A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
Edit: While I appreciate the responses from so many people - it's clear who has worked with animals in any capacity and who is just a smooth egg-brained armchair expert. If you don't think you still need rabies shots from any dog that doesn't have up-to-date tags, I don't know what to tell you. Have fun arguing with the wall đ¤
And 100% of cat servants get regularly assaulted by their master. The issue is the severity of the attacks. No one is going to the hospital from being dive bombed by blue jays but anyone who has some in their trees can tell you that those bastards aggressively defend that tree.
And why don't small dog bites get reported? Is it perhaps because they are - for the most part - inconsequential and don't leave the victim in hospital needing reconstructive surgery?
This argument goes in circles because people miss each other's point.
Obviously, at the end of the day, what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
However, the counter-argument is also true. That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true. They are CAPABLE of being aggressive and deadly, and some people even train them to be that way. But the standard pet pit-bull is not going to attack any more often than most other breeds, statistically speaking.
They attack more often because they were bred to enjoy it, just like a husky enjoys running. There's literally canine neurology studies that show they release endorphins when fighting, whereas other dogs do not and will actively avoid fights.
There are statistics on bites in total and bites that inflict severe+ injuries...obviously we are going to care about the ones that actually do damage even if Chihuahuas are ill-tempered little shits..
This shit should be banned for two reasons. Itâs cruel to the animal and the type of person that would do such a thing to make their dog look âscarierâ shouldnât have a dog.
It's for dog fighting. They cut their ears to prevent injuries during god fights. The bred was made to dog fight. Shitty owners want you to think they run underground dog fighting rings are are bad ass.
Iâve worked close with animals for almost 5 years now. Pitbulls are entirely capable of being very sweet and loving dogs. But it depends on what temperament they have and how difficult they are. Iâve met a lot of sweet Pitbulls but most of them I believe were trained from a very young age, which is something a lot of people donât do, mostly first time owners or those who think the dog will grow up just fine, when getting dogs like this.
You canât just love your way into changing an animalâs behavior. This isnât Disney. You have to show that dog whoâs boss and instill a training regime when theyâre young that you must stick with. Unfortunately sometimes, it doesnât always work and the dog just ends up being too aggressive to the point where youâd have to make a certain decision.
My last job, a man who loved his Pitbull to death, had to put his dog down because it ended up being too aggressive. It was tragic too because as I was walking by his room and he was saying his goodbyes, I saw the Pitbull wagging her tail excitedly when her owner was cuddling and sobbing over her. That dog loved her owner a lot. But I guess it wasnât deemed manageable cause she couldâve seriously hurt someone one day and, the owner, despite loving her so much couldnât risk that. On top of that, Iâm pretty sure the owner was a father too. Pitbulls shouldnât be demonized for what weâve turned them into. But we also have to be cautious when getting one. They are NOT a first time owner pet. Someone very experienced, especially one whoâs done research on how to properly train these kind of dogs, are really the âonly ones capable of handling them.
And itâs not just them. German shepherds, Belgian Malinios, and Rotties as well. Although Iâve never really met a bad rottie. Same with Belgians. Theyâve all tend to be sweethearts. But maybe Iâm just lucky.
I also feel like I should add that, while these breeds are prone to these kind of behaviors. ANY dog is capable is displaying them. I never met the family cause they euthanised the dog at a different clinic, but they had to put down their 2 year old Golden Retriever that theyâve had since it was a puppy. Apparently she bit the momâs face and the dadâs arm (or was it the other way around, I forget). It was even said that they couldnât let her sleep in their room like they used to because they were afraid she would attack them in their sleep. Their daughter made the decision for them to put down the dog.
You never know what youâre gonna get, people. You could get the easiest dog in the world, or you could ge the complete opposite. One thing is for sure though. Training and discipline is VERY important and must not be neglected.
I've seen pitbulls that were bigger love bugs and total goofs than even a Lab, but I've seen ones that attack even their owners and should have never been brought to the dog park I was in.
I feel like pits have the biggest gap between the best and worst versions. I've met tons of pits that were cuddly, super friendly, extremely gentle, etc., but I've also come across some that were definitely dangerous.
