There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Bohurt ,

Cultural question to Brits as this happened in UK. Do people care if their dog attacks someone or is highly agressive to humans in UK?

By what I’ve heard from my friends, dog owners often put the blame on attacked/harassed passers-by, they don’t feel accountable for their wrongdoings (i.e. not using leash and not paying attention to where their dog is and what is it doing).

Urbanfox ,

Over here, especially in urban areas, it’s expected that your dog doesn’t approach others. Aggressive behaviour doesn’t fly. Aggressive dogs on lead are accepted if the owner has complete control, but anything beyond that isn’t ok.

Bohurt ,

Thanks for feedback. My friend had numerous occasions where he ended up with dog attacking him in parks in urban areas, this is why I’m curious about it. They’re affraid of the dogs in general so situations like this make them anxious for next days. From their experience, dog owners were often behaving like real twats even in clear situations such as being bitten by a free running large dog(s)without close supervision.

UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN OP ,

If you live around the estates and poorer areas you can find lots of people with big dogs cooped up in small flats (apartments). There is a culture now of “my dog has rights” or “I can do what I want” whenever these people are challenged about their abusive or neglectful behaviour. The Police used to tackle these owners but gave up caring years ago (they did the same with traffic and as with dog attacks the KSIs have massively risen there too).

If someone does get bitten most owners do tend to blame the victim in my experience. “You shouted/waved your arms/ran!” etc etc.

Bohurt ,

Thanks for the feedback. This is exactly what I’ve been hearing from friends that had problems with dogs in UK. They usually described this issue as dog having more rights to do whatever it wants than people.

Floey ,

Ban the breeding of all dogs.

hglman ,

As in selectively or sterilize all dogs?

Alduin ,

As in don’t own and operate puppy mills. Don’t play doctor Frankenstein with your dogs and create abominations. Don’t forcibly impregnate dogs to make them pregnant.

The world of dog breeding is terrible and needs to end. Not the world of dogs just like…casually making puppies. That’s fine.

PutangInaMo ,

So then we just let them loose to procreate on their own? Or you saying we should just let the breeds humans create die out, and let the wolves thrive naturally in our society?

TechnoWarden ,

Yes, we loose them to procreate on their own. “Pure-breeding” often leads to many genetical defects. Dog breeds are not genetically distant enough to he considered species; “mutts” are real dogs.

PutangInaMo ,

I think that’s an even worse idea. It wasn’t always a good thing, but those dogs have bad traits that we are aware of, and know how to fix through proper fixing dames to studs. We can systematically remove problem breeds that way so that they are healthy, well rounded dog breeds created by a design to undo all of the errors of designer dogs and stupid ass “dog trainers” for fighting has done.

NuPNuA ,

Good breeders know to keep their genetic stock wider and look out for resessive traits, etc. They’re not the same as puppy farms.

Floey ,

I’m not against sterilization or adoption, just breeding.

Pipoca ,

Puppy mills are terrible. As is breeding brachycephalic dogs like pugs, or particularly inbred breeds.

But working dogs are usually part of a deliberate breeding program for a reason. Seeing Eye, for example, breeds their guide dogs specially. You don’t put random mutts in the Iditarod, nor would you use them as livestock guardians or to herd sheep. That breeding program might or might not involve purebreds, but it definitely involves breeding healthy dogs to purpose.

More to the point, though, what’s wrong with someone getting a couple performance titles on a purebred dog, health testing it, and breeding it to another titled, health tested dog that’s as distantly related as possible?

asteriskeverything ,

I feel like you missed the point of the person you’re replying to or maybe replied to the wrong one?

Puppy mills that are for profit and abuse animals are not even close to the market you’re talking about. Seeing eye dogs make great sense for breeding purposes since a person’s life can literally depend on it. Actually both of your examples are when a dog isnt a pet first, their primary role is a job. Those aren’t puppy mill type dogs. Seeing eye dogs are probably not going to be from irresponsible backyard breeders. Work dogs are probably from word of mouth in communities that need them.

Pipoca ,

The world of dog breeding is terrible and needs to end. Not the world of dogs just like…casually making puppies. That’s fine.

That doesn’t say “only puppy mills need to end”, but that all dog breeding needs to end because puppy mills are shitty, and we should just have casual oops litters instead.

Floey ,

So you think puppy mills are terrible but using and abusing dogs for their labor is perfectly fine? You really supporting Iditarod?

Pipoca ,

Abusing dogs for labor? No, I don’t agree with that.

Merely using dogs for labor? That’s fine.

Work is mentally simulating and enjoyable for many breeds of dog. A border collie who actually gets to herd sheep is going to have a lot more fun that day than one who just sat on the couch.

Huskies love running. This past March, a rookie fell off his sled and his team ran the 18 miles to the next station without him.

There’s a reason why tons of dog owners do sportified versions of dog jobs for fun.

NuPNuA ,

What about dying breeds like English Setters? Like pandas they need some encouragement or assistance or they’ll die out all together? Given what a good boy my mum’s English is, I say preservation of the breed is worth it.

UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN OP ,

A good idea when you consider bulldogs and boxer health conditions.

Reddit_Is_Trash ,

First UK bans guns, then knives, now big dogs… what are you supposed to protect yourself with?

CamWiseOwl ,

Plastic bags and the element of surprise

SnipingNinja ,

Plastic bags are bad for the environment, banned too

masterspace , (edited )

A garrote made with reclaimed wood handles and green-hydrogen steel cabling from a unionized factory.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

Since when should you be able to buy a dog as a defensive weapon?

Dogs raised as violent tools are explicitly the source of this problem.

Reddit_Is_Trash ,

Dogs are THE biggest detereant to home invasions

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

You don’t need to abuse a dog in to mauling people’s faces in order for it to act as a deterrent. Nor, again, should a dog be a burglar alarm first and foremost.

Elric ,

You are why they ban them. They aren’t supposed to be weapons…

JokeDeity ,

Every dog is a reflection of it’s owner. Every time this debate comes up I just think how incredibly dumb these people are. Punish the dog fighters and abusers. People can make any breed aggressive and dangerous.

