear he could not be more muzzled than that
Gtfo.
Same to you, troll.
I’m not sure what to believe, but i heard that “pitbull” isn’t really a breed of dog, and rather a label applied to any dog that was trained to fight. So fighting dogs fight. No surprise there. But this certainly makes it sound like it’s not the dogs to blame for the injuries, but the POS humans who trained them to fight.
The American pitbull is a breed, though there are others.
The dogs are notorious for their violence and literally were bred to fight. If you think a Labrador retriever is naturally a good retriever because it’s been bred for those traits it’s not exactly hard to see how a dog bred for generations to literally kill for sport might be problematic.
First of all, pitbulls are a breed of dog. Don’t be ignorant and look it up.
Second of all, ofc we don’t blame the dogs, non-sapient beings who don’t even know what blame is 🙄🙄🙄.
But the same way you don’t blame a gun and still leave it out of reach of children, you need to muzzle and cage dangerous dogs who were bred for fighting. Simple as.
Edit: I hope the children of people who downvoted me have plenty of access to guns and pitbulls, since clearly I’m wrong in your eyes 😊.
Edit 2: Oh and if you disagree and report me for violence, you’re a hypocrite. Since those are the things I’m saying to keep away from anyone to begin with.
Pitbull is not a breed. It’s just another term for mutt used to describe mixed breeds of dogs that were once used for animal fighting. So a Pitbull/Boxer mix could be 87.5% boxer and 1/8 English Bulldog for all anyone knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) is a dog breed recognized by the United Kennel Club (UKC)[1] and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA),[2] but not the American Kennel Club (AKC).[3]
"Despite the colloquial use of the term “pit bull” to encompass a whole category of dogs and the legal use of the term to include several breeds in legislation, some conservative professional breeders of the American Pit Bull Terrier as well as some experts and supporters claim that historically the APBT is the only true “pit bull” and the only breed that should be denominated as such
The categorical legal definition is what I’m referencing
So? Just use the correct definition instead by the UKC. You’re just saying you’re wrong.
Not wrong. just concerned with the relevant, consequential definition. I simply don’t care about what you’re advocating if you’re not advocating for legal regulation and that’s when the legal definition matters.
Interesting. I expected huskies to be higher, granted, maybe they are for straight dog bites. Pitts, huskies, Malinois are the ones I’ve seen the most. Followed by the occasional Shepard.
Last I saw Golden Retrievers were the highest number of dog bites in the U.S. May be different now. I assume it’s mostly because there are so many Golden’s, and most people are embarrassed to report they got but by a Chihuahua.
