The National Rifle Association will offer a very well cited claim that strict gun laws increase violent crime. The Violence Policy Center will offer a very well cited claim that the opposite is true. Reality is likely more nuanced.
The hole in dog breed bite statistics is usually accurate identification of the breed.
Maybe I’m missing something, what does this advocacy group stand to benefit from banning pitbulls? The NRA is backed by weapons manufacturers. This seems to be people who actually see a problem and are taking actions to help protect people.
People often hold strong beliefs that are not related to personal gain nor particularly rational. I don’t think their intent is nefarious, but I think it’s likely mistaken.
For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:
Statistics about serious injuries to people supported by reliable breed identification. Asking a victim or police officer what breed of dog caused the injury is insufficient.
At least some some supporting evidence that the breed is inherently more dangerous than other breeds of the same size instead of simply being popular with people who train their dogs to be aggressive.
Legislation focused on breeding bans, neutering mandates, and a mix of fence/muzzle requirements and temperament testing rather than confiscation or euthanasia individual dogs that have not shown signs of aggression.
About 15 years ago I volunteered with a pitbull rescue, then did a bunch of research on pitbull attacks in grad school. The problem then was that most statistics like this were unreliable once you saw what they labeled a pitbull. In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull. I don’t know if things have changed, never really looked into it since then, but I’m still a bit wary of stats like this without knowing their data is accurate.
My little dog doesn’t have an ounce of pitbull in her. Her mom was a border collie/lab mix, and the Father was the Neighbor’s boston terrier/english pointer mix. The only thing remotely pitbull like about her is her underbite. That said, I’ve lost count of the times somebody at the dog park, usually someone with a little ankle biter dog of the teacup persuasion, has gotten uppity about me having a “pitbull” off leash. People are dumb.
It doesn’t help that a lot of strays/rescues have a good chunk of pit bull blood in them.
Both of my dogs are rescues from programs in the southern US. One of them certainly seems to have some pit in him…beautiful brindle coat, block head, incredibly strong jaw, stocky-muscular build. He’s dumb as a bag of rocks but incredibly loyal and affectionate. Because of the stigma around pits, though, I’m afraid to get him DNA tested.
Most rational people would, but it was an indicator that people who report dog bites did not know the difference.
And I’m not sure what my school had to do with it. At that time I was sourcing data from external sources, using data reported on police reports or by other organizations. Someone else commenting referenced the breed specific legislation advocacy group that was a source for some of that data.
My comment might not have been clear, I was criticising the data I was finding.
The studies I’ve seen that people cite to say “you can’t identify a breed by looking at it” usually are playing a semantic game - and what often is not emphasized is that the same research shows that when people identify a dog as a “pit bull,” that those people are quite accurate in identifying–by morphology alone–the presence of genetics from one of the several aggressive breeds people call “pit bulls.” And that the morphology is positively correlated with higher aggression.
Actually it’s more likely a pitt is labeled incorrectly like a lab etc to get them adopted to people too ignorant to know better. So that’s gonna invalidate that statement.
But I suspect that it’s mostly due to a combination of breed and neglect/non-training. The kind of people who want a pit bull in particular, and the kind of people who just chain up their dog outside and never train or socialize it, probably have significant overlap.
Did you know that all of the breeds that are identified by the name “pit bull” rate high in aggression? And that the same studies that pitbull afficianados cite for “you can’t tell a breed by appearance” also support the idea that when people call a dog a “pit bull” based on morphology alone, that the dog stands a very high chance of having decended from one of the several breeds identified as a pit bull?
Not in the study i reaf. They lined pure American pitbull and some pitbull mutts and dogs with no pitbull. They only to reliably guees who was the pitbull, even counting the mutt as pb, was if the dog was showing teeth.
Wrong. You’re misrepresenting the stats. You’re leaving out the fact that in over half of all dog bites the breed is unknown.
Also, in studies where vet personnel are asked to visually identify the breed of dog, they are wrong two out of three times. So if vet personnel can’t even do it, dog bite victims, police reports, and hospital reports, from where these statistics on dog bites are obtained, are definitely not getting right.
The truth is that we have absolutely zero legitimate idea what dogs are causing injuries. Even if the numbers on pitbulls were accurate, the breed is unreported in more than half of cases, which statistically speaking means there could be another breed of dog that you’ve never even heard of that’s responsible for more than half of all bites.