OskarAxolotl ,

There are still differences between breeds. Some are naturally less aggressive than others (or a physically incapable of causing much harm) even when not properly trained. Statistics show that pitbulls are extremely overrepresented in unprovoked attacks with major consequences.

jeremy_sylvis , (edited )
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Are they perhaps also over-represented in ownership by dipshits tending toward incredibly aggressive behavior and/or other scumminess?

An overrepresentation highlights nothing more than an anomaly we should seek to understand; on its own it’s nowhere near sufficient for a conclusion.

OskarAxolotl ,

Possible but unlikely. Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. It just lays in their nature.

And even if that was the case, banning a strong breed physically capable of causing lifelong disfigurement or even death could still help reducing the amount of incidents.

I’m obviously not asking for all pitbulls to be euthanized. I’m just asking for them not being allowed to reproduce.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Do you have any actual science to support such an assertion, or is it just the infinite wisdom of anecdote? By way of anecdote, I’ve had far nastier experiences with retrievers than pitbulls or bulldogs.

You seem to be sliding right past the previous commenter’s point regarding assholes moving to the next trainable big scary and perpetuating the problem with German Shepherds.

I’d accept a reproduction restriction on pitbulls if it also applied to everyone participating in this wedge issue from some undeserved high horse.

OskarAxolotl ,

No need to get personal. I don’t know what anecdotes you are talking about. Are you disagreeing with my assertion that certain breeds of dogs naturally exhibit certain traits? If not, then wouldn’t it be much more of an anomaly if a breed that was bred for fighting didn’t also possess appropriate traits? I do not have any studies to back up my statements, so I have not completely ruled out the possibility that there is no genetic basis, just found it unlikely.

Moreover, the same is true, of course, for any other dog breed that becomes a systematic problem.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Are you disagreeing with my assertion that certain breeds of dogs naturally exhibit certain traits?

I’m calling out your use of it just lays in their nature as some sort of objective truth, yes. Feel free to support the notion. I suspect you’ll at best be able to highlight a minor correlation between some breeds and certain behaviors, if that.

If not, then wouldn’t it be much more of an anomaly if a breed that was bred for fighting didn’t also possess appropriate traits?

I’m not sure how “bred for X” is particularly relevant to your assertion that “X will Y”. The motivation for seeking to bring about a given change does not lend any validity to whether or not that change exists.

That aside, feel free to highlight traits unique to the conflated amalgamation of breeds known as pitbull.

I do not have any studies to back up my statements, so I have not completely ruled out the possibility that there is no genetic basis, just found it unlikely.

Don’t you think you should?

Moreover, the same is true, of course, for any other dog breed that becomes a systematic problem.

Has it become a “systematic problem”? I’m curious as to how you’ve drawn that conclusion. Media sensationalism does not a problem make.

OskarAxolotl ,

I’m calling out your use of it just lays in their nature as some sort of objective truth, yes. Feel free to support the notion.

I never claimed it was an objective truth, I just believe it to be likely. Breeding is used to reinforce desired traits and I see no reason to believe that ‘inherent aggressiveness’ can’t be bred.

I’m not sure how “bred for X” is particularly relevant to your assertion that “X will Y”.

Again, likelihood. It’s possible that humans were ineffective at achieving their goal of breeding an aggressive dog for fighting but reality gives me no reason to doubt it.

Don’t you think you should?

There is neither concrete evidence for or against it. Again, I came to my conclusion by applying the same logic I apply to other bred traits.

Has it become a “systematic problem”? I’m curious as to how you’ve drawn that conclusion. Media sensationalism does not a problem make.

Judging by the statistics, it has. Pitbulls are responsible for 65.6% of reported attacks in the US, yet only make up 6% of all dogs. Whether that’s the fault of the dog or poor training from the owner doesn’t change the fact that it is a systematic problem.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

I never claimed it was an objective truth, I just believe it to be likely.

“Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. It just lays in their nature.” These are assertions with no room for ambiguity or compromise… unsupported assertions, at that. You use them as if they’re some sort of objective truth - you do not state you think shepherds do not need to be taught to herd.

Again, likelihood. It’s possible that humans were ineffective at achieving their goal of breeding an aggressive dog for fighting but reality gives me no reason to doubt it.

Unfortunately, “likelihood” really cut it in rendering a motivation for a thing relevant. A reminder, the criticism wasn’t that humans are ineffective but rather that I’m not sure how “bred for X” is particularly relevant to your assertion that “X will Y”. - that intent is irrelevant to the action and its impact or validity.

There is neither concrete evidence for or against it. Again, I came to my conclusion by applying the same logic I apply to other bred traits.

Sweeping generalizations born out of explicit ignorance… nifty.

Of note, you still ignore the criticism of the validity of bred traits as relates to actual behavior, particularly relevant as the previous commenter’s point regarding assholes moving to the next-best breed still applies. You do nothing about the behavior of shitheads in seeking to develop insert dog breed into an aggressive fighter suitable to the same tasks.

Judging by the statistics, it has. Pitbulls are responsible for 65.6% of reported attacks in the US, yet only make up 6% of all dogs. Whether that’s the fault of the dog or poor training from the owner doesn’t change the fact that it is a systematic problem.

Firstly, I’ve already highlighted the issues with the over-representation in stats, a thing you just kind of seem to keep ignoring -

“Are they perhaps also over-represented in ownership by dipshits tending toward incredibly aggressive behavior and/or other scumminess?

An overrepresentation highlights nothing more than an anomaly we should seek to understand; on its own it’s nowhere near sufficient for a conclusion.”

Secondly, I’m curious as to what system you believe this problem is related to, along with how the fault of … poor training from the owner would somehow uniquely reflect on the dog.

Nobsi ,
@Nobsi@feddit.de avatar

No, Pitbulls are specifically bred to be aggressive.
You cannot train a pitbull out of being a pitbull.

dingleberry ,

How about we talk of things in our control first.

