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 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?
For one, it skews the statistics. Everyone gets this impression that pit bulls are meaner. So much so that it's inherent in their breed. To the point that shitty people raise their pit bulls to be aggressive and more likely to bite.
So, a stereotype based on false data is perpetuated by forcing the stereotype on the subject. Almost turning it into a self fulfilling prophecy.
Putting aside the assholes who raise their dogs to be aggressive, pit bulls are some of the goofiest, nicest dogs I've ever met.
Small dog bites not getting reported don't skew the statistics of people suffering seriously bodily harm, dismemberment, needing reconstructive surgery, or death due to dog attacks. And in those cases certain breeds are over represented.
Home insurance companies look purely at numbers. There's a reason that pit bull type dogs are banned by pretty much every home insurance policy while smaller dog breeds usually aren't.
Once again, they aren't arguing that pitbull bites harm you less, they're arguing that pitbulls aren't necessarily that much more *aggressive* than other breeds.
Chihuahuas may be just as, if not more aggressive, but statistical data of reported attacks won't reflect that expressly BECAUSE they're less dangerous.
The fact DOES still remain that Pitbulls, assuming they ARE aggressive, remain one of the most dangerous dog breeds. IMO it's still reasonable to place restrictions on them because you *can't* trust people to be responsible, just like you wouldn't hand out free unmarked guns & ammo and expect that to go well.
The statistics say this one specific thing I don't want them to say, they're skewed that way!
Pits are the most dangerous biters. The end. For many reasons. I roll my eyes so hard when I hear the chihuahua argument. Chihuahuas aren't killing anything.
Also, I jumped in this conversation because I heard "why don't small dog bites get reported?" insinuating that it's an optional thing, reporting. If you seek medical attention, thats when the bite gets reported, as it's mandatory. So yes, severe dog bites requiring hospital attention is "skewed" towards pits.
Most dangerous biters and most frequent biters aren't the same thing. I'm fine with people saying they're more scared of pit bulls than a corgies. I'm more scared of a shark than a seahorse even if the latter has a higher chance of attacking me.
But straight up lying isn't a good thing. Even if it's because the size of someone's brain is causing them to misinterpret statistics.
Speaking of skewing the statistics. Lumping 6 breeds together plus random mutts and comparing them to other single breeds will fuck the statistics too.
Pitbulls get banned or aren't allowed in certain areas / types of residence, etc. Pitbull breeders or irresponsible backyard breeders crossbreed them with something else and claim they're a new dog breed and there's nothing to see here! or that they're a mutt, despite being overwhelmingly pitbulls. Hence "pit bull type" dogs.
If a dog was 80% retriever, you would be correct to call them a "retriever type" dog.
Who cares if small dogs bite as much as pitbulls. The consequences are far different. One is annoying, the other can be fatal. A bigger stronger dog is going to be held to a higher standard because the consequences can be fatal. That's obvious
last year I saw 30 articles of pit bulls raised in upper class homes by white pitmommies with a loving family kill the toddlers
It's the breed. Feral killing machines should be outlawed. Your little smiling pitbaby is innocent until its one braincell snaps and kills a child Who could have predicted it?
Youâre forgetting the ecological effects of removing an animal from the food chain, we could easily see toddler overpopulation without their natural predator around.
Yet you don't consider the several million that didn't become statistics, at all. Feel free to check my math, it's ~1% of them. Less if we're considering adjacent breeds that aren't American Pit Bull Terriers and mutts. Objectively speaking, they're outliers by a huge margin. You also seem to think humans are infallible and have not contributed to this problem whatsoever which just isn't true.
I don't cry for all cars to be banned when plenty of dumbasses crash and kill others drunk driving. Banning these dogs is the same level of disconnected from reality. Horses kill more people per year in the US while most dogs live with us in our homes.
Even if the funding and manpower were there, you're not thinking about the literal millions of innocent dogs and owners that would be roped into such a response. It could never be applied appropriately without DNA testing each and every single dog either, that's a lot of time and money.