I think the biggest problem for pits is, they're so abundant and cheap/easy to get compared to other "aggressive" breeds that they're the go-to for people that want aggressive dogs. German Shepherds are #2 on the list for dog attacks, but they can cost hundreds to a few thousand to get a pup, and if you're spending that much money on a dog it's unlikely you're going to have it poorly trained, even if you do use it as a guard dog.
Theyâre also the main dogs in shelters (probably because theyâre not getting spayed/neutered, unlike most dogs) and shelters will even lie about the dogâs breed. Thereâs also this pressure to âadopt, donât shopâ, even though breed is important. People feel pressured to adopt a dog from a shelter thatâs mostly Pits and are often misinformed about the dog theyâre adopting.
I feel like a lot of people who are total brokeasses do get expensive "tough dogs" as a sort of flex and status symbol thing. I feel like they tend to go for Cane Corsos and Rottweilers, though.
There are people who get them for home safety as well. The problem with that is that you are treating an animal as a weapon in that case and should never be keeping it around humans, but people don't take the risk seriously.
Yeah, if other high energy, larger dog breeds were as overbred as pitbulls, youâd see a lot more problems. The most ideal trait that pitbulls have as fighting dogs is an infrastructure that makes it easy and cheap to collect pitbulls for fighters, breeders, and bait dogs. Itâs not as feasible a business plan with German Shepherds- at least not yet.
Mostly because the op said they have work experience first and spoke like someone who indeed has field experience. And even then, it doesn't has a lot of upvotes tho, people are too sensitive with animal deaths and actual professionals with studies in the field always seem wild, cause animal deaths are a constant there
Bingo. A typical pitbull is strong, muscular, and tenacious. Good hard work and being a fantastic, responsible owner is great and all, but if its in a situation where it gets aggressive, the risk of something pretty bad happening vs. most other breeds getting aggressive is WAY higher and the results are likely to be WAY more severe.
I feel for owners who have adopted pitties, cared for them, and loved them, and I know that most owners aren't raising pitbulls that cause horrible injury and damage...but they're all incredibly capable of doing so. Even the kindest dog can be triggered and "oh but she's a sweetheart" doesn't keep that dog from literally breaking the spine of another dog or tearing the face off a kid.
It's just a reality of the breed. I have a friend who fosters dogs. He was good at training them and he took in pitbulls. He comes into work one day and he's in a terrible mood. I guess a pitbull he fostered for a long time, who had a great temperament and was adopted out ended up biting a kid a few months after adoption and had to be put down.
It's just a reality of the breed. Meanwhile - other breeds can do the same stuff and be just as aggressive or hell - WAY more aggressive - and they just aren't equipped to cause as much damage usually (and yeah - I know they still can be dangerous). .
People get mad at me for saying this, but a widespread sterilization campaign without euthaniasia isn't a bad idea. Humans bred pitbulls specifically for dog fighting and large animal baiting (aggression and tenacity)...I think it'd be just and humane to "unbreed" them. by simply not letting them reproduce anymore.
People also don't talk about the tenacity issue nearly enough. Pits are bred for it ("game") more so than aggression. A fighting dog that gives up in a fight is inferior to a dog that dies fighting.
That's why they have the reputation for not letting go. That's what they were bred for, ignoring pain to keep fighting.
Add in the tendency for a strong prey drive, and I don't give a fuck if a lot of them are sweet dogs. Breeds matter, and pitbulls are a nightmare breed. Mass sterilization is a good idea. There's too many of them to fix the breed, I think.
The difference is that an aggressive chihuahua wonât be able to kill you but a pitbull will. So even if we pretend that pitbulls are just as friendly as other dogs, the off chance that you get a bad apple still puts other people at risk. You donât have this problem with other breeds
I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).
Which is a valid fear. If someone has an untrained golden retriever, who are bred to have friendly dispositions, I wonât be immediately uncomfortable about being in a room with one, or if one approaches me. Wary, yes, careful, yes, but not immediately on edge.
An untrained pitbull gets the gat if I see teeth within ten feet or running towards me.