BeautifulMind ,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

I can see an argument for the proposition that maybe we don’t need dogs that are big and powerful enough to injure or kill people.

But, I take claims about how a breed “is gentle” with an entire ocean of salt- individual dogs might be calm and well-trained or socialized, it’s the ones churned out of puppy mills to be sold at top dollar to shitty people who want a tough, scary dog that seem to be sketchy.

I’ve been around lots of well-adjusted big dogs that are just big hunks of love and slobbery affection, but really I hate seeing stories about how some dog that “is a good boy” mauled a child and if I had my druthers, dog owners would be required to carry liability insurance proportionate to the dog’s size or bite force or some factor correlating to its breed, and to the dog owner’s income or wealth. Oh, that would make big, dangerous dogs too expensive to own? Maybe they should be.

Loudambiance ,

It would also put an undue burden on people who need larger dogs for medical reasons...

Themadwizardspeaks ,

Genuine question, not trying to be said, but what medical reasons necessitate a large dog?

nbafantest ,

A lot of guide dogs are larger, so they line up with the persons hand. Poodles, yellow/golden labs etc

Cooldude378 ,

It would be pretty easy to make an exception for those cases

jon ,

Yep, exactly. We already have exceptions for these dogs now in many cases.

crapwittyname ,

Its not really about the size, though. These dogs have been bred to have a trait called “gameness”, which is prized in fighting dogs, because it means they will disregard exhaustion, injury and all other distractions when in aggressive mode. They don’t let go, ever. Where most dogs, even big ones like German shepherds or rottweilers, will bite and tear and then let go and usually retreat, bull terriers will not stop until they or the prey are dead or incapacitated. Sometimes they will continue to attack even when their prey has stopped moving. That’s why these dogs are dangerous. Any dog can snap and attack. Yes, even your auntie’s 17-year old Bassett hound. Any dog. But when a bull terrier snaps it’s potentially life threatening.

hglman ,

I had a rescue pitbull he was a nice hog but when he switched into that game mindset he was dangerous to everyone including me.

PutangInaMo ,

That’s an untrained dog, sorry.

PutangInaMo ,

Well to start, your answer is in their name; terrier.

If a jack Russell was the size of a small pit, lol oh God that thing would be unstoppable.

asteriskeverything ,

I think this is what so many people miss from both sides of the argument. I don’t think pits are naturally violent or aggressive dogs, someone further down talks about how they were originally bred to be loyal family dogs and that makes a lot of sense to me with the pit bulls I’ve known in life. I’m sure for many others as well.

The problem is that when they do bite it has potential to be more dangerous and deadly than other common breeds. On top of that they are like alligators and lock their jaw, and some of the breeds are extremely muscular too. No dog owner should ever consider “bad” or dangerous behavior to be impossible for their pet. Respect you own a breed that has the potential to be deadly if anything goes wrong. That really actually should probably go for most larger dogs too.

But ffs can we stop acting like the 10s of pit bull dogs attacks a year in a country filled with hundreds of them mean the breed itself is bad and violent? Dogs snap. When this breed does it makes the news.

Zonetrooper ,
@Zonetrooper@lemmy.world avatar

Hate to tell you this, but ‘locking jaw’ in any breed is a myth. There’s no such thing; ‘lockjaw’ is a bacterial infection, but has no relationship to breed (and in any case, won’t result in the jaw locking only after a bite).

Source: thesmartcanine.com/pitbull-lockjaw/

asteriskeverything ,

Oh! That’s fascinating thank you!! I’ll read the link when I have the time but I always appreciate learning something new, it is especially fun when it’s about common myths.

panda_paddle ,

It’s a metaphorical lock jaw. For instance, most dogs will let go when being attacked in the face and eyes. Pits will not. This ability to continue a hold, even in the face of danger is what people mean by jaw locking. So yes, it absolutely exists.

ryathal ,

In the US most home insurance policies charge more or require and additional rider for some breeds of dog because of the increased liability. If you have a “dangerous breed” and don’t notify your insurance company, you might not have the liability insurance you thought you did.

PutangInaMo ,

I had only pits when we got our insurance and they were not an issue.

Not saying it doesn’t happen. When we rented we had to find places that would allow the breed.

Edit: breed was never an issue with renters insurance either.

ToxicWaste ,

The problem is not the dogs size. A Golden Retriever is about the same size as an American Bulldog (bitches usually a bit taller). The problem is which type of people a breed tends to attract. Retrievers are considered a nice cuddly family dog, bulldogs are seen as aggressive protection dogs.

However a retriever can be a dangerous dog and very able to kill humans if trained the wrong way. Protection dogs need to be trained to the highest degree, never go for the throat and immediately release on command.

Urbanfox ,

I have a lab. She’s 30kg and the textbook “good girl” - a decent depiction of the breed standard.

I got her because her terperment was semi predicted in line with her breed, but I still have public liability insurance and don’t let her approach kids because she’s still a dog.

Skkorm ,

Pitbull isn’t a breed, it’s a colloquialism that is used as a catch-all for any breed with a certain look. They’re either American bullys, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs, or a mix of these breeds. If you aren’t collecting separate data for each of these breeds individually, then the best we can do is divide the total number of bites between those breeds by 5.

Dog breeds are defined separately for a reason, you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes who buy dogs only to isolate and ignore and/or mistreat them, will just choose the next most aggressive breed, then treat them the same. Statistically, that will mean that German shepherds will be the next banned breed, as they routinely come up as the second most deadly specific breed of dog. Say goodbye to your GS.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes … will just choose the next most aggressive breed

This is the same problem behind attempts to “solve” firearm violence through arbitrary bans and has strong parallels in ongoing knee-jerk reactions and other clout-chasing behavior in response to any events.

At the end of the day, we aren’t going to see any improvement in either until we assess the assholes part of the equation.

masterspace ,

Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.

Like, firearm bans do objectively work at reducing gun violence, and banning pitbulls would reduce the average severity and rate of dog bites.

They’re not root cause solutions but if your root cause solution is to just not have any more irresponsible assholes in the world then you might want to rethink your problem space.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.