The other issue for me is the inherent racism by those who advocate for these policies. In every conversation, it eventually devolves to the proponent of breed bans doing one of two things: admitting that they are targeting certain types of people, not breeds, and arguments that rely on false assertions of history, genetic and behavioral science, that are identical to those put forth by eugenicists. The easy example is the false assertions that pitbulls were “bred for fighting.”
They were bred for hunting and loyalty to their families and children. The guy to originally bred them wrote several books which you can read on Google Books and discusses at length their loyalty to people and kids as a primary characteristics, moreso than any violence. It was their strength and determination that made them useful for hunting, not aggression.
They were used only for dog fighting decades after the big game hunting they were bred to do was banned, and even then, dogs that showed aggression to humans were banned from the “sport” if not outright euthanized.
The studies that you would cite to support your “you can’t tell a breed by its look” also tend to show that people are quite accurate at identifying that one of the many breeds that are called pit bulls are present in a particular dog. in other words, they can’t accurately say “this is a pure bred Staffordshire Terrier” but they can say, “this is a pit bull” and they’re correct, unless you’re playing stupid semantic games.
That study seems to state a conclusion precisely the opposite of what the experimental results were. Based on a small sample set, there’s a high degree of match, far more accurate than random chance, between the observations and the genetic findings.
Of the 25 dogs identified as pit bull-type dogs by breed signature, 12 were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of admission to the shelter (prior to the study visit), including five labeled American Staffordshire terrier mix, four pit bull mix, two pit bull, and one American Staffordshire terrier. During the study, 20/25 dogs were identified by at least one of the four staff assessors as pit bull-type dogs, and five were not identified as pit bull-type dogs by any of the assessors. …
Of the 95 dogs (79%) that lacked breed signatures for pit bull heritage breeds, six (6%) were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of shelter admission, and 36 (38%) were identified as pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff assessor at the time of the study visit
So, at intake, 18 dogs were identified as pit bulls but only 2/3rds were at least 12% pit bull.
During the study, 56 dogs were identified as being pit bulls, but only about 1/3rd were in fact at least 12% pit bull.
This is the classic ‘base rate fallacy’. The false positive rate isn’t that high, and the false negative rate isn’t that high either. But because the true positive rate is pretty low, the ratio of true positives to false positives is much worse than you’d intuitively think.
Tests for rare diseases and attempts to behaviorally profile terrorists at airports runs into the same problem. Sometimes, a 99.9% accurate test just moves you from searching for a needle on a farm to a needle in only a single haystack.
Governments should stop billionaires. Tax them 100% income tax after a certain amount of income, tax them 50%% of their networth yearly after a certain amount of value.
I don’t think there ever was a time where not the richest were in power. From warlords to kings and now politicians in the pockets of CEO’s or shareholders by extension, people in power amass riches and with it more power.
Dogs, when involved in killings, are identified by FIRST RESPONDERS or POLICE OFFICERS, not by anyone with ANY KNOWLEDGE OF DOG BREEDS OR HUSBANDRY
We DO NOT HAVE AN ACCURATE COUNT on which breeds commit the most violence because THE PEOPLE REPORTING THE BREEDS OFTEN DO NOT HAVE QUALIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE BREEDS
Generic Street Dogs and any medium sized mutt CAN BE and ARE MISIDENTIFIED AS PITBULLS. Unless first responders, the police, and other people recording dog violence learn how to actually identify dog breeds, INNOCENT DOGS AND FAMILY MEMBERS WILL BE GENOCIDED FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON
Considering before the 70’s the American Pitbull was “the American Dog”, it is the most populous single breed in the entire country, consisting of more than DOUBLE the second most common breed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26403955/nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/visual-breed-id…It only takes a 2 second google search to find that visual identification of breed by people who EVEN WORK WITH DOGS is often incorrect, which is also to say people who DON’T work with dogs will have a poorer time correctly identifying breed by appearance alone
People should learn about the history of media fearmongering around specific breeds, which is largely based in racism and a product of the drug war. Most studies around this topic simply gather stats from newspaper articles, which is problematic because the media consistently misidentifies dog breeds, overreports on certain breed attacks, and under reports on others. It’s one of the reasons why the Humane society and the CDC opposes any breed specific legislation and why more than 20 states have outlawed it.
Also, everyone on Reddit and here getting so worked up about certain dog breeds and dog bites is the most Karen-ass shit ever. You’re far more likely to be killed by a mosquito than a dog. Even other humans rank higher on that list. So, maybe recalibrate your outrage.
Well I’ve only had one breed crawl through a picnic table and jump on me to get at my dog. Yes the owners where shit for letting the dog roam a campground. But I have never seen a dog so determined to get at another dog before and completely silent no growling barking just going in.
