this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
885 points (93.6% liked)

Memes

45198 readers
3184 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

Cue all the "pit bulls are predetermined to be unstoppable killing machines and should never be allowed in public" nonsense comments πŸ™„

Adorable pup though ❀️

[–] strobel@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

Any big & powerful dog with a strong bite like the pit bull has the capacity to seriously harm & potentially kill a person, and since you can't count on every pit bull owner to responsibly train their pets, they do become a liability when in public. Pit bulls are also a popular breed in the illegal dogfighting scene, so violently dangerous dogs that have been bred to be violently dangerous are guaranteed to exist.

Even so, it's rather unfair to treat every single pit bull like a menace when non-aggressive pit bulls that are affectionate towards strangers are not uncommon. Laws requiring big dogs to be muzzled should suffice; banning the entire breed from public (or, in some places, from even existing) seems excessive to me.

Edit: ...well, at least in this comment, most of my points still stand. I should add that pit bulls are not only popular for dogfighting, but also a favorite of criminals in general, so much so that their demand is actively driving the breed to be even more violently dangerous than ever before. This has become such a serious problem that unaggressive pit bulls are nowadays unlikely to be purebred.

I guess it's still unfair to treat every single pit bull (or, rather, every dog that resembles a pit bull) like a menace, but it'd also be unfair to blame anyone for treating them as such, so long as breeders continue to select for stronger, more aggressive, more dangerous traits.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My friend's pit bull got attacked by a Chihuahua and had no idea what to do about it except sulk all day after it was over. To me, blaming pit bulls for violence is like blaming BMWs for not using turn signals

[–] strobel@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don't see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don’t see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.

This is factually wrong. I have a copy/paste from reddit I've already dumped... Here's a copy.

If that were the case, I'd expect that per capita pit bulls would then be equal to all other breeds or at the base minimum to represent their population, so if a pit population is 10% of all dogs, then they should account for 10% of all dog-related deaths. This is a little facetious though as little Pomeranians aren't going to kill anyone... So let's look at a number of breeds to determine what could be a valid number...
So how can we account for pitbulls accounting for 7.4% of all dogs and commiting ~66% of all dog-based fatalities when...
Rottweilers are 2.4% of dog population and commit about 10% of the murders recorded.
German Shepherd are 8.5% of the dog population accounting for ~5% murders. (beating population value even though they're large dogs)
Huskies are 2.3% of the population and account for 3% of the murders
How about a dog bred to kill bears??? Akitas... 0.4% of the population... doesn't even come up on the murder table... so less than 0.5%...
How can we account for this massive disparity? You really think that ONLY pitbulls are mistreated, untrained, and raised improperly? So all Rottweilers and German Shepherds are trained perfectly? Yes, I can agree with you that an abused dog will absolutely lash out and hurt humans... I cannot agree with you that this is the deciding or only factor. Otherwise we would have seen it with other breeds as bad owners are everywhere. Breeds like Akita's show that you can be breed for fighting and not be aggressive towards humans. Pit bulls simply were bred for aggression, you can't always train it out of them, and it only takes one slip.
Source for fatality rates:
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php
Source for population percentage rates:
https://www.animals24-7.org/2021/07/07/dog-breed-census-2021-labs-hounds-top-list-pit-bulls-come-in-third/

[–] strobel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The CDC had done a study once & gotten similar statistics to what you've quoted, but ultimately they concluded that the data was flawed & unreliable. However, as I learn more about what's going on, the big picture gets more depressing...

Pit bulls are indeed disproportionately mistreated & improperly trained, far more than any other breed of dog. They're the breed of choice for drug dealers and gangsters in the US, and account for the vast majority of dogs seized by police at dogfighting operations. This isn't by coincidence, as pit bulls have always had a variety of traits that make them ideal for dogfighting.

Originally pit bulls weren't bred to be overly aggressive (even in dogfighting, indiscriminate aggression isn't a desirable trait), but modern pit bulls absolutely are, and this trend is only getting worse as breeders continue to select for increased strength & aggression, traits considered desirable by the criminals & lowlifes that now drive the demand for purebred pit bulls. The CDC suspects that there is a gross misattribution of fatal dog attacks to pit bulls, but now this seems unlikely. In fact, pit bulls that have a reputation for being unaggressive, including the ones that I've personally met, are unlikely to be purebred, and are most probably mutts that merely resemble the breed, if not the descendants of an ever-shrinking lineage that has avoided the vile trends that now plague the modern pit bull.

For me, this has all been very disheartening to discover. When I see the face of a pit bull, I'm reminded of the jolly dogs I used to play with as a kid, not the modern monsters responsible for a growing body count. It was very easy for me to disbelieve, and I'm sure many of the folks who are quick to defend the breed feel the same way...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think its undeserved at all. When it comes to fatal dog attacks, pit bulls are responsible for more than all the other breeds combined by a substantial margin. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/

I've never known a pit bull that wasn't sweet but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a breed that was bred for violence can be dangerous. Many dogs may bite when upset or feel threatened. Pit bulls are known for continuing the attack in a frenzy and thus have a disproportionate number of deaths associated with them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (64 children)
[–] strobel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Could you please provide those stats? Skimming thru the Wikipedia article on pit bulls, it seems there's no clear evidence that pit bulls are significantly more dangerous that other dog breeds of similar size.

[–] 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 11 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/iFa8HOdegZA

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Don't use Wikipedia as your source, that's rule number one. Look at the cdc

[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You mean those weird ass stats where they even agree that evidence is based off of looking at a picture where they admit they barely know it half the time?

Those statistics?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

But its not a crab, how can it be good if at anything if no crabiness?

load more comments (61 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)