It really is.

You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues while sliding by the callouts of lack of data/fact behind your assertion even aside from the poor reasoning itself, all while trying to mount your own high horse.

It’s peak clown behavior.

masterspace ,

You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues

I recognize that you’re the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause when the root cause is infeasible to address (like people occasionally becoming unhinged).

Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.

DarthBueller ,

Right. The UK has mass stabbings instead of mass shootings. I’d rather have a mass stabbing epidemic than what we’ve got.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

I’d rather have a mass stabbing epidemic than what we’ve got.

Interestingly enough, when one addresses the root issues - the motivations and pressures behind the violence - you end up with neither mass shootings nor mass stabbings… which is the point.

I’d rather not only care that violence is done by X implement - I’d rather we do something about the violence, categorically. Incidentally, this would have the side benefit of, say, improving lives.

adrian783 ,

by the logic then rocket launcher and high explosives would be legal.

Bartsbigbugbag ,

They are legal.

masterspace , (edited )

Except that the root cause of gun violence is that the human brain is inherently fallible and didn’t evolve to own point and click murder devices.

You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.

The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.

You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.

By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?

“People increasingly experience desperate extremes and surprise surprise you get more desperate actions” is both a more reasonable, rational fit and actually tied to reality.

The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.

It’s similarly absurd to pretend that the only relevant difference between the United States and pick a country is the presence of firearms.

masterspace , (edited )

“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.

The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership? You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?

Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.

By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?

Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership?

“Track with”? Did you mean poorly correlate with?

You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?

I’m still waiting for support for the first absurd assertion and you’ve gone and added another.

Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.

Oh, my - and now you’ve got to support the absurd notion that humanity only evolved for violence by hands despite our use of tools generally being considered a unique and crucial evolutionary advantage. It’s ironic that your criticize understanding while demonstrating your own shortcomings.

Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.

I’m not sure how a direct criticism of your argument’s flaws is somehow weaseling. I’m getting the impression you don’t understand what correlation even is, let alone whether or not it serves to prove causation.

Also, lol “track with”

masterspace , (edited )

I’m still waiting for support for the first absurd assertion and you’ve gone and added another.

It’s the same assertion, rephrased, but I know reading can be difficult

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause

Not really, no. You can take action to address symptoms… but those don’t do anything about the problem. For example, you can take myriad pain relievers to feel less shitty about a cold - addressing the symptoms - but the problem is still there, unaddressed.

Firearm violence is no different. Pitbulls are no different.

Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.

First, let’s highlight the obvious issue - Human breeding is largely a narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the least intelligent ones.

Second, your irrational fear of a thing does not justify restrictions on that thing.

masterspace ,

Not really, no. You can take action to address symptoms… but those don’t do anything about the problem. For example, you can take myriad pain relievers to feel less shitty about a cold - addressing the symptoms - but the problem is still there, unaddressed

Yes, when the root problem is unaddressable, like in the case of a cold virus or say, HIV, we instead treat the symptoms as the next best option… so when the root problem of gun violence is 'people having moments of unhingedness" or the root cause of doog attacks is “people being bad dog owners” things that are just statistical realities of the human race that you’ll never be able to eliminate, then you treat the symptoms to make them less severe.

Again, this is why America is the only western country in the world where the number one cause of death for children is gun violence.

First, let’s highlight the obvious issue - Human breeding is largely a narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the least intelligent ones.

Yes we do, read any of the past century of the history of eugenics and youll see the horrible outcomes that result when you try to prevent it.

Second, your irrational fear of a thing does not justify restrictions on that thing.

Again, you’re the only country where people are regularly mass murdered. It is absolutely insane how fucking deluded you are. You can see literally orders of magnitude more western people looking at your children getting slaughtered for no reason but go ‘nope, Merica always the best, never wrong about anything, no mistakes in our history of decision making’. Like Jesus fucking Christ, gain an ounce or thimble or whatever dumbass unit you use full of perspective and self doubt.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

when the root problem is unaddressable

when the root problem of gun violence is 'people having moments of unhingedness"

And here’s where the statement falls apart - you’ve provided nothing showing the root causes of firearm violence to be unaddressable. Heck, specific to mass shootings, the problems - including “unhingedness” - are very well-understood and very addressable. Specific to aggressive dogs, the common theme raised in these discussions - especially in criticism of this breed-behavior nonsense - is that the person behind the dog is the problem. I’m interested in hearing how you see that as unaddressable.

Again, this is why America is the only western country in the world where the number one cause of death for children is gun violence.

Would that be the NEJM study which directly recognizes the reasons for such an anomaly are unclear in the same breath it recognizes the overlap with the time of crisis and desperation (hmm, where have we seen that before…) that was the COVID-19 pandemic as if to highlight an explanation, ignores that there were other significantly more severe increases in causes of child deaths (e.g. drug overdose and poisoning), intentionally combines suicide and homicide as if they’re the same, and generally disregards everything in favor of a single distilled talking point? One that specifically avoids asking why and exploring the anomaly?

Worry not, Pew Research explored the anomaly somewhat - of note:

  • “Boys, for example, accounted for 83% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021. Girls accounted for 17%.”
  • "Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021"
  • “Racial and ethnic differences in gun deaths among kids are stark. In 2021, 46% of all gun deaths among children and teens involved Black victims, even though only 14% of the U.S. under-18 population that year was Black. Much smaller shares of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 involved White (32%), Hispanic (17%) and Asian (1%) victims.”
  • “There are also major racial and ethnic differences in the types of gun deaths involving children and teens. In 2021, a large majority of gun deaths involving Black children and teens (84%) were homicides, while 9% were suicides. Among White children and teens, by contrast, the majority of gun deaths (66%) were suicides, while a much smaller share (24%) were homicides.”

I wonder if there are, say, any long-standing inequality issues regarding opportunity & desperation between some of these demographics, issues which may be thematically similar with observations raised of mass shootings… Nah, it’s gotta be what the headline said.