It’s literally a terrier breed. It’s what they’re bred to do. They’re all varying degrees of cracked out regularly and people though breeding one jacked breed of them was a) a good idea and b) okay for your average dog owner.
Kengals, malinois, hell even gsds; so many other breeds are equally as lethal and do just as much damage but they’re harder to obtain for the most part. The issue is that bullies (or bully breeds) are easy to get and people are either ill equipped to deal with the breed or are ignorant/neglectful dog owners.
Which would have far reaching consequences on other insectivores. Also, it’s not a foolproof solution we’ve created, the infertile male mosquitos will reduce the wild populations numbers, but likely not make them extinct.
But there are a lot of mosquitos, and the infertile males won’t fully displace the healthy male population, so it’s unlikely the population will ever dip too low to drive them to extinction.
You missed the point. You’re basing your assumption on the idea that pit bulls are somehow inherently bad dogs kind of like society treats people of a certain color as if they are inherently criminals.
The CDC and Humane society are saying that’s an incorrect and poorly supported approach. That’s why they don’t support breed specific bans.
That’s not to say dog attacks don’t happen. Dogs of any breed can be aggressive. It depends on a lot of factors.
You aren’t citing any studies. Even if you did cite a study, you won’t find one that isn’t based on news reports, and guess what? News reports are problematic because the media likes clickbait and fearmongers in order to get clicks and views, even as far back as the 1970s and 1980s. There is a documented history of the media misidentifying dog breeds, overreporting certain breed attacks, and underreporting others. That means the entire basis of your argument is not based on reality or truth because there is no reliable source. Your views are informed by media narrative that originated in the 1970s and 1980s and that has reinforced itself through folks like you repeating platitudes and anecdotes. It’s the same type of thinking that enforces racism and racist views. Actually, don’t you find it interesting that the same dogs preferred by people of color were painted as vicious beasts by the media? It’s almost like that was intentional.
Myself, I’d rather listen to experts like those at the CDC or the Humane Society, which dismiss this type of thinking.
I don’t feel like digging up the study I read a little while back, it was reviewed paper based on hospitalization data for dog bites, and I honestly don’t give a shit if you believe me because nothing will change your mind about that shit breed.
And pits contaminate every breed they touch, pit mutts are violent unpredictable shits too, and are the result of most of the non-pit attacks out there.
And fuck off with the racist claims, everyone I know who owns a pit is white as fuck.
I had half my face ripped off by a dog when I was a kid. I take dog breeds and their danger potential seriously. Some animals shouldn’t be bred anymore. Pits are one of those animals.
Everyone I know that has been severely bitten by a dog it was a pitbull owned by a white person. Fuck off this this racism dogwhistle shit. Pits are an unpredictable and dangerous breed.
My SIL got a rescue pitbull, worked with it every day and it was very well behaved. One day they came home and there was blood all over the house. It had attacked their other dog and luckily only grabed the collar which was ripped off and the tags all bent up. Dog was unrescued.
Few years later, I went to a dog park with my poodle. He sniffed a pitbulls butt and the dog whipped around and latched onto my dogs neck completely unprovoked and without warning. It took minutes and two adult men to get the pitbull off. Got lucky again and the pitbull only grabbed my dogs scruff but he still has scars years later. If it grabed just a little bit up my dog would have died.
Just a few weeks ago, me and my wife were walking down the street with our two dogs and 2.5 year old. Some dumb kids are chasing their 3 pitbulls through the streets as they got out. The loose pitbulls see our dogs from a block away and sprint at them. One runs up to my dog attempting to pick a fight immediately. I have had enough at this point and physically remove these dogs over and over until I can get the kids to control their dogs (which the never really do).
A bird dog naturally points birds. A bloodhound naturally follows scents. A cattle dog naturally corals animals (and toddlers). Is it so unbelievable that a dog fighting dog naturally fights dogs?
I go to the dog park all the time… dogs can be aggressive, but I haven’t seen it tied to breed. At my park, personally, I’ve seen aggression from Huskies, Poodles, German Shepherds, and plenty of others. I’ve also seen the most beefy muscular pit bulls that are lazy and chill and just want to lay around. The point is you can’t just look at the breed and assume the dogs demeanor. There is more to it than that. That is why breed specific bans are harmful.
If you think Chick Todd was bad, then you are pretty much a fucking idiot.
“Oooh, he didn’t zing the other guy I hate, he MUST be a hack.”