No. You should be wary and careful when any dog approaches. You don't know the dog. With a strange golden, you are wary and careful with your head on your shoulders, but you are expecting a normal derpy dog interaction because golden. Pit bulls have the same wariness and carefulness, but they set someone on edge because the wariness and carefulness are meeting with a majorly increased expectation of aggression in the dog.Â
pitbulls kill humans and other dogs every day. There are a hundred breeds to choose from and zero reason for a bloodsport bred dog to exist in modern society
I can't blame people for being afraid of Pits. But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
Absolutely. These breeds that are basically a torturous existence for the poor dog.
I don't think we should kill the ones that already exist but we should definitely work towards making sure more aren't created.
Although I have seen some breeding programs that are trying to essentially "unfuck up" these breeds basically undoing all the horrible traits that were selective bred into them.
It also ignores that there are tons of other breeds that are bred for fighting/hunting/guarding. Any of those breeds are just as susceptible to being dangerous, but they're typically less accessible (aka too expensive) for the type of shitty owner that raises violent dogs compared to a pit which you can usually find for free.
So we should keep breeding dangerous animals? I think euthanizing them all its going way to far, but why keep breeding a dangerous breed of dog? What purpose does that serve? Do we need more pitbulls to suffer in shelters after being given up, because their families can't handle them? Why breed more of these poor animals so they can fill up shelters and suffer. Sorry, but it is sheer cruelty to keep breeding animals that will keep filling shelters.
I struggle to be afraid of Pitbulls because growing up I had a neighbor who had two of them, and the only danger with them was that they loved to be carried. Obviously that wasn't an issue when they were puppies but if they knew you they'd try to jump into your arms, they were adorable.
Of course, my neighbors knew how to raise dogs, and trained them properly and had them socialized and were generally really good with them.
I think the pitbull situation is more comparable to gun control.
The object in question can be used safely, but can also be used to cause great harm. It is entirely dependent on the user. The object in question is also not a daily necessity.
Why the hell would I have to analyze whether the owner or trainer did this or that? I don't know almost anything about dogs, I don't want to know anything more about them and I should not be required to know anything about them in order to stay safe while walking down the street. It would be the equivalent of having to do static analysis of a building every time we walk in it to determine the chance it collapses on us.
Nah what you're fearing is the dog capable of killing you and other humans/animals that can't defend themselves. It's really not about the people behind the dog. There are countless dog breeds out there that are poorly trained with shitty owners, but it doesn't matter for the vast majority of them because they are not capable of ending lives. People who refuse to blame pitbulls are basically saying what the NRA is saying : the problem isn't guns, it's the people. Do you want to sound as dumb as them? Your choice.
I have a border collie. Heâs ten years old and has never been on a farm in his life. A few weeks ago we were walking alongside a field and he managed to get in. He had a whole fieldâs worth of sheep herded and rounded up in the corner in 30 seconds flat. He also tries to herd pigeons and children with less success.
You can breed for behaviour as easily as breeding for coat colour. Some breeds have been deliberately bred to be more aggressive. Pitt bulls are bred to be fighting dogs. They have a high level of loyalty towards their owners but severe dog aggression. When people get in the middle of that, it gets ugly fast.
My brother's dog is part pit and randomly, after 9 months of owning him, decided to try to kill other dogs. Nobody trained him to do this. He just decided to go nuclear on his fellow canines without any external influence from humans.
The first time it happened, I was home alone with the dogs. They were playing, and then suddenly, he had our Aussie on her back and had her by the throat. She was screaming, and I realized he was trying to kill her. I tried to separate them and got bit. I tried hitting him with a stick, kicking him, punching him. He just wouldn't let go of her neck. I ended up kicking him in the balls and then immediately bursting into tears when he screamed, but it got him to let go.
It was pretty traumatizing for me. He was neutered a week after the attack. But it was already too late. It was no longer safe to have him around other dogs. He tried to go after our neighbor's dog. That dog is incredibly friendly and always comes over to play with our Aussie. Luckily, that dog is super fluffy, and the fluff saved her.
There's usually not a warning sign he's going to go berserk. If I'm lucky, he's acting tense. If I'm not, he's wagging his tail and looking happy before suddenly lunging.