Yes we do, read any of the past century of the history of eugenics and youll see the horrible outcomes that result when you try to prevent it.

I see the irony here flew right by you. You’re entirely okay eradicating an entire breed of a living thing because you’re angry with it / scared of it / just don’t like it, but balk at humanity having done the same before to its own? Interesting.

It is absolutely insane how fucking deluded you are.

Had you actually addressed a point anywhere in this conversation, I’d have given that some consideration.

You can see literally orders of magnitude more western people looking at your children getting slaughtered for no reason but go ‘nope, Merica always the best, never wrong about anything, no mistakes in our history of decision making’.

Quite the opposite - we, instead, seek to solve underlying issues rather than only caring how the violence occurred. You could learn a thing or two from seeking to improve lives. Also, never wrong about anything? Lmao.

masterspace ,

I see the irony here flew right by you. You’re entirely okay eradicating an entire breed of a living thing because you’re angry with it / scared of it / just don’t like it, but balk at humanity having done the same before to its own? Interesting.

Eliminating a breed of domestic animal that we created for own purposes by not killing them but just not actively breeding them anymore, is not the same thing as eugenics.

Read some fucking history before making dumbass comments like that.

Had you actually addressed a point anywhere in this conversation, I’d have given that some consideration.

Lol, you just through out of a bunch of bullshit to muddy the water

Quite the opposite - we, instead, seek to solve underlying issues rather than only caring how the violence occurred.

Bruh, you have metal detectors in every single fucking school and useless cops with guns harassing children in the hallway, shut the fuck up about addressing the “root problems”. You’re treating the symptoms the same as every country, you just have your hands cuffed by your dumbass 200 year old constitution that prevents you from treating the effective system that every other country treats.

Go ahead and tell me, how many mass casualty incidents were there at UK schools last year? Now how many at American schools?

You literally live in the ONLY country on earth where there are regular school shootings, but noooooooo, the difference there couldn’t possibly be that you’re also the only nation on earth with unrestricted firearms being purchasable by anyone. Totally unrelated things!

You’re honestly being so fucking stupid it hurts. Enjoy your next Trump presidency and further slide into shit. Dumbassery like “guns are good! They help people” when your children literally have gun violence as their number one cause of death is flat out embarrassing.

jeremy_sylvis , (edited )
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

liminating a breed of domestic animal that we created for own purposes by not killing them but just not actively breeding them anymore, is not the same thing as eugenics.

Biased selective breeding quite literally is eugenics. Try picking up a dictionary sometime.

Bruh, you have metal detectors in every single fucking school and useless cops with guns harassing children in the hallway, shut the fuck up about addressing the “root problems”. You’re treating the symptoms the same as every country, you just have your hands cuffed by your dumbass 200 year old constitution that prevents you from treating the effective system that every other country treats.

More bland hyperbole? Neat.

Lol, you just through out of a bunch of bullshit to muddy the water

Projection, from you? No way! One of us is operating entirely on bullshit, I agree - but it isn’t me.

Go ahead and tell me, how many mass casualty incidents were there at UK schools last year? Now how many at American schools?

You literally live in the ONLY country on earth where there are regular school shootings, but noooooooo, the difference there couldn’t possibly be that you’re also the only nation on earth with unrestricted firearms being purchasable by anyone. Totally unrelated things!

Ah - and there it is, the pretense there’s only one singular difference between the two countries that are otherwise complete identical copies of each other so as to conclusively show there are no other factors to the violence issues, right on cue - true to form, in rant form and dodging one more by criticisms raised.

You’re honestly being so fucking stupid it hurts. Enjoy your next Trump presidency and further slide into shit. Dumbassery like “guns are good! They help people” when your children literally have gun violence as their number one cause of death is flat out embarrassing.

The irony, once more, seems entirely lost on you.

masterspace ,

Ah - and there it is, the pretense there’s only one singular difference between the two countries that are otherwise complete identical copies of each other so as to conclusively show there are no other factors to the violence issues, right on cue - true to form, in rant form and dodging one more by criticisms raised.

Lmao, you’re right, the denial and cognitive dissonance that Americans have to live with every day would drive anyone to the breaking point

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

It’s fortunate, then, that we only have to live with your cognitive dissonance and denial through your disingenuous shitposting on the internet, and that despite your fearmongering and other sensationalism, such breaking points are still pretty rare.

masterspace ,

Enjoy your children being massacred on a regular basis. We won’t.

Pipoca ,

I think his point is that keeping guns broadly but e.g. banning “assault” weapons doesn’t keep people safe.

In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.

Compare that to the much broader restrictions in Australian or British gun laws, and it’s no surprise why you still have many, many more mass shootings in NY.

masterspace , (edited )

In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.

I would argue that the primary driver of that ineffectiveness is not the fact that they’re trying to ban specific types of guns, but that all of those things are completely legal in neighbouring or nearby jurisdictions with no border controls between them. It wouldn’t solve the whole gun violence problem but if America as a whole banned them I think you would see much more of an effect than just a singular state.

Pipoca ,

Look at last year’s mass shooting in Buffalo, where a racist drove halfway across the state to shoot up a grocery store in a black neighborhood. He shot 12 people, including a “good guy with a gun” that the NRA claims stops attacks like that.

He had bought his rifle legally in NYS, but went across the border to PA to buy 30 round magazines, which are illegal in NY.

Having access to 20 more rounds per mag than NY’s max certainly didn’t help things, but that terrorist attack would probably still have happened if NYs laws were nation wide.

The problem is both that location-specific gun control is ineffective because you can just go a state/city over, and that passing effective gun control even in a state like NY is almost impossible.

PutangInaMo ,

Man you nailed it, in today’s world. But there definitely was an American pitbull breed and there still is but all these designer and backyard breeders fucked it all up. It’s been a while since I’ve looked into this but either the AKC or UKC would list them officially.

theKalash ,

I’m kind of surpised these pests weren’t banned in the UK, yet. The usually love banning stuff.