But, some people just love to hate. Usually I call them conservatives. But that’s clearly not the case here lol.
The guy tried to keep the dialogue open and not inflammatory, but sometimes that means letting the other guy says his piece, even if it is bullshit. It’s up to you, as the viewer, to make the judgement call, not the host. Unless you need to be spoonfed opinions too.
You don’t provide national exposure on a news show to flat-earthers, Nazis, or the Queen of Canada and allow them to spew their lies while nodding and grinning. Except if you’re on Fox News of course, and despite your statement about conservatives I suspect that’s where you spend your time.
Most responsible breeders don’t allow for pairings that would create it. Mostly because if they get too excited they have heart attacks- their heart can’t keep up.
It should be banned, but not because it makes dogs more violent than they otherwise would be.
IMO, the issue is purely down to their strength and ability to kill a person.
I don’t doubt their temperament is fine, but when an animal has that much power they’re a serious danger in the rare situation that they’re out of control.
I like Jack Russells, I’ve got two, if they were strong dogs and someone said they’re being banned because of it then I wouldn’t mind. Just don’t let them breed any more.
A dog’s a dog. While I have a preference, ultimately I don’t really care what breed I have.
Pugs should be banned as well. A dog’s a dog, not a fashion accessory.
Pits have an incredibly strong prey drive, and once they decide to attack something they almost never stop. So no, they don;t have the best temperament.
Pugs should be banned as well
There’s at least a retro-pug movement now that is working to breed the overly shortened snout out of pugs, and make them a healthier breed.
It’s so frustrating people don’t seem to understand that pit bulls are just terriers. If you’ve ever seen videos of small terriers working in fields and doing what they’re bred to do, you absolutely see the same behaviours in bully breeds, just magnified ten-fold.
The problem is now you’ve bred a 30lb+ dog that is pure muscle, has been specially bred from breeds with already high prey drive to be more aggressive/protective and are trying to treat it like a family dog.
I love pitties, I think they’re cute and sweet (I’ve also never met a “mean” one), but they have long passed being an “average” household breed at this rate. Years of bad/selective breeding need to be undone before they should be reevaluated and gl with that.
They were bred as family dogs first, then as hunting dogs. And decades later some people used them for fightingz and even then ones that attacked handlers were banned from fighting and often euthanized.
Read the book by the guy that originally bred them. It’s in Google Books though the name escapes me at the moment.
The issue with pugs is not that they’re evil or bad creatures, it’s that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that’s lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That’s unfair on the animal.
It’s like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down’s syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody’s saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it’s that we don’t think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.
Now for dogs it’s a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn’t very fair on those animals, but if we can’t find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.
The problem with “don’t ban them but don’t let them breed more” and allow people that have one to just carry on is you just create a potentially lucrative black market for these dogs (in fact you doing that might make them more sought after), which doesn’t actually fix any problems.
Not necessarily advocating killing animals because they’re inconvenient but ultimately if they’re going to be a problem (and it certainly seems like that’s the case) then the sooner they’re banned the less harm is inflicted overall.
Black market for dogs that shouldn’t exist anymore after 10 years? What would you do with a dog you couldn’t take out of the house? Where’s the demand? I can’t imagine pitbull junkies selling everything they own just to get one more pup either
You only allow people who already own a banned dog to keep it. After a few years it will become obvious that anybody who owns a young illegal dog must have purchased it after the ban.
I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).
So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.
I don’t think there is a proper short term solution to this problem. At least dogs don’t live forever. A gun bought now can still be used to shoot somebody in a hundred years, a pitbull, on the other hand, has an average life expectancy of 12-14 years.
That’s part of the issue. The other part is that pits are seen as an aggressive breed, so assholes who want an aggressive dog get a pit, treat it like shit, and wind up with an aggressive dog. Then, being the shit owners they are, they’re typically the ones who let their dogs run loose on the street, or dump them wherever when they become an inconvenience, so you wind up with animal shelters full of aggressive, untrained, unsocialized pits who only further the stereotype.
I find it particularly hilarious that England calls these American bully XL, while America calls them Staffordshire Terriers. Wonder which state of the US these were native to. America is well known for cultivating dog breeds over hundreds of years. England exporting shit and then relabeling it and pointing fingers is nothing new I guess.
They’re the same dog, it’s just been selectively bread for muscle mass and jaw size. Plus the assholes who breed them for that purpose like to clip the ears and doc the tails so they look more different than they should.
So they bred a dog with a dog that looks like a dog to make a dog that still looks like the dog you say? Impressive how it still looks like a more muscular version of the same dog after all that.