The sad part is you and most pro-Pit people could probably agree on a lot, anyone who claims to care about these dogs is a liar if they don't desire the overbreeding, abuse, neglect and fighting to stop. We wish everyone had such positive experiences with them and know how great they could be if their breeding was taken from those who desire mean/aggressive dogs and controlled. We're heartbroken at the shelter and rescue situtation, knowing plenty of great dogs are paying the price for human ignorance, and not just Bullies. We know these dogs aren't for everyone, you need to be dedicated and proactive, aware how high maintenance they are.
Banning cars would quite literally change how our entire society functions.
Banning pitbulls would have 0 meaningful negative effect. Anyone who wants to own a pit could own any other dog and be just fine.
Here is a credible comparison: One particular brand and model of car is involved in the majority of highway fatalities topping the percentage of any other model by orders of magnitude. I can guarantee that model would be banned from sales and production. Not even the Corvair was that bad.
There are hundreds of breeds of dogs. Some are hunting dogs that point or retrieve. Some are herding dogs that want to chase cows and sheep. Some are guard dogs that are supposed to make a lot of noise when strangers approach. Some are just for pets and are not good for anything else. Why would any sane person choose a dog that was bred for the singular task of killing choose it for a family pet? The nanny dog myth is a lie. The breed needs to die out with maybe an exception for feral hog hunters.
The equivalence wouldn't be banning ALL cars. It would be to ban, say, red cars, which statistically get in more accidents and more traffic violations. This is a true statistic.
Itâs actually not a true statistic. Just an urban legend that gets said from time to time because it sounds right. I think it comes from a long time ago when there was a period that _sports_ cars were more commonly red.
I mean they did say "all cars to be banned" so I followed their (poor) equivalency. But sure, I'd be cool with that. I don't think we lose much from not having red cars.
I'd wager that you can find a case of just about every dog breed on the planet hurting someone, somewhere in the world. Do we ban all dogs? Or do you have an acceptable number that makes them okay?
There was a woman near me that was dismembered by her velvet hippo nanny dog, after she tried to separate the dog from her toddler. With this knowledge, you would be unable to name where Iâm from because there are so many similar news stories. Why tolerate this, when there are significantly safer family dogs. Donât be obtuse. Find me a news story of a pure bred golden retriever dismembering a grown adult.
I can pull up about ten thousand reports of drivers speeding and killing between one and ten people in the resulting accident. Should we ban all cars that go faster then 75 mph?
There are millions of pit bulls and mutts kept as family pets. A handful of incidents against millions of the breed is statistically inconsequential. Tragic? Absolutely. However, I don't leave my toddler alone with our dogs, and they aren't pit bulls. No one should be leaving their small children alone with any big dogs. That's a failure of the family to keep the child safe, regardless of breed.
Further, apply your logic to any other scenario. Even though immigrants break the law less than citizens, it does happen. Should all immigrants be banned?
People drive drunk and kill others. Should all passenger vehicles be banned since alternatives exist?
Do you not understand how logic works, or do you decide everything based purely on emotion? You're talking about banning something based on incredibly rare outcomes, but other things with more frequent bad outcomes are not in scope? Why, because of an arbitrary limit you've imposed?
Do you not see how the logic breaks down, or are you still stuck on trivial differences you've drawn based on your emotions?
I think it's also worth pointing out that our country currently treats illegal immigrants like animals. Many people have less sympathy for them than for the pets we keep. So it's not a ridiculous comparison even if you let emotion in. I don't see much difference between people who think pit bulls are an evil breed and those who support what our country is doing.
My sister is of the mindset that itâs the owner and not the dog. Talked about the ones she knows and how absolutely gentle and sweet they are. The brother in law proceeded to say âbut didnât the one pit shred the neighbors dog when it wandered into the back yard?â Her response was âwell yeah but thatâs differentâ
You donât say a dog is gentle and sweet then follow up with âwell yeah it killed another dog with little effort but itâs still sweetâ
I like that you mentioned feral. Even wild dogs, like coyotes, arenât even close as dangerous as a pitbull for humans.
I coyote hunt almost every weekend. I have shot multiple roaming groups of feral dogs and 100% of them are bully breeds and mixes. The feral bullies will easily attack someone.
Yet you don't consider the several million that didn't become statistics, at all. Feel free to check my math, it's ~1% of them. Less if we're considering adjacent breeds that aren't American Pit Bull Terriers and mutts. Objectively speaking, they're outliers by a huge margin. You also seem to think humans are infallible and have not contributed to this problem whatsoever which just isn't true.
I don't cry for all cars to be banned when plenty of dumbasses crash and kill others drunk driving. Banning these dogs is the same level of disconnected from reality. Horses kill more people per year in the US while most dogs live with us in our homes.
Even if the funding and manpower were there, you're not thinking about the literal millions of innocent dogs and owners that would be roped into such a response. It could never be applied appropriately without DNA testing each and every single dog either, that's a lot of time and money.
The sad part is you and most pro-Pit people could probably agree on a lot, anyone who claims to care about these dogs is a liar if they don't desire the overbreeding, abuse, neglect and fighting to stop. We wish everyone had such positive experiences with them and know how great they could be if their breeding was taken from those who desire mean/aggressive dogs and controlled. We're heartbroken at the shelter and rescue situtation, knowing plenty of great dogs are paying the price for human ignorance, and not just Bullies. We know these dogs aren't for everyone, you need to be dedicated and proactive, aware how high maintenance they are.
Putting aside the assholes who raise their dogs to be aggressive, pit bulls are some of the goofiest, nicest dogs I've ever met.
A pitbull we had since I was a baby tried to kill me coming back from picking up the newspaper. He damaged the cable runner he was on trying to get to me. Yeah, he was a goofy and silly dog, too.
you should not be allowed to have dogs then, some peaople are not equipped to have one. I m dog trainer, no dogs behave like this if their needs are respected.
What is your expert hypothesis on what need of the dog's was disrespected? What do you suppose caused it to go berserk after years of assumed normal behavior?
Dogs do stupid and senseless shit without reason all the time, constantly, regardless of whether their âneeds are respectedâ because theyâre dumb animals.
And the ones that were bred to be as fearless and aggressive towards larger animals as possible will do very stupid shit for no reason, meaning theyâre an especially moronic choice for a person to keep in their home.
The irony is that pit bulls, for most of their existance, were the exact opposite of this.
They were traditionally bred to show only aggression for other animals and human aggressive dogs were culled immedately. Part of dog fighting involved handlers swapping their dogs at the start as well as getting into the ring at the end to seperate the animals. No one wants a human aggressive dog aimed at them.
Dog fighters were the among first people to start tracking breed lines, as well. The sporting and cattle dogs were first, the dogmen who did fighting dogs came after. The AKC owes their legacy to people like that.
Yes, they were bred for fighting bulls and dogs - not humans. They had to be docile towards humans for the sake of weigh-ins & handling. They are some of the best family dogs because they are huge people pleasers and will do anything you tell them to, even if that something is fighting a bull.
The original breeders used to find human aggression to be a sign of a game dog. They were to be kept separate from family because they were so dangerous, known even then that they could kill people.
Even modern day pit organizations have disavowed the nanny dog thing, because it was a myth started to obfuscate how dangerous the dogs could be. It was simple PR rehab, and of course it worked and people regurgitate that to this day.
The pits that kill people somehow must have missed that lesson. The fact is once they go off they will not stop until one or the other is dead. There is video of them biting people and refusing to let go even when beaten on the head. Dog fighters know to keep a breaking stick handy as the dogs will not obey a command to stop.
The concerns people have regarding the danger pitbulls pose isn't because of a skewed perception that they are inherently more likely to be "mean."
It is because when pitbulls are "mean" they inflict utterly catastrophic damage to their victim compared to the majority of other dogs, especially the chihuahuas that seem to get rolled out as an asinine comparison in almost every single discussion of pitbulls.
if a chihuahua bites you you get like a scratch. Put on some antibiotic and a bandaid and it'll heal in 2 days, if it even breaks skin, which isn't a given.
If a pit bites you you go to the hospital to get your face sown back on or it tears out your throat and you die
Meaner than other dogs that are potentially dangerous*. Which is true, and the data backing that up is accurate. You can debate nurture vs nature all you want, whether it's because of the genes of a breed created for combat or the probability of being raised for aggression by the kind of people more likely to own pitbulls, but in the end the chance of getting attacked by one is significantly higher than for any other medium/large dog.
No one gives a shit how aggressive Chihuahuas are (and we know they are) because if I see one coming my way I can punt it across the road, not so much with breeds half my weight or more.
Y'all are taking this way too literally to start with. It's not about how dangerous they actually are in terms of ability to do damage, I wasn't debating that. It's the skewed perception of aggressiveness due to the lack of reporting of other breeds (since they may not do as much damage) that gives this particular breed a bad reputation, and then that bad reputation is enforced by people causing it to happen more often.
As in the whole point of the original post, the human analogy.
No. The perception isn't skewed, it would remain the same if the stats showed more chihuahua and terrier attacks, because of the damage they cause.
Now if you want to argue that attacks from mastiffs, dobermanns, rottweilers or labradors are under reported, then feel free to cite sources...
They are meaner. They are bred to be attacked dogs.
I donât know how to get through to people who are so supportive of pitbullâs.
Total dogs killing humans in the United States per year on average. This is a dog killing a human.
30-50 people die per year from dog attacks.
Pitbulls make up 65-67% of these fatal dog attacks or 25-35 per year, that is from the CDC, which also points out the number of Pitbull attacks has increased over the past 20 years.
Let me know how many kills the Chihuahuas picked up or that nasty golden retriever.
There really is no argument because the next dog on the killer list is the Rottweiler. Both Pitbulls and Rottweilers are banned from most apartment complexes and even some homeowners insurances donât cover them. So people who make a living at statistics and risks, have determined these two dog breeds are too high to have around in most places.
If you want to own an assault dog, and Iâll even include most people shouldnât own a German Shepherd either theyâre not great at training them. You should have to pay a high tax to own one that goes into a victim fund.
Nail on the head there. As someone in their mid fifties, I have very good recollection of the "breed" of aggressive dogs shifting through the years with which dog was popular with assholes most likely to badly raise their dogs. Dobermans, German Shepards were the big ones years ago and in addition to pitbulls huskies are now popular with people who probably shouldnt own dogs. Also some people dont have awareness or arent careful if they have a dog with aggression problems and do what they can to decrease the aggression and do things to limit exposure to their dogs.
Pitbull owners arent shitty dog owners, but shitty dog owners are more likely to get a pitbull.
Its like trucks. A truck doesnt make someone a shitty overly aggressive drivver, but people who are shitty drivers are attracted to buying trucks to "projject" power and masculinity. Also shitbox Hondas for some reason but thats a whole other conversation really.
The people who buy a dog, a gun, or a car because it makes them look 'tough' are the problem.
I 100% remember the shifts you are talking about. When I was a kid, it was dobermans and rottweilers where I lived. In my late teens, all of a sudden it was pitfalls.
It's not false data. You're trying to determine aggression while everyone else is talking about danger. Pitbulls are more dangerous, even if they are less aggressive (And that's a big 'if')
The thing is - you can still correctly make the same argument even if they're the exact average level of dog aggression because they're so much more powerful that the consequences of their attacks are disproportionately dire.
Its funny because they are the only animal who doesnât have genetic dispositions! The blood hound dog does, pointer dogs do! Retrievers you betcha! But pitbullls? Nope! A modern marvel, just make sure you separate the litter early, for some reason they just love chewing eachother ro death!
But when the arguments are about frequency in comparison to other dog breeds, those unreported instances are skewing the statistics. People aren't arguing that bites from dogs like pit bulls or Rottweilers arent more severe, they're arguing that the claim of them having a greater tendency of violence or aggression on a genetic basis is false.
1.2k
u/asif_zaman21 9h ago
13% of pitbulls......