JokeDeity ,

You seem like a pest, let’s ban you.

erranto ,

A dog is a dog, and they all have some serious ability to do harm in the face of a weaker opponent like children or the elderly, there needs to be laws to make the owners liable for any damage caused and make them get time for it. that way owner will be more responsible. or discourage them from getting dogs in the first place

UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN OP ,

I dont know why you’re getting so downvoted. You’re basically talking about something we’d expect in anything else that needs health and safety laws (eg when walking past scafolding, or having a handrail on a staircase). We used to have dog licensing in this country. I’m not that authoritarian in my ideologies, but I can see some real benefits in having such a scheme back, but also going further as having mandatory training, Police checks on security, etc… if not for the safety of the dog to prevent neglect. I remember seeing dogs neglected badly back on the estates in the 80s. It was fucking awful and its bad that it still goes on. Relying on private prosecution by people like the RSPCA isnt really appropriate when talking about life.

13esq ,

Bengal cats ought to be banned too. They’re wild animals, not domesticated pets.

Crashumbc ,

I mean that picture wasn’t chosen intentionally…

Reality is pitties are a protection breed like GSDs, Rotties, dobermans.

The main difference is those breeds are expensive. Pits have become the poster child for uncontrolled breeding among people who often specifically raise them to be aggressive. They are probably by FAR the most populous breed in cities in the US. It’s easy to have the most dog attacks when you’re the most popular bread.

I honestly don’t think most pits are any more dangerous than any large bread. And banning pits isn’t going to help the issue. Which is the people raising them to be aggressive and breeding them uncontrollably. They’ll just switch to another breed.

Tatters , (edited )

This story is about the UK not the US. Pitbulls have been banned in the UK since 1991. There are not many pitbulls in the UK. Although the American XL Bully is closely related to the pitbull, it is not currently banned, but that may soon change.

bobman ,

They are probably by FAR the most populous breed in cities in the US.

I’d love to know what your source for this information is.

Crashumbc ,

Open the website for any city shelter. Get back to me.

Knowing full well I’m going to get trounced for not having “facts” the reality is there are no statistics. Even the shelters themselves refuse to keep track because of the stigma involved for pits. They use terms like “mixed breed” and “unknown”. I can say 90% of the dogs in my local city shelters are all at least a fair amount of one of the Pit breeds. As a long time involved member of the dog rescue community.

“It’s not a pitbull until it bites someone” could be a unwritten rule.

WldFyre ,

The fact that pit bulls have more difficulty than other breeds in finding a home doesn’t really work in your favor lol

phoneymouse ,

Shhhh, people would prefer to be emotional about this topic and base their views on anecdotes and media fearmongering. Please take your reason and logic elsewhere.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

I don’t write off a whole breed, but I will say that my niece got her face seriously ripped up by a pit bull, and I have a friend who raised a pit bull from a puppy, devoted thousands of dollars and professional hours into her training and socialization, and she still bit someone simply for entering her house. I am leery of the breed.

Tavarin ,
@Tavarin@lemmy.ca avatar

Everyone I know who has been bit by a dog it was either a pitbull, pit mix, or chihuahua. And I’m not exactly worried about the severity of a chihuahua bite.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

I was bitten by an English bull terrier puppy. So now you know someone else.

Tavarin ,
@Tavarin@lemmy.ca avatar

Bull terrier

You mean the breed that pitbulls were made out of?

Also puppies are a lot less of a worry than grown dogs.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

No English bull terriers are smaller, not the American kind.

Tavarin ,
@Tavarin@lemmy.ca avatar

Pitbulls were bred from bull terriers to be a bigger version. So it’s not surprising a different breed of terrier is also prone to biting.

Ataraxia ,

Lol sane. No warning. No reason. Actually bit me pretty badly too.

citable6704 ,

I got bit by an English mastiff. That wasn’t a fun experience at 6.

PetDinosaurs ,

There’s a reason to tolerate Chihuahua, cat, or other small animal bites. They cannot kill a child.

Reddit_Is_Trash ,

Pit bulls are great for home defence though

PetDinosaurs ,

So are machine guns and flame throwers and grenades.

That doesn’t mean they’re safe.

Reddit_Is_Trash ,

The less safe the better for home defense. Grenades are destructive to their surroundings, you’d put your home at risk using those.

A pit bull would stop a home invader with minimal damage to its surroundings though. Why would you want your home defence to be safe anyway?

DarthBueller ,

Every pit bull home I’ve ever seen is shredded - I’ve never seen a frag grenade go off in real life, but I imagine the property damage is about the same.

Reddit_Is_Trash ,

Yes, I’ve seen pitbulls tear down drywall and studs, upset the foundation, and shatter every window within a 50ft radius…

DarthBueller ,

Okay, I’ve seen destroyed drywall and damaged studs, but you’re right, no broken foundation or blown out windows from a murder muffin.

bobman ,

To be fair, cat bites can leave you with stitches.

OskarAxolotl ,

Cat bites often become infected when not treated properly. But at least they are basically incapable of killing you immediately or causing lifelong disfigurement.

PetDinosaurs ,

Same thing for paper cuts.

Life is dangerous. No one gets out of it alive.

c0m47053 ,

I was bitten by a golden retriever when I was 12. It looked friendly so I went to pet it, and it sunk a canine into my arm. I was just unlucky (and slightly stupid) though, and it didn’t rip my face off, so I think I did ok overall.

A German shepherd also tried to bite me when passing it on a narrow path, but it just shredded my jacket pocket.

A Yorkshire terrier also had a go at me once, but didn’t make it through denim jeans.

PilferJynx ,

If I were to be attacked by a dog the last one I’d choose is a pitbull or any muscular mastiff. They’re dangerous because they have the highest potential for damage.

Murvel ,

What’s there to be leery about? These dog breeds were bred for one thing and it sure wasn’t to be the perfect family dog.

PutangInaMo ,

Well no, that’s where you’re wrong. Human aggression was a trait that was absolutely bred out of these dogs.

Please go read up on how the American fighting pitbull dog was created, managed, trained, etc. Before throwing out bs online.