The breed is based on pitbulls, and has a bunch of other breeds mixed in. So they're not staffies, have never been staffies, and you're just making yourself look like a fucking moron.
What, not a fan of how the more long form detail filled history explains that they’re the same fucking dog? The cliff notes Wikipedia shit tells the whole story for sure.
“I find it particularly hilarious that England calls these American bully X”
"The American Bully Kennel Club divided the American Bully into four categories, including the XL, Pocket, Standard, and Classic, whereas other registries, including the UKC, have approved one consistent size standard.
Some people that breed dogs known for fighting and have a club for breeding fighting dogs have a bunch of sub labels for the dogs they bred? Crazy. I should start a club and make your family inbreed. I can call them things like super fatty XL.
That is very tangential. You could just admit you were wrong and that it wasn’t a British creation, name wise. Seems your ego is a little too frail for that. Sorry to see that.
I’ll let my lazy tub of lard know that she’s a “lethal danger” next time she waddles over to a new visitor shes never met and lays down with her head in their lap
Nature vs nurture my friend - we have no idea how much of that breeding actually affects their psychology. This has been debated for god only knows how long.
Some slaves were also bred for violence. So, by your own logic, we should ban all of their ancestors as well right?
Humans are not fucking dogs you degenerate cunt. Why do pointers point without being taught? Why do herding dogs herd? Millennia of selective breeding with an animal that is known for having highly adaptable genetics. Fuck right off.
Humans also do shit without being taught, wtf are you talking about? You realize humans are also animals…right?
Again, nature vs nurture is a topic that has been debated for hundreds of years. So I’m sorry, but this isn’t going to be decided in a Lemmy thread by [email protected]
Lol were they? Because I severely doubt they realized that humans aren’t anywhere near as primitive as a dog and yoy can’t just breed violence into a human like that. It takes generations of foxes to be bred to be docile, it would take 100 years or so to get any wanted result in a human.
and yoy can’t just breed violence into a human like that
Lol is that a fact? So humans just so happen to be the only species that selective breeding doesn’t affect? I think I’m going to need a source for that.
Either way, you responding to four of my comments within less than 5 minutes is a little weird.
Oh you sweet summer child you sweet and innocent summer child you have absolutely no idea do you. I guarantee you your mother was just as you were just as I was. We murdered every single other hominid. We butchered the Dezavonians and the Neanderthals. Then we committed to several hundred thousand years of warfare against the last remaining hominid, other homosapiens. We are the violence monkeys. As far as I’m aware we have only seen humans and certain other great apes commit to sustained generational warfare. Just because we stand up walk around and put on clothes and talk to each other doesn’t mean we’re not vilant unpredictable animals. It doesn’t mean we’ve lost a capacity for violence far exceeding any dogs ability.
All humans are one species. We have no breeds. Now if the government genetically modified some humans to indiscriminately murder for no reason then you could blame that “breed” of humans, yes.
Some people are responsible with guns, but I’m still comfortable with getting rid of all of them because it’s not like the guns would be hurt with that decision. They’re inanimate objects.
I’m less comfortable with putting down an entire breed of animal because some people are irresponsible assholes, and either abuse their pets or raise them to be attack dogs.
You’re assuming how this can be done. The law in the UK is that it is illegal to import or breed these dogs. You can implement legislation in which dogs can live out their lives and eventually it ain’t a problem.
Of course, I am not willing to watch children and old people getting mauled because you care about violent dogs designed to kill. Kill 'em like they kill me burgers…
because you care about violent dogs designed to kill
As I pointed out in another comment, we don’t know that this is how this works. Nature vs nurture isn’t some no brainer just because it’s about something you don’t like.
But regardless, no thank you. I don’t want any animal to be artificially driven to extinction because people are horrible and thus raise them horribly.
Claiming ignorance to avoid solving a problem is weak or deceptive.
These dogs are bred to be strong. To kill. They don’t belong in homes and society near children. They should never have been bred in the first place nor imported, but that happened, so gotta deal with it.
People buy these dogs to be intimidating. Compensating for something, I expect. If people are licensed and can prove training, fine, keep them, but if they have already been raised bad, it’s probably too late and too risky. A school girls runs past, and bam, disfigured.
Claiming ignorance?? Are you saying that you, despite hundreds of years of debate, have solved the problem of nature vs nurture? Wtf?