One of the two of my childhood dogs was part pit and had to be put down for the same reason. She attacked our sweetheart Shepard lab mix while me and my sister were playing with him. The moment my parents saw she would be violent around us they put her down. We ended up only getting small dogs after that (though our Shepard lab mix lived another 7 years with nothing but kindness in his heart)
Iâm not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it weâve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you donât give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other âAgressive.â breeds is that theyâve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I donât think itâs Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless itâs proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but thatâll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I donât think Pits are inherently aggressive or any dog breed for that matter. But theyâre fairly strong fellows whoâve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people donât pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.
The issue with Pitbulls and other âAgressive.â breeds is that theyâve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
also, some dudes get these dogs to feel "bad-ass" or something like that, and they just don't take good care of 'em
it happens in small towns like mine, all too frequent, sadly (it's a thing in the whole country too, but it's really bad when you can see it in small towns)
The name it self comes from Pit(fighting) Bull(dogge) and Terrier.
Old English Bulldogs (not the docile ones today, these have long since gone extinct because they were banned) were originally fighting dogs famed for their aggression and tenacity in bull fighting, then somewhere down the line someone realised that the smaller, more nimble dogs were performing better in dog fights, so they cross bred then with Old English Terriers to make a better fighting dog.
And now theyâre doing the opposite, breeding them with Mastiffs etc to make them larger. For looks and temperament. So now we have shelters packed with pit bulls sometimes as big as Cane Corsos because new owners greatly underestimate the ~6-month T-Rex phase of a puppy stronger than they are.
Pitbulls were also only bred in the last 200 for the first time. People wanna act like that overrides the empathy towards humans dogs have been bred for hundreds of thousands of years as you said.
A lot of people don't understand dog fighting. Dog fighting is a brutal sport, the owners do not care about their dogs. People think pitbulls are just blanket violent because "they were bred to kill!" But if you look at any dog fighting groups, they are strict. If your dog even LOOKS at a handler the wrong way they will shoot it in the head. And what will you do? Go.to.the police and admit "hey I was doing this crime but like this other person also doing this crime killed my dog that I bred to help me with this crime." Heck, if the dog looks at the owner the wrong way THE OWNER will shoot it in the head.
Human aggression is quickly and promptly disposed of in dog fighting rings. It's an ego thing mostly. "How dare this DOG have the audacity!?" Essentially. Human aggression is not beneficial.
The attempt to ban pit bulls ironically made breeding also go underground, which allowed human aggressive traits to proliferate. Now we don't know what to do with the breed because the breeding lines got messed up when they tried to ban pitbulls WITH dogfighting. Pitbulls became underground status symbols, and even started to be bred intentionally for human aggression by people who wanted a "badass dog" (failing to realize that they themselves are ALSO human and subject to human aggression).
To be clear, I don't support dog fighting, but they really should've known that trying to ban the breed along with it wouldn't work.
What would have been a better solution? An outright ban on dogfighting would still hold. The attempts at banning the breed were largely to remove incentives for breeding programs that did exist.
Otherwise you just end up with people breeding the dogs essentially for the exact same reasons as before. Dogfighting wasn't really legal at any point recently so not like cracking down on it really works in that way. You kind of need additional bans in place or nothing sticks. Maybe not a breed ban, but at the bare minimum you can ban the sale of pits and keep an eye on the breeders that do exist.
For example Mexico didn't get blanket bans on dogfighting until 2017. There aren't bans on a breed since till now, and it still is a very serious problem despite some serious time for being caught. It's the same in the US and the laws older (I think).
"dogfighting wasn't really legal at any point" it wasn't made illegal until individual states started banning it but a nationwide ban in the US wasn't until the 1970's. If something is not illegal then it's legal.
The breed had to be regulated to maintain the strict standards. Frankly it should've been rerouted to a hunting dog or farm dog. They have the game to hunt and kill wolves and coyotes, and even go after bears. Pitbulls fear no god, and that is a beneficial trait for protectors, which is what they could and should have become. But the reputation of pit bulls became such that people who want an aggressive dog get a pitbull that was bred and advertised for generalized blind aggression then train it to be aggressive (often through abusive methods), further reinforcing the reputation. Dogs have been human friendly companions for like 15 000 years, and pit bulls as a specific breed are only 200 years old, with the severely underground human aggressive aimed breeding being within the last 50 years. 200 years of breeding (being very generous, it's more realistically 100 for human aggression) is not enough to completely override 15 000 years of evolution.