Murvel ,

Well I did and it literally states in the first paragraph of the history of Pit Bulls on Wikipedia:

The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting

So I feel, idk, that you got some reading to do…

PutangInaMo ,

Oh how cute, you read a paragraph on Wikipedia…

Murvel ,

Well what fucking sources do you have lmao?

PutangInaMo ,

Well I’ll just start with a top search result when looking for their history…

pitbulls.org/…/brief-history-american-pit-bull-te…

I have owned and read about these dogs for decades, I don’t have nor am I going to go find all of the sources I’ve read over that time. I can tell you that you are incorrect in your assumption about the breed, as are virtually every other person who hates these dogs.

People like you are historically not worth talking to, you will deny any sources or information that I provide because you have already made your mind up about the breed.

I’ll leave you with this: this breed was created by humans, is in a constant state of misery because of humans, and is persecuted by humans because of human behavior.

These dogs are not at fault. But ignorance is rife with folks like yourself. I hope you actually put effort into learning their history but I know you won’t.

Murvel ,

So no sources, nothing, what a pointless discussion.

PutangInaMo ,

I did and then encouraged you to use the same search terms I did to find it. It’s OK though you had no intention of legitimately engaging in this, I know. Later fucko.

Murvel ,

I read your ‘source’, and pitbulls.org is not an unbiased source (wtf how can you think that even). Wikipedia is. Wikipedia supports my claims, end of discussion.

Goddamn you need to go back to school maybe learn about credible source materials.

PutangInaMo ,

Man it wouldn’t matter what I provided, you’re gonna bitch about it anyways. People using “uMmM sOuRcE?!” Online today are just grasping at straws trying to be on the offense desperate to look intelligent.

“My source supported my claims therefore I am right and you are wrong” is such a dipshit move, you’re a bitch dude. Kindly fuck off.

Murvel ,

You really don’t grasp the concept of unbiased sources?

PutangInaMo ,

If you would read what I sent you, you would realize what my point is. It isn’t some hype article about the cutest bestest dog breed that does no harm. It is a truthful background on the breed.

But no, you see the name of the website and cry about how bias it is. You’re a jackass. I’m not responding to you anymore, go live your life.

PetDinosaurs , (edited )

If you will not write off a whole breed of dogs, you have not spent enough time around dogs.

Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Fighters do not need to be taught to fight.

These are innate behaviors. You can’t stop them.

There’s a reason pit bulls account for such a large fraction a dog related injuries.

And don’t let the pitbull defenders get to you with their “but it’s a mutt” or “they’re such sweet dogs” BS.

Of course they’re going to be nice to their owner. People who train and breed dogs to kill each other for entertainment are going to have no problem immediately bringing the dog that pisses them off out back and shooting them.

PutangInaMo ,

Fighters do not need to be taught to fight.

This is where I recognize that you are making stuff up. You lost me here…

Pipoca ,

Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve.

Shepherds have some herding instinct, but they don’t magically understand herding.

You do, in fact, need to train a herding dog to herd if you want it to be any good at it.

shadshack ,

On the flip side of the argument, I have a pit mix and she’s the sweetest thing in the world. Never has bitten anything other than a toy, and she doesn’t even bark unless she gets the zoomies while playing. She’s been great with my 2 year old nephew, too. Got her from the shelter when she was about a year and a half old. She’s 50% pit, so I feel like if it was genetic she’d be way more aggressive.

Obligatory dog pic:

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/5cc4240f-094a-464f-a7ca-bc0087e23785.webp

bobman ,

Big difference: mix

NostraDavid ,
@NostraDavid@programming.dev avatar

It’ll rip your face off, while looking cute!

PetDinosaurs ,

Yet.

She has not bitten anyone yet. She might never. Or she might suddenly lose it and kill a child. That’s not something that ever happens in breeds like labs.

She’s sweet to you because people who breed and train dogs to kill for entertainment have no trouble killing any dog that pisses them off.

frickineh ,

Uh that absolutely does happen with labs. It can happen with any breed. I’ve volunteered in rescue for years, and when I was working at a shelter, I interacted with hundreds of dogs, and the only time I was ever truly scared was with one particular lab. I don’t hold it against the breed as a whole, because it was his issue, but people need to be aware that any dog can bite and take proper precautions.

DarthBueller ,

The lab should have been put down as well.

frickineh ,

I think he may have been - he didn’t bite me, but when multiple volunteers refused to take him out because his body language read imminent attack, they pulled him for further behavioral evaluation. I don’t know what happened, but he wasn’t cleared in the time I was there. I’m not even sure why he was on the adoption floor to start with.

PetDinosaurs ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    frickineh ,

    That’s a dangerous way to think. There was a story about a golden retriever killing a baby in its carrier a few years back. The family said the dog had always been sweet and friendly, and the infant was too small to have done something like pull a tail or poke an eye.

    I love dogs, I can’t imagine living without at least one and working with others, but way too many people assume that having a “safe” breed means nothing will happen. The vast majority of the time, everything is ok, but every now and then, a friendly dog bites someone in the face.

    stringere ,

    I think you should follow that last sentence with a description of why that matters. I know by inference, but some may miss your point that by “killing any dog that pisses them off” they were selectively breeding for obedience to the alpha to the exclusion of all else. And then maybe extrapolate on how that trait translates into fierce loyalt to one individual which makes everything else a potential target for attack.

    PetDinosaurs ,

    You’re correct. Thanks for the clarification.

    Ataraxia ,

    The amount of lack of self awareness in this post…

    speff ,

    My gun never misfires. Don’t ban guns from kindergartens.

    posted on an article where a kid accidentally gets shot

    seathru ,

    I don’t write off a whole breed,

    I can. They are a non-natural breed created by people for cruel purposes and should be eradicated.

    bobman ,

    Yeah. They were literally bred to be as vicious as possible.

    We can write them off. I don’t blame the dogs, I blame the people who made them this way.