These dogs are bred to be strong. To kill. They don’t belong in homes and society near children
And as I said in another comment, so were some slaves. Should their descendants not be allowed in homes and society near children? That’d be insane. That’s not how anything works. Breeding can affect your physical attributes, but we have no idea how much it affects individuals psychologically.
People buy these dogs to be intimidating. Compensating for something, I expect
Exactly, so those people raise them to be viscous. So they end up being viscous. If they were raised in a loving household this wouldn’t be the case, but because of their reputation they’re far more likely to end up in abusive households, or raised to be attack dogs. It’s a viscous cycle.
To save dogs, you would advocate killing the children of slaves? The lengths you’ll go…
I know the debate about nature vs nurture and it’s relevant in some debates. Not this one. People do not have lions and tigers as pets. Some zoo owners probably feel they’re passive with the right ownership. Doesn’t make owning them good and sensible. If people cannot act sensibly (and they won’t), legislation has to kick in.
It is a viscious cycle, and I dont disagree that owners are part of the problem. Shrugging and going “ah well” doesn’t fix the problem. Doing nothing gives owners almost the legal freedom to use their dogs to kill folk and get away with it.
To save dogs, you would advocate killing the children of slaves? The lengths you’ll go…
…wtf are you talking about? I’m saying that if we follow your logic then that’d be what we’d have to do. I literally called it insane. Maybe reflect on it.
Not this one
That’s literally what this entire debate is about, whether selective breeding can actually affect a living thing psychologically enough to turn them into a killing machine. There is no argument more relevant here than nature vs nurture. Are you trolling?
Shrugging and going “ah well” doesn’t fix the problem
You’re right, we need a solution. Maybe for more powerful dogs people would need to get a license. But if I had to guess lots of people aren’t immediately looking for solutions because they’re so busy trying to stop an entire breed of dog from being wrongfully put down.
Do owners currently get jailed for their dogs actions? If not, they should. That may help deter people from getting “attack dogs”, at least a little.
Your logic was insane and misplaced. We weren’t talking about descendants. It was a weird logical reach.
This whole debate is about an 11 year old girl and 2 men that got mauled after she ran past a dog and got attacked. This debate is about safety and whether these dogs should be allowed as pets. You may want to shift the debate and move the goalposts, but no way is it justifiable.
If the people defending the breed of dogs aren’t going to bother coming up with solutions, their views won’t be taken seriously. A young girl got attacked here. A 10 year old got killed 2 years ago. A middle aged lady a few months ago in the UK. Dog attacks in Britain have quadrupled and this breed of dog is the largest perpetrator. If you are advocating maintaining the status quo, you are advocating for more deaths.
I agree they should be jailed and dog owners of many breeds should be licensed.
When something was created by humans to be a weapon yes, you compare them to guns. It’s like comparing a dog that was bred for eating grass to a lawnmower because their traits were bred into it to provide them with a certain function, in this case being a dangerous weapon.
A lot of people don’t understand early socialization and strict training is needed for ANY breed.
Regarding my own experience, Akitas and Chows were the most aggressive breed I’ve ever come across. I have never seen Pits/Staffies/Bully breeds (whatever you want to call them) in an aggressive manner - if they were aggressive, I’d love to know what type of training the owner offered them.
Breed specific legislation should be banned everywhere as it is in more than 20 states… as recommended by the CDC and the Humane society. Everyone on here fearmongering about specific dog breeds are just showing their own ignorance and that their own views on the topic are still informed by racist media reporting from the 1980s.
Yes we ended up with a dog that was dumped on us, she sure looks pit, and has such a sweet nature. Is curious and gentle with the cats, plays well with our other dog. But she is strong as fuck, so we train her not to approach the door, not to greet anyone until we say so, give her plenty of exercise and a firm understanding of her place in the household - that she is not protecting us, we are protecting her. I’ve only had big dogs before and we train her as though she is twice her size because in strength she is twice her size. I will say, she is much more responsive to training than her “sister”, despite the reputation. We would not have chosen this dog but certainly not going to kill her for simply existing.
I’ve been bitten a few times by dogs and most of those bites were from Chows. I despise and have learned to keep my distance from that breed. The blacker the tongue, the blacker the heart.
Every single one of been around was extremely aggressive and they were bery much spoiled, loved, and owned by people who had the money to do so. And the money to pay for legal fees. At least a German shepherd will take to training. Pits for a while wwre thought of having problems with their brains not fitting in their skulls because of how they would all start ok but then became aggressive and unpredictable as if their brains were being damaged by outgrowing their skulls. Obviously this is idiotic but it’s so prevalent that these dogs flip a switch and explode that myths were built around them.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.