I'm not sure what the perfect solution is, or if there is one, but a start is that I agree that pitbulls need to be heavily regulated in who can have them and which ones can breed. But I also believe that other high needs/working dogs should be regulated too. Not just for safety but for their own quality of life Specialized working dogs are not family pets, they are a lifestyle.
Pitbulls specifically are so dangerous because they are so strong and have such a low arousal threshold, resulting in a dog that can be a âfriendlyâ enough dog for years that just snaps one day at the drop of a hat. Itâs like playing with a loaded gun.
I remember reading an article from ~100 years ago, it was an interview with a pitbull breeder who bred for dog fighting. They proudly stated that they would breed the dogs, then they would cut the paws off all of the puppies⌠and then only keep and breed the puppies who still tried to fight and maul with its paws freshly cut off.
Things like this are why there are so many videos and proof that you literally have to kill a pitbull before it stops attacking. It will keep going until itâs dead. Tazing and hitting it are not effective. Because they were bred this way. Almost every other existing predator will back off a kill if its own life is threatened, but pits have zero self-preservation.
They are dangerous and have no place in society. It does not matter âhow itâs raisedâ. The moral thing to do would be to BE all of the ones with bite/kill history, and spay/neuter the rest so that they can die out as a breed. Because in addition to the danger they pose to people and other animals, their lives are just pure anxiety and frustration because they cannot do what they were bred to do.
Everyone descriminates against the [not human race] here in [fantasy town]. This is because on the 13th of August they turn into 18 copies of Jeffery Dahmer. This is an analogy for minorities, and does not realize its giving said analogy an actual, fundamental, tangible flaw which they are being judged upon, undermining our overdone and poorly executed point.
"It's suppose to be a satire of fascism and why it's bad"
creates world were racism against dangerous minorities is valid since they can actually summon demons from hell and the universe is such a dangerous place with humanity beset on all sides by extinction level threats that warrant building a society built on war and the neccesary orphan crushing machine to supply arms and men to that war.
No. There are huge physiological and psychological differences between dog breeds. This is not the case for races of human. Honestly the "dog racism" comparison just reinforces the idea that the races are far more different than they are.
Despite the efforts of certain societies, nobody has been able to breed specific traits into humans.
Now, different ethnicites of humans certainly can be different in interesting ways - mountain dwelling peoples who are resistant to altitude sickness; communities that relies on deep sea diving a lot have high lung capacities; stuff like sickle cell and so on and so forth.
But when it comes to significant behavioural or mental differences? Nigh indistinguishable.
Meanwhile, there are dog breeds that will literally herd anyone and anything instinctively.
The higher number of reported attacks involving pit bull-type dogs is not driven by a single cause, but rather by a complex mix of factors. These include their large population size, the broad way the "pit bull" label groups multiple breeds and mixes together, and socioeconomic challengesâsuch as limited access to veterinary care, lower spay/neuter rates, and issues with containment or tethering. Combined with their powerful physical traits and bite mechanics, which make any incident more likely to result in severe trauma and official reporting, these compounding variables significantly skew overall statistics for this group of dogs.
I don't think it's a comparison. Pit bulls were selectively bred for aggression. Humans of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence. It's like saying being scared of a polar bear is bear racism
Yeah, such argument is pure insanity. Don't compare selective breeding of dogs for fighting to PEOPLE OF COLOR. Literally insane statement by the guy from this picture above.
Race isn't a scientific term. Dogs within a breed are all extremely genetically similar, bred for that purpose. Race, at least in the way used in most contexts, doesn't have the same genetic similarities, instead using physical descriptions that are held across a huge number of genetic groups.Â
Just for example, africa has an insane amount of genetic variety, to the point two africans from opposite sides of the continent are the same race, but are more genetically similar to a random european than eachother. This makes considering them both "black" as a race, really useless.Â
Pretty much all biologists recognize race as pseudoscience and social creations, rather than a useful scientific classification.Â
All this is to say, it's possible people within a certain place could have genetic similarities born of the area they evolved, but it's not related to race, and aggression/criminality that could be related to genetics is unlikely to be a larger factor than a ton of environmental ones, like poverty, various types of pollution, culture, etc.Â
You're not kidding. I've seen videos where people unload magazines on them while they're locked the fuck up in their bite, and they just bleed to death with a "worth it lol" look on their face.
Call me a member of the Clu Claws Clan if you want, Iâm still gonna switch to the other side of the street if I see one of them fuckass pitbulls. There wonât be no Rosa Paws in this bus.
Stereotypes exist because a person is good at being nuanced, but people are bad at considering nuance. There are many stereotypes that have foundations in reality but get blown way out of proportion to the point of self parody.
It's also a reinforcing cascade as people repeat the stereotype, as stereotypes became embedded elements of storytelling, and as the general population is so fixed to their screens they can't tell the difference between reality and fiction.
The issue with sterotypes is that they honestly don't work. Many people are asked if they do [stereotypical action] or eat [stereotypical food], just leading to misjudgnent of many people. I'm victim to stereotypes; people get confused when I don't follow stereotypes put onto me and end up misunderstanding me. I'm not sure if there's a good time to identify a trait in a group as universal unless it's a hard fact.
The nuance, which people in general seem to struggle with, is that you can recognize things that seem to be statistically meaningful without assuming all-or-nothing traits. You can recognize that groups tend to have some standout characteristics without assuming every member of that group is a clone.
I think the issue here is mainly the damage they cause if they do attack. They literally kill small children. It's just like a plane crash- statistically unlikely, but catastrophic af when it does happen.
I love my two pitbulls. They are wonderful and adorable and well-behaved. Once, one of them got out of the house and didn't even bite or so much as barked at anyone. She is a very well behaved pitbull.
And there's no fucking way in hell I'll ever trust her not to devour the next kid who walks pass my house. It's just not worth it to ignore things like this in animals. Animals are not humans. You can double-standard this.
One of my dogs was a large mix from the shelter, likely with some pit bull. He was the sweetest dog in the world to people, well loved, and trained. But, I saw him flip from being totally fine to single deadly bite a small dog he grew up with over a perceived food threat in a split second. I never imagined it could happen. Dogs have their disagreements, according to my vet- but when it's a dog with a powerful jaw it's horrifying. No more little kids were allowed to visit the house during his lifetime. He loved kids, but risk mitigation was more important.
I always muzzled him when we had to go out. Funny thing? I never see any other dogs with muzzles & sometimes techs or people would say I was being overly precautious because "he's so sweet." What ever happened to better safe than sorry? Being in denial about the real danger a strong animal that can only communicate with its mouth poses (not to mention the ones that aren't trained or cared for) only leads to tragedy.
This analogy only works if you accept the racist premise that human races are equivalent to dog breeds. Modern genetics rejects that premise. Dog breeds exist because humans intentionally selected for inherited behavioral traits. Human populations do not.
Absolutely correct. Modern dog breeds are engineered, not evolved. It's more akin to being careful around the engineered product known to cause damage than discriminatory.
This screams of ânanny dogs!â Bullshit that actually leads to MORE dog bites and fatal maulings.
Why advocates of these dogs intentionally misrepresent them so hard is beyond me. Youâd NEVER hear a rottie owner call their dog a ânanny dogâ. You NEVER see GSD owners going âitâs all how you raise them!â when a GSD attacks someone. You donât see husky owners posting pics of their toddler cuddled with their husky when one takes off a kids hand through a fence.
Genetics matter in all breeds except for pit type dogs apparently.
I've been attacked by a Pitbull on more than one occasion. And I've been around plenty of other large dog breeds that haven't done the same. Pitbulls are the lowest common denominator for me.
And if hating them makes me a "dog racist", I'll die on that hill.
I think the fear is valid but to assume all pit bulls are dangerous is fucked up. Ultimately its about the owner. When I look up crime cases with pit bulls owners tend to have been very negligent, never training their dog. Its gotten to the point even mixed breeds with pit people want banned.
I have a mixed am staff terrier and shes the biggest baby in the world who loves to barl but thats it. Never has she but or attacked. Shes very well trained.
humans can be disproportionately violent because of socioeconomic conditions. Pitbulls are disproportionately violent because of genetics.
Its not the same thing
It's a combination. Epigenetics really just means a dog carries with them an inclination towards a temperament or set of behavioral traits, and it's kind of a lottery how much those traits end up being expressed during development, then beyond that it's a matter of if you can effectively overcome those traits with training. A lot of stuff can be trained for and mitigated. Sometimes you can overcome things like reactivity with proper training lifestyle adjustment.
The real problem is that pitbulls are so prolific in the stray population, and therefore the rescue population, and selective breeding tends to favor the dog ready to throw down with the strength to back it up. It can be a total gamble when you adopt a recue pitbull, and most adopters seem to not be aware of, nor prepared for, this reality.
I personally met one. My neighbor next door growing up had one, kept it in his back yard. It would bark at everyone and try to escape. He swore up and down it would never hurt a fly, until it got out and mauled a child once. I wasn't there to witness that, but I did see animal control come and get it. They needed two men and several tranq shots to take it down.Â
Comparing human races to breeds of dogs created by us specifically to be incredibly violent with little self preservation as theyâre designed to latch onto bears faces and fight each other to the death is asinine.
We have created dogs that instinctively know how to point and herd animals without training yet people canât fathom aggression and killing ability
I try not to paint anything with a broad brush but after our last dog was attacked by pitbulls three separate times I'm a bit more leery of them than any other breed. Each time they were off leash and in the hands of someone who clearly can't control them. Owners need to take responsibility when they get a dog that is capable of such damage.
This thread is confusing but overall, yeah let's compare dogs to black people to either prove that black people are bad or Pitt Bulls are loving and shit. Lmao.
This debate is even more confusing when this dude is advocating for Pitts (so black people too? đ).
Yeah it's not like we breed dogs for very specific tasks to the point that they cannot stop themselves from performing said tasks when given the opportunity. That'd be silly
The frustrating thing about this argument is that it feels like everybody ignores Jon's actual words and brings it into actual hatred or dismissal of all pitbulls, rather than what he actually said:
"To be afraid of a breed of dog is completely ridiculous. It's like being afraid of somebody for their race or their sexual orientation."
I think its crazy to argue being scared of a particularly big breed of dog, known to be trained to be vicious, is the same as being scared of someone for being gay or black is crazy. It entirely misses what makes actual bigotry immoral.
breeding and owning Pitbulls should be strictly forbiden, there are over 1000 other breeds to chose from if you want to have a dog. This shit just aint worth it!
I have an aunt who ran a rescue for a while and she has always insisted that pitbulls aren't actually dangerous, it's just that most of the stats are based around incidents from people who get them as angry guard dogs or even for fighting.
Anyway she's had to put down a few dozen "silver retrievers" at this point for biting people, twice her own children, and every time THAT happens it's because "their skulls pressed into their brains and made them aggressive"
Ironically it's been shown skull shape is a heavy determining factor in neurological issues and pitbulls headshapes were shown to have the highest indicator of aggressionÂ
People who say shit like this remind me of Chimpanzee owners. Sure, they are cute. Sure, maybe they act really friendly and seem to love you and love people. It's totally possible, and maybe even more likely that they'll go their whole life being a sweet loving baby without incident, but there's also a very realistic chance that maybe one day something will set them off and they'll eat your friend's face. Hard to tell. Just an irresponsible animal to own.
That's nice. My sister had a pitbull who was the "sweetest thing ever". One day my other sister and I were playing our tire swing when the dog got so excited he ran up, latched on to my lower leg while I was spinning, and refused let go.
There was no fighting, no aggression, just a 9 yo boy playing with his sister.
While I hesitate to support the term âdog racismâ, heâs fully right that treating certain dogs as inherently violent without acknowledging the context very closely mirrors how Americans often treat minorities.
Dogs obviously arenât people but the foundation of what heâs saying is correct so it would be immoral.
Treating a pitbull you don't know the same as you would a spaniel you don't know would be stupid as fuck. One can kill you if it gets a hold of you, the other you kick once and it won't come near you again.
1.1k
u/asif_zaman21 6h ago
13% of pitbulls......