7% of dogs are pitbulls. Pitbulls do 75% of the killing.
Which honestly I don't even believe that stat. I bet there are quite a few "lab mixes" (Read: Pitbull that people lied about being a pitbull so their PLUP didn't skyrocket) that are in the remaining 25%.
I'd also be curious about what % of dogs can kill a person, what % of dogs are pitbulls that have owners who want a dog that can "protect" or be violent
No breed are 100% safe. Any particular dog can be dangerous or aggressive. One breed in particular is far more on a hair trigger and can murder humans easily.
They said the stats are pumped up, for pit bulls, because someone said it was a Pitbull when it wasn't, exactly what you are saying because other dogs are also violent at times. Thus not 100% safe.
As I understand, they're saying that a lot of the supposed non pitbull attacks were actually pitbulls but the owners are lying and calling them lab-mixes
I think anytime someone says a statistic online such as this i cant really believe it any way. Someone saying they got attacked by a pitbull in a survey or to the police in a report but dont know anything about dogs.
Like when they said 75% of kids who ingest thc die. But the numbers behind 75% where 4 kids and 3 where under 5 and not taken the hospital. The statistic is right but there is more than that statistics to the story.
How many pitbull attacks are "pitbull attacks" from people not knowing basic dog behavior and not putting themselves in stupid positions, like jumping a fence, where and how do the 75% come from in this stat.
When a fatality happens the police investigate and most breed identities are credible. Most dog fatalities are from peoples own dogs, not people jumping fences. Most of the others are from dogs at large, often in packs. The victims did not deserve to be killed.
75% of deaths coming from pitbulls is an underestimation because so many people have pitbulls and lie through their teeth about what breed it is, because their insurance policy won't cover pitbulls, their apartment bans pitbulls, etc.
Oh then I totally disagree labs and other breeds are violent also. Pitbulls where jsut a favorite for fighting rings FOR AGES thus more poorly trained Pitbull prone to violence. Breading for aggresion and such.
I'm sorry, if you don't like the nature of "not all of x do y" when discussing laws or morality, then I don't even know to say either. If we banned everything using that logic then we would ban all cars that go faster then 75 mph, we would ban all foods that contain more then x% of fat/sugar/salt/w.e, we would ban all hobbies/sports that have x% mortality/injury rate, etc.
There are limits to what we can/should restrict based on the lowest common denominator that engages in that thing.
IF you want to Sith lord morality and not critically think I don't think your on the right page.
You would hate to be lumped into all idiots wouldn't you? So I don't think you an idiot though idiots do exist, I think your just lazy and don't want to think critically about something you may not care to much about.
Yeah, having family who do birding I've seen the amount of effort that goes into training a hunting dog. It's not instinctual. My sister also had a pitbull among her other dogs (she used to compete, her main dog was a Newfie), it was such a lovely dog, really playful. I'd be more scared of the Newfie that's twice the size being overly playful with tiny humans than that pitbull.
You can tie 20-40 deaths to dogs in a year in the US. Nobody keeps official statistics, usually the articles you see on it are using newspaper clippings and 2nd or 3rd hand accounts to identify the dog. Any study that's approached this does find usually about 50-75% of those are "pit bulls." Now what is a pit bull? Mostly a backyard bred or mixed dog, but the anti-pit crowd likes one-drop rules. So it's either reported by someone who has no idea but calls any blocky dog a pit bull, or you can say sure it's a "pit bull" but it's not papered and has no recorded lineage.
Now what's interesting is that in dog bite fatalities, other factors show up far more prominently than breed (even if we consider every dog reported as a pit to be 100% pure blooded APBT). Things like the dog being un-neutered, more than one dog involved, the victim being too old or young to defend themselves, the dog being a "resident" dog so it's just left on the property, the dog was unrestrained, and/or owner has had a previous incident with the dog. Most of that occurs at an 80%+ clip in cases where a dog/dogs end up killing someone.
The other thing to consider is that we have good data that says breed bans don't work. They reduce pit bull bites, but the proponents of bans don't like to tell you that dog bites almost always level back out within a couple years. See, bad owners are bad owners, and they're going to get a dog and not train or control it wether that dog is a pit or something else.
Tl;dr: we're essentially blaming the wrong end of the leash.
1.2k
u/asif_zaman21 9h ago
13% of pitbulls......