    BonesOfTheMoon ,

    Ok fair enough. I just don’t want to be mean to anyone.

    mob ,

    What’s a natural breed of dogs? And how do you measure intention?

    lightnsfw ,

    I’ve spent a decent amount of time around about a dozen pit bulls and never saw/heard of any issues with any of them. All but 1 were very sweet dogs and even he wasn’t being aggressive beyond making it clear that I was not to enter the property (growling and barking same as many other dogs would do) when we first met. After his owner showed up and we got acquainted with each other he was fine too. On the other hand I’ve been bitten by half the dachshunds I’ve met.

    bufordt ,
    @bufordt@sh.itjust.works avatar

    And my wife’s hairdresser has a vizla that bit her daughter’s face and caused her to get 100+ stitches and she’ll be scarred forever. Dogs can bite without warning regardless of the breed.

    steebo_jack ,

    I'm just curious, when the UK banned pit bulls, did the government just go around and round up everyone's suddenly illegal dogs and put them all down?

    dan ,

    Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.

    I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.

    asteriskeverything ,

    Wait, like if a neighbor had a problem with you or something they could just report you have a pit bull and the government would then come and take your pet and kill it?!!?

    dan ,

    I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.

    UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN OP ,

    No, not like that. A workmate had a staffy with longer than usual legs. For some reason the neighbours thought it was a pitbull so reported her. Police came, checked the garden was secure, gave some recommendations (like muzzle the animal in public - which she complied with) and left it at that.

    It wasnt illegal to own them, it was illegal to buy them after the cutoff date, or to breed new dogs. The police got new powers but couldnt just take the dog without finding actual problems (to protect dog owners and give some fairness).

    TheMusicalFruit ,

    In the US, Pit Bulls caused 65% of dog bite deaths between 2005 and 2016.

    phoenixz ,

    Source?

    TheMusicalFruit ,

    dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatal…

    Zak , (edited )
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.

    Audbol ,

    And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this

    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    Audbol ,

    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.

    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    Audbol ,

    If research is determining otherwise then what would it take to convince you to accept this?

    Zak ,
    @Zak@lemmy.world avatar

    For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    They are pushing arguments in favor of eugenics and genocide and have coopted dog-related injuries to push lies about history and genetic science.

    Just go on their site and wherever they mention pitbulls, replace it with “Jews” and you really start to get the flavor of their bullshit.

    phoenixz ,

    I’d like a good citation on that claim in your second paragraph. I’ve seen that claimed a lot yet I’ve seen nothing to support it.

    joel_feila ,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    Not exactly. Studies on this are hard to accurately. In breif, people suck at id breeds, and mort studoes only ask the peraon what breed bit you

    m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7F4OfDSvPU&pp=ygUYcmVi…

    Audbol ,

    Thanks for telling me the same thing people have been parroting for an eternity. Check out Occam’s razor

    joel_feila ,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    What wrong with the counter studies

    TheSambassador ,

    The problem is that an advisory group trying to push legislation is much more likely to cherry pick and misrepresent their citations.

    Audbol ,

    Okay but what is the motive for them to do this. You are claiming malice but you aren’t providing a motive for said malice

    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s not well cited because in over half of dog injuries the breed is unknown.

    Also, two thirds of dogs identified as pitbulls by veterinarian staff have zero pitbull DNA.

    big_onion ,

    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.

    Beelzebubba ,

    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.

    Noodle07 ,

    People are dumb

    That about sums it up

    DarthBueller ,

    Every breed you listed besides lab are nippers but are not notorious maulers. Sorry your little nipper is getting lumped in with the murder muffins.

    Malek061 ,

    I remember when climate change deniers were not sure about the science either…

    sudo22 ,
    @sudo22@lemmy.world avatar

    Being skeptical of data and their sources is a fundamental part of science.

    stringere ,

    were?

    jasondj ,

    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.

    bobman ,

    In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull.

    Seems like an issue specific to wherever you went to school.

    Most rational people would immediately draw clear separations between mutts and pitbulls or pitbull mixes.

    I don’t think this comment is indicative of the problem at all.

    Curious where you went to school though, lol. Might want to get a refund for that degree.

    big_onion ,

    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.

    DarthBueller ,

    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.

    Ataraxia ,

    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.

    SheeEttin ,

    And it’s probably worse if you do rate by breed.

    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.

    joel_feila ,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah that study probably relied on faulty data. Most dog bite data just the person what the breed was.

    Did tou know putbull is not 1 breed but 3 different ones.

    Most people cant reliably tell an american pitbul from other breeds in a line up.

    Crashumbc , (edited )

    Actually, “pitbulls” are now well over a dozen different breeds people just randomly consider “pitbulls”

    If it’s a stocky mutt with short hair . It’s a pitbull!

    DarthBueller ,

    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?

    joel_feila ,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

    DarthBueller ,

    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.

    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t see where the study says that.

    www.sciencedirect.com/…/S109002331500310X

    DarthBueller ,

    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.

    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    And yet still wrong two thirds of the time.

    Pipoca ,

    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.

    VonCesaw ,

    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

    Auli ,

    Alot of those dogs have pitbull in them.

    VonCesaw ,

    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

    collegefurtrader ,

    That is completely untrue

    curiousaur ,

    Yeah, you’re a liar.

    VonCesaw ,

    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

    curiousaur ,

    Lol, that’s breed identification. Most people don’t know most breeds. A lot of people who work with dogs don’t know all breeds.

    Everyone can identify pitbull or pitbull mix vs not.

    VonCesaw ,

    *Lack of consistency among shelter staff indicated that visual identification of pit bull-type dogs was unreliable. *

    I mean if you’re not gonna click the links at least say so

    UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN OP ,

    What a weird thing to come out with. Someone has suffered a terrible injury and you’re concerned with a bloody DNA test.

    VonCesaw ,

    Wanting to exterminate an entire breed of dogs is the harder solution than actually figuring out the cause of the attacks

    mondoman712 ,

    What are the tories doing that they want to distract us from today then?

    Luvs2Spuj ,

    It’s always something, but we do need more governance for dangerous breeds and cruelty breeds (pugs, Scottish fold cats etc.)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •