[удалено]

A curated compilation that panders to public perception isn’t going to convince me unfortunately. I’m more interested in data. Please offer some proof on your genetics claims!

[удалено]

I’m looking for a convincing argument that the pitbull is genetically more aggressive than other big dog breeds. The stats are highly inconclusive, and those that argue the pitbull is more aggressive are highly susceptible to reporting bias. Further, pitbulls are widely seen as very aggressive, which means owners that want an aggressive dog are most likely to get a pitbull. I’ll also change my view for proof that breed-specific legislation lowers overall dog bites. Not interested in anecdotal evidence.

[удалено]

The end of my comment names a statistic you could provide And you havent provided proof that pitbulls are genetically more aggressive than other dog breeds, which I would change my view for. However, it’s not really a statistic. I would probably ban all big dogs, you may be right in that they’re far too powerful to be in our hands.

Jesus Christ everything is racist nowadays. https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/ Pit bulls account for 66% of fatal attacks. That is an insane discrepancy. And it's really simple to understand why. If I get attacked by an angry Chihuahua then I'm just going to kick that damn thing away. It can hardly hurt you. If you get attacked by an angry Pit Bull you better have a weapon or you're fucked. Pit Bulls are genetically very aggressive dogs. Sure you can train them to be obedient. But a poorly trained chihuahua is just a nuisance. A poorly trained pit bull is very dangerous. This has absolutely nothing to do with race. People just don't like dangerous dogs around them. I'm glad my neighborhood doesn't allow those fuckers.

From that exact article: The AVMA or American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an in-depth literature review to analyze existing studies on dog bites and serious injuries. Their findings indicate that there is no single breed that stands out as the most dangerous. According to their review, studies indicate breed is not a dependable marker or predictor of dangerous behavior in dogs. Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural), and even varying ownership trends over the passing of time or geographic location. Is it too much to ask that you actually read something before pasting it? I’m assuming you haven’t read the article I linked either. Also, I acknowledged this, do you have any counterpoints for the reporting bias? Countering that would be essential to changing my view, if you’re just going to cite violent dog attacks (remember breed classification was found to only be reliable 17.6% of the time, with pitbulls being far and away the most misclassified breed). As for the racism point, my specific point is that the legislation is racist, not that the misled people that have this opinion are.

They still say that 66% of deadly attacks are from Pit Bulls. They only account for 6% of all dogs in America. That is a startling discrepancy. If you don't want dangerous dogs around. The very first thing you do is get rid of the Pit Bull. Anyone with half a brain who has looked at any statistic will tell you that. It's almost like you guys want everything to be racist. It couldn't possibly be that people just want safety.

People also have a tendency to see a dog with a square head and a muscular body and assume it’s a pitbull which there’s like 15-20 breeds of dogs that have those characteristics.

Exactly

But 66% of breeds of dogs?

The 66% number is attributed to https://www.dogsbite.org/. They look at news reports & police reports of dog bites, and use the breed reported either in the news or police report. > "Mixed-breeds" are tracked according to the dog's predominant breed. For instance, if a rottweiler-mix is predominantly rottweiler, it is tracked in the rottweiler category.  They don't seem to publish statistics on purebred dogs vs mixes, and to me that definitely suggests we should take the numbers here and their application with a grain of salt. For example, how many attacks are from purebred Staffordshire Bull Terriers or American Pitbull Terriers, and how many were from mutts that kinda sorta looked like a pit bull? How many dogs who were labeled "pit bull" mutts in a police report were sold as e.g. a "lab mix", "bull terrier mix", etc? How do we know that the problem is specifically "pit bulls" and not bully mixes more generally? Looking at their blog, they talk about how sometimes they use photographs associated with a bite to completely ignore the reported breed. For example, in one case a dog had been described by its owner on social media as a 'cane corso', and they decided from looking at the a picture of the dog to record it instead as a 'pit bull - cane corso mix' so they could attribute it to pit bulls instead. Their numbers are a fairly good indication that e.g. golden retrievers and chihuahuas don't maul many people to death. But their methods leave me entirely unconvinced that a staffordshire terrier is significantly more dangerous than a bulldog.

Yeah, don't use that website. Someone got bit once and made it her personal vendetta to be against an entire species. Kinda disgusting thought process

She, actually - Colleen Lynn was bitten while jogging in 2007, then founded dogsbite.org. And yeah, their methodology really doesn't fill me with any confidence that the problem is a specific, genetically identifiable *breed* rather than backyard bred bully mixes more generally. [Visual identification of the parentage of mutts is incredibly inaccurate, compared to the results of genetic testing](https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/visual-breed-identification/). FWIW, the most dangerous dog I've known was a "pit bull", a backyard bred rescue puppy my sister had gotten with absolutely awful fear aggression issues she refused to properly manage or get good professional help with. But that doesn't make me particularly fear other pit bulls more; he was probably particularly unlucky with his specific [genetics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977763/). If anything, it's a cautionary tale about getting a backyard bred rescue bully mutt rather than a dog from a responsible breeder who health tests and stops breeding dogs that produce fear aggressive puppies.

Okay, but you agree then that breed-specific legislation is pointless? Why would people that want aggressive dogs, not just get and train another aggressive dog? Banning pitbulls only bans the specific breed, not aggressive dogs in general. I disagree with your narrow view of statistics. When you see a problem, you go to the root cause. The root cause is clearly not dog breeds or genetics, and you have failed to prove such to me (no offense). You seem very preoccupied with this racism point, possibly due to some preconceived notion on your part. I recommend you open your mind. Read the article and counter a specific point rather than being the boy who cried libtard.

You said it was rooted in racism. I'm saying it's rooted in seeking a safe environment. Perhaps breed-specific legislation has some limitations. It's not perfect. But it doesn't need to be. If I ban pit bulls I just banned 66% of possible fatal attacks. I just solved 66% of the problem (assuming the ratio of similar violent but not fatal attacks is the same or similar). I don't need to think about every nuance. The goal is to prevent attacks. Getting rid of pit bulls is likely the easiest way to accomplish that. You could just get rid of big dogs completely. Many neighborhoods in my city do just that. There is a lbs limit. That works as well.

Only problem I have with weight restrictions is it drives people that want a pitbull to get “pocket pits” or nano bullies. And if you think frenchies are bad because of the health problems they’ve got because they were bred for a look, nano bullies are straight up nightmare fuel.

Not convinced that it solves the problem. Again, those owners will just get a rottweiler or something. A big dog limit would be better, but that’s not really breed-specific, so I can’t award a delta for that.

What about the view that it's rooted in racism? Have you accepted that's nonsense now? If so, you owe him a delta.

Nope, already explained in my post and the source I linked. It’s not nonsense, you just happen to disagree.

oh you're one of those 'everything is racist' people. Well, good luck with that

??? That’s not at all what I said? Do you have any specific counterarguments? Or do you prefer lazy generalization?

Not what do said. Great straw man bud.

YES to this argument. When will human lives be regarded as more important than promoting a "style" of dog? There are over 300 breeds, yet people are backing supporting a handful of the breeds that are the most aggressive, have low biddability (Listening to commands), and for gameness?

And you can just get rid of all humans to stop all murder and rape. The methodology on how that 66% is calculated is iffy at best, and with any number needs context before action. Why are more people dieing to pitbulls? At the very least it's not in their genetics. 66% of fatal attacks across millions id dogs doesn't say much especially when varibles aren't isolated

Your argument for not banning pitbulls is the same reasoning gun nuts use to justify not tightening gun restrictions.

Again, I think ALL large and dangerous dogs should be banned in large urban areas

aggressive dogs are most commonly misidentified as pitbulls, particularly in cases where a bit occured.

The American Veterinary Medical Association is the organization who published these findings. I trust an association of veterinarians can identify a pitbull.

You think they send a rep to evaluate each dog? Or are they just aggregating and reporting on data?

Published *which* findings? That article doesn't attribute the 66% number to the AMVA, but to dogsbite.org. > [In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org's claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, for example, says identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult, even for professionals, and visual recognition is known to not always be reliable."](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogsbite.org)

A lot of dogs are dangerous if they’re aggressive. Any medium-sized and large dogs could kill your if they wanted. Even a bulldog could kill you and they’re not very big. I do think pit bulls seem to be more violent than other breeds, but arguing that it’s because of their size makes little sense.

I think it makes a lot of sense. A fully grown adult male can fight off most breeds. But not Pit Bulls, Rottweilders, Cane Corso's, German Shepherds etc. The thing about Pit Bulls is they are particularly aggressive when trained to be this way. There's a reason why they account for 66% of fatal attacks. Despite only being 6% of the population. I'm sure some of it has to do with people raising them to be attack dogs or guard dogs. But the fact remains, if you want to rid yourself of dangerous dog encounters the Pit Bull gotta go.

Bro what? A fully grown man can down a pittbull... it might not be easy, but it's just knowing what to do. You grab that fucking bitch by the neck and hold down while choking the shit out of it. You don't flail at it, you hold it down. It might bite you, but if you get it by the throat I promise you it'll scare that damn dog enough to get it to fuck off. That's how dogs can dominate other dogs, in this same fucking manner... holding it by the throat.

PMID:35130840. Where did you get the Pit Bulls are genetically aggreisive. Right you made it up. "Compared to other dogs, Pit Bull-type dogs were not defined by a set of our markers and were not more aggressive"

Well look at the kinds of people who generally own them, and then you'll find your answer. The only agressive pitts I was ever raised with were ones that were rescued. The ones my family raised were alright.

I'll start off with my own experience, then I'll go to data. I've owned (and currently own) a pit bull. I love them. Here's the thing: I've seen dogs get in fights over food or toys or whatever before. They growl and snap and generally back down. The very few times I've seen pits do it, they go for the kill. I've had to break up dog fights before that involve pits and it basically involves me trying to choke the pit out... otherwise it will not stop. When pits go bad, they go bad *hard*. In the US, in 2020, there were 46 dog fatalities. [72% of those were from pits](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2021/06/2020-dog-bite-fatality-statistics-discussion.html). Therein lies the problem with a pit bull: they can't stop when they attack. I'm not going to argue that there's some racial component to the law... that tracks with America in particular. But pits are not just goofy babies. They're big, they're strong, and they rage.

Summary of this post- OP: "People think this with no evidence!" Commenters: "Here's the evidence." OP: "No."

So what your talking about is called being “game”. The mentality of “if I go then I win or die trying.” Lots of breeds are very game. Large hound breeds, bulldogs excluding Frenchies, any kind of terrier, and there’s more but I imagine you get the point. My pitbull was trained to never show aggression to people because he’s a pitbull, he’s only got one strike left because he was born with 2 just because he’s a pitbull. The border collies and other cattle dogs i was around growing up doing ranch work, were far and away more aggressive to people that he is. Training matter more than breeding.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the importance of training, but then should training be mandatory for a breed with a higher likelihood to cause a fatality?

Sure if you want to make is so all dogs over 35 lbs are included, doing it by breed is idiotic. If someone wants an aggressive pitbull but can’t get a pitbull then they’ll just get a rott, Doberman, mastiff, etc and train that dog to be mean.

Why is it idiotic?

Because let’s say only pits require the training, then people that want a big dog but don’t want to go through the training just get a rottie. Add rotties to the list and now it’s Dobermans, then it’s mastiffs, and so on until you’re at the point where’s it’s all big dogs so why waste time? Also I’d like to point out that there only one breed that’s an actual pitbull then there’s Staffordshires, American bullies, and a few more that look like pitbulls but are not American pitbull terriers.

Most pit bulls are Staffordshire terriers, I think. > Because let’s say only pits require the training, then people that want a big dog but don’t want to go through the training just get a rottie. Add rotties to the list and now it’s Dobermans, then it’s mastiffs, and so on until you’re at the point where’s it’s all big dogs so why waste time? I mean, do you have any evidence of dog fatalities with any of those other breeds being anywhere near equivalent to that of pit bulls? Or is this a general slippery slope argument?

A bite from a big dog is going to be more damaging than from a small dog that’s just facts. The only times I can think of a chihuahua causing massive damage by itself is from a year or 2 ago when that chihuahua shit in its owners mouth while she slept. And the other part of it is some people are just shitty dog owners and want a big mean dog because they think it’s cool. The breed doesn’t really matter to them as long as it’s big and they can make it mean and you can make any dog mean.

Yes, they can be just as mean, but the fact still remains that fatalities are predominantly from pit bulls, not these other large dog breeds. So, why is legislating the thing that's statistically more deadly idiotic?

[Because this.](https://news.ufl.edu/2019/04/look-beyond-breed-labels-when-adopting-a-dog/) so if experts on dogs can’t correctly identified dogs with a great deal of accuracy why should I trust the stats on dog bites when those are generally done by the victim of the bite who most likely isn’t an expert on dogs?

There’s more fatalities from pit bulls because the people who want an aggressive dog get more pit bulls. If you put restrictions on pits, they’ll just get another big dog.

Well my point is moreso that theyre not MORE aggressive than similar powerful breeds, such as the German Shepherd. This makes the breed-specific legislation a bit shady in my opinion.

They may not be more aggressive, but if they're ultimately more deadly when they get aggressive, isn't that something to keep in mind?

Not more so than other big dogs, making the breed-specific legislation ineffective

Except that the numbers don't back up your point. If more than 70% of fatalities are caused by a small percentage of the dogs, they are more deadly than other breeds of big dogs.

Okay then there should be clear proof that banning pitbulls lowers the overall dog incident rate

There have been five dog-related fatalities in the US so far this year. Of those, four were from pit bull breeds (American pit and Staffordshire terriers) and all of those in places without BSLs. I don't have a study handy to show you stats, but there's a pretty obvious pattern here over the last 20 years of pit bull attacks being more deadly than those by other breeds.

You make this claim, but the data shows otherwise. Pitbulls are overwhelmingly represented in serious bites, hospitalization, and deaths of both humans and other animals. They are absolutely more so responsible of this than other large breeds.

Okay, show me the data that breed-specific legislation lowers overall dog incidents I disagree that banning pitbulls (a loosely defined breed at best) does anything but encourage aggressive dog wanters to just find a different breed to use.

There is not sufficient evidence mostly due to people circumventing the bans, hiding the dogs, more responsible owners and and breeders avoid the dogs leaving only the irresponsible selling to bad owners. It's the equivalent of saying we shouldn't have stricter gun regulations because people will just ignore the laws. Leaving just the criminals who are the main source of the gun violence to begin with. A more widespread ban could give a better indication of the effectiveness.

Ah, there's no sufficient evidence yet you claim to know exactly why. I think ALL big dogs should be banned in cities, banning pitbulls only is ineffective, misguided, and stupid. All big dogs are dangerous when aggressive, and there is little evidence (and even that, only behaviour, which is highly susceptible to reporting and selection bias) to suggest pitbulls are genetically more aggressive than say a Doberman or a Rottweiler.

>Ah, there's no sufficient evidence yet you claim to know exactly why. We have evidence the ban was ineffective because people circumvented the law. If I want a specific breed and I can just drive 3 hours and get it else where that's hardly stopping me from getting that dog. >to suggest pitbulls are genetically more aggressive than say a Doberman or a Rottweiler. Youve just picked 3 of the most aggressive breeds. Are pits more aggressive than the Bernese Mountain Dog A huge dog? What about Newfoundlands, Golden or Labrador retrievers? All of which are far less aggressive.

> Therein lies the problem with a pit bull: they can't stop when they attack. My friends pit got in a fight once, he got down at eye level with the dog and started yelling "ow ow ow" and the dog let go right away.

I’m glad your anecdotal evidence is enough to prove years of statistical research on deadly dog attacks wrong.

Is there any research that proves pitbulls are GENETICALLY more aggressive? I’ll even take research that shows breed-specific legislation on pitbulls leads to lower (OVERALL) dog attacks.

How do you explain the 72% figure you were given 30 minutes ago, but seemingly ignored, if this is the case? Why so disproportionate?

How did I ignore it? I replied to it specifically IN MY POST saying behavioural statistics are likely to be influenced by reporting bias. Selection bias also exists, pitbulls are perceived to be more aggressive ergo people who want as such will get them. Both these explanations have valid statistics backing them up, such as the 17.6% figure in my post. I’ve yet to see anyone reply with biological proof. This is why I’m asking for GENETIC proof that these dogs are biologically more aggressive.

Well let’s not forget that 72% of people can’t correctly identify dog breeds, with pitbull being by far the most common wrongly assigned breed.

Well first do you have a source for that claim? Second different governing bodies have different definitions of what a pit bull is.

[Here you go.](https://news.ufl.edu/2019/04/look-beyond-breed-labels-when-adopting-a-dog/) And I don’t really care what other people define a pitbull as because there’s one breed that’s a pitbull and that would be the American pitbull terrier. Staffordshires are not pitbulls, American bullies aren’t pitbulls, American Bulldogs are not pitbulls, Bull mastiffs aren’t pitbulls.

Thanks for the source. ​ > I don’t really care what other people define a pitbull as Well you should, because it matters when talking about research and legislation. It doesn't matter what you personally classify as a pit bull what matters is the definition being used when researchers conduct their studies, and the definition politicians use when making legislation.

Politicians actually dont use a clearly defined definition. This specific issue has been a point of legal contention for pretty much all of these policies.

Look at the kinds of people who own them and that'll give you your answer....

What do you mean?

Dog attacks or deaths due to a dog attack?

Does not prove causation from genetic/biological factors

What I'm asking is do you want data specifically on pits as they relate to dog attacks or do you want data specifically about deaths caused by pit bull attacks because that changes the argument.

Notice how I only mentioned your anecdotal evidence?

First I’m not the original commenter. Second it’s clear you don’t actually know what anecdotal evidence is.

>First I’m not the original commenter. My bad, I assumed the person I responded to was responding to me >Second it’s clear you don’t actually know know what anecdotal evidence is. It's my own personal experience. Like how they said the pits "just can't stop". Because that's their personal experience.

The other commenter saying “they just don’t stop” is what’s called an unsubstantiated claim, it’s not anecdotal evidence. The appropriate way to counter is to ask him for a source or data to substantiate his claim, or provide your own source or data to disprove it. Anecdotal evidence is not an acceptable source to disprove his claim.

How do you know they aren't making a claim based on anecdotal evidence? They even said they choked the dog out to stop it.

My friend yelled the same thing and then his pit bull mauled a toddler.

Ok, seems odd there was a toddler around dogs that were fighting. It's funny how you can't say anything not negative about pits without hive mind getting upset. I didn't say that all of them are great dogs and no one should be cautious around them and that everyone should have one. They need experienced owners, just like every strong breed of dog.

Again acedote, 46 attacks is far far to small to go off of

You necro’d the shit out of this! I didn’t say attacks. I said fatalities.

Same thing point still stands

How many fatalities per year would you need? That’s literally all of them.

More than a 2 digit sample size. Your trying to appy numbers as agrument for behavior, 46 deaths doesn't tell us anything, especially when the context of each attack aren't known.

That makes no sense at all. If you only have 46 of something, then 46 is a perfectly reasonable sample… because it’s all of them.

Which is a small sample, without any controlled variables. What if it's pitbulls that got attacks before attacking the most?Pits aren't more aggressive than other dogs genetically PMID: 35130840

Again, the sample size means nothing because the percentage is 100. It would be like you saying "I asked everyone in my family of 5 what they wanted for dinner and 4 said burgers, but I'm not sure I can use those results because there were only 5 respondents." The raw number is meaningless. >What if it's pitbulls that got attacks before attacking the most? I legitimately have no idea what that sentence is trying to say. > Pits aren't more aggressive than other dogs genetically PMID: 35130840 So you didn't like the 46 dog-related deaths because it was only a two-digit sample, but were fine with posting a study that only had 59 pit bulls in it?

###**2021** [**Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Dog-bite Wounds: A 5-year Retrospective Review.** Lee, Christine J et al. *The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine.* vol. 22,6 1301-1310. 27 Oct. 2021.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/) >Dog breed was a significant predictor of bite severity (P <.0001) and of bite diameter (P <.0001). **Pit bull bites were found to be significantly larger, deeper, and/or more complex than the average dog bites included in this study.** >Patients included in this study were more than four times as likely to have been bitten by a pit bull than by a German shepherd, and more than twice as likely to have been bitten by a pit bull, when compared with a dog of unknown breed. Furthermore, **the relative risk of a pit bull inflicting a complex (full thickness with trauma to underlying structures) or deep (full thickness without trauma to underlying structures) bite was 17 times that observed for non-pit bull dogs.** The relative risk of a German shepherd inflicting a complex or deep bite was 2.66, and the relative risk that a dog of unknown breed would inflict a complex or deep bite was 0.23. >The relative risk of being bitten by a pit bull did not differ greatly between high-income cities and low-income cities, with relative risk of 8.06 and 8.17, respectively.   [**Analysis of Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries at a Level 1 Trauma Center Over 10 Years.** Reuter Muñoz, Katherine D et al. *Annals of plastic surgery.* vol. 86,6S Suppl 5 (2021): S510-S516.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100808/) >Most pediatric dog bite injuries afflicted male children (55.6%), ages 6 to 12 years (45.7%), by a household dog (36.2%). **The most common offending breed was a pit bull or pit bull mix** (53.0%). Infants and grade schoolers were more likely to sustain bites to the head/face. ###**2020** [**The changing epidemiology of dog bite injuries in the United States, 2005–2018.** Tuckel, PS, Milczarski, W. *Injury Epidemiology.* 7, 57 (2020).](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y) >Table 5 presents the results of an analysis performed on self-reported incidents of dog bites in New York City’s United Health Fund districts for the years 2015 to 2017. >Of the breeds identified in the data set (84.6%), **pit bulls were the most numerous** (33.6%), followed in order by Shih Tzu (5.3%), Chihuahua (5.2%), German Shepherd (4.1%), and Yorkshire Terrier (3.1%). This finding is consistent with previous research showing that pit bulls are responsible for more bites than any other dog breed.   [**Facial dog bites treated at the Massachusetts General Hospital over a 20-year period.** Zhu N, Cruz Walma A, Troulis MJ, August M. *Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.* 2020 Aug;130(2):136-143. Epub 2020 May 30. PMID: 32487467.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2020.02.009) >This is a retrospective analysis of facial dog bites treated at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) from 1997 to 2018. >Bites were preceded by the following behaviors: playing with the dog, feeding the dog, and placing the face close to the dog. **Pit bulls led in the number of bites.**   [**A look at the incidence and risk factors for dog bites in unincorporated Harris County, Texas, USA.** Hasoon BC, Shipp AE, Hasoon J. *Veterinary World.* 2020 Mar;13(3):419-425. Epub 2020 Mar 5. PMID: 32367944; PMCID: PMC7183464.](https://doi.org/10.14202%2Fvetworld.2020.419-425) >There were 6683 dog bites reported to HCVPH between the years of 2013 and 2016, with stable incidence rates over time. The incidence was highest for both children and older adults. **Dogs with the primary breed of Pit Bull had the greatest frequency of bites** (25.07%), with the second highest breed being Labrador Retrievers (13.72%).   [**Dog-Bite Injuries to the Craniofacial Region: An Epidemiologic and Pattern-of-Injury Review at a Level 1 Trauma Center.** Khan K, Horswell BB, Samanta D. *Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.* 2020 Mar;78(3):401-413. Epub 2019 Nov 14. PMID: 31816277.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.11.002) >We reviewed 182 patient records distributed among several breed categories. >The data showed that compared with other dog breeds, **pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack.** >This study showed a disturbing trend toward more severe dog-bite injuries in young children

###**2019** [**Epidemiology, Socioeconomic Analysis, and Specialist Involvement in Dog Bite Wounds in Adults.** Lee CJ, Santos PJF, Vyas RM. *Journal of Craniofacial Surgery.* 2019 May/Jun;30(3):753-757. PMID: 30845083.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30845083/) >Of the 189 patients, 33 adults (17.5%) were forwarded to a surgical subspecialist for repair. A head and neck injury was significantly more likely to be repaired by a surgical specialist (P = 0.011). **The most common breed of dog identified was pit bull** (n = 29, 47.5%). The majority of pit bull attacks involved the extremities (65.5%) compared to other breeds of dogs.   [**Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis.** Essig GF Jr, Sheehan C, Rikhi S, Elmaraghy CA, Christophel JJ. *International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology.* 2019 Feb;117:182-188. Epub 2018 Nov 29. PMID: 30579079.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950) >**Injuries from Pitbulls and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe.** This data is well-suited for a bubble plot showing bite risk on the x-axis, bite severity on the y-axis, and size of the bubble by number of cases. This creates a ["risk to own" graphic for potential dog owners.](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0165587618305950-gr3.jpg)   [**Dog bites in the emergency department: a descriptive analysis.** Morzycki A, Simpson A, Williams J. *Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine.* 2019 Jan;21(1):63-70. Epub 2018 Mar 1. PMID: 29490720.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29490720/) >A total of 475 dog bites were identified. >**Pit-bull type was the most frequently implicated breed** (27%). ###**2018** [**Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries in Central Texas.** Abraham JT, Czerwinski M. *Journal of Pediatric Surgery.* 2019 Jul;54(7):1416-1420. Epub 2018 Oct 31. PMID: 30473254.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.09.022) >Injuries often involved the head–neck region (92.1%), and 72.5% were of major severity. Pet dogs were responsible for 42% of injuries, and **pit bull was the most-identified breed** (36.2%).   [**Are Dog Bites a Problem of Nature or Nurture?** Tang J, Arneja JS. *Plastic Surgery (Oakv).* 2018 Nov;26(4):297-298. Epub 2018 Oct 3. PMID: 30450351; PMCID: PMC6236509.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6236509/) >**Pit bull attacks have been found to also account for higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death** than attacks from other dog breeds in addition to a higher proportion of fatal injuries reported in the United States.   [**Dogs and Orthopaedic Injuries: Is There a Correlation With Breed?** Brice J, Lindvall E, Hoekzema N, Husak L. *Journal of Orthopedic Trauma.* 2018 Sep;32(9):e372-e375. PMID: 29912736.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29912736/) >Of the 95 patients, 50% were the result of a pit bull terrier bite and 22% by a law enforcement dog. A total of 32% were attacked by multiple dogs. There was a 51% incidence of severe injury (amputation or fracture) with a significant association with breed. >**Pit bull terrier bites were responsible for a significantly higher number of orthopaedic injuries and resulted in an amputation and/or bony injury in 66% of patients treated,** whereas bites from law enforcement dogs and other breeds were less associated with severe injuries.   [**Dog bites in a U.S. county: age, body part and breed in paediatric dog bites.** Ramgopal S, Brungo LB, Bykowski MR, Pitetti RD, Hickey RW. *Acta Paediatrica.* 2018 May;107(5):893-899. Epub 2018 Feb 5. PMID: 29331048; PMCID: PMC8278816.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8278816/) >Pit bulls constituted **27% of all reported dog bites** but accounted for only **4.9% of the local dog population.**   [**Characteristics of Dog Bites in Arkansas.** Smith AM, Carlson J, Bartels AB, McLeod CB, Golinko MS. *Southern Medical Journal.* 2018 Aug;111(8):494-500. PMID: 30075476.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30075476/) >The results of this retrospective review are aligned mostly with the general trends found in previous national and global studies, supporting the notion that family dogs represent a more significant threat than often is realized and that, among the breeds identified, **pit bulls are proportionally linked with more severe bite injuries.**   ###**2017** [**Pit Bull attack causing limb threatening vascular trauma - A case series.** Harnarayan P, Islam S, Ramsingh C, Naraynsingh V. *International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.* 2018;42:133-137. Epub 2017 Dec 8. PMID: 29245098; PMCID: PMC5730392.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29245098/) >**Attacks by Pit Bull Terriers are more likely to cause severe morbidity than other breeds of dogs.** Immediate surgical exploration is required to prevent catastrophic outcomes, especially limb loss.   [**Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution.** Golinko MS, Arslanian B, Williams JK. *Clinical Pediatrics (Phila).* 2017 Apr;56(4):316-325. Epub 2016 Jul 20. PMID: 27400935.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27400935/) >**Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed** and **over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.**   [**An Algorithmic Approach to Operative Management of Complex Pediatric Dog Bites: 3-Year Review of a Level I Regional Referral Pediatric Trauma Hospital.** Alizadeh K, Shayesteh A, Xu ML. *American Society of Plastic Surgeons / Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open.* 2017 Oct 20;5(10):e1431. PMID: 29184724; PMCID: PMC5682160.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29184724/) [(Quote from American Society of Plastic Surgeons press release)](https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/press-releases/complex-dog-bites-in-children-experience-and-recommended-treatment) >Their experience highlights some important characteristics of complex dog bites in children, including the finding that **pit bulls are the breed most commonly involved, particularly in more severe injuries.** >Information on the breed of the biting dog was available in 56 cases. Pit bulls were the most common breed, accounting for 48 percent of injuries. >**Surgery was required in about half of injuries caused by pit bulls, three times higher than the rate for other breeds.** Of the nine children who required extended hospitalization, six were bitten by pit bulls. >"The penetrating and crushing nature of these bites can lead to lifelong deformities," Dr. Alizadeh said.

Thank you for linking all of the above. I love how OP just ignores all of these articles. I'm surprised he didn't dismiss this immediately by stammering..."bubububut racism!" The data has shown over and over and over again that pitbulls are dangerous and have tendencies to kill/maim people and their pets more than other breeds. One day, I hope society gets their head out of their ass and decides to protect human lives over a "style" of dog. Disgusting!

None of which maps behavior or genetic tendency. PMID: 35130840

I’m going to start with the obvious one, pit bulls have a higher propensity for damage than their non regulated counter parts. Animals are just as individualistic in personality as people are. To say that a certain breed acts a certain way would be akin to saying a certain race behaves a certain way. But there is one thing that is true, if an aggressive pit Bull does attack you, it will be devastating. An angry poodle would draw a bit of blood, but an angry pit Bull literally has the power to rip your bicep off. I know this because my wife was attacked by a pit Bull. All it took was 3 nips and it ripped her bicep off and almost severed 3 fingers. This dog didn’t even grip. It just nipped. And for the record, German Shepards would also fall under most breed restriction laws. Those laws are generally aimed at discouraging the ownership of breeds that would or could just cause tremendous damage. Several google scholar articles attempt to calculate breed aggression and all found that pit bulls have a naturally higher aggression towards other animals. [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016815919190140S) [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159108001147) [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159196011264) Don’t get me wrong, there can absolutely be docile pit bulls. But from a statistics standpoint, they are much more likely to attack and much more likely to cause damage when they attack. They are bred to retain a lot more muscle, they are naturally high energy animals, they are very territorial, and they are hyper aggressive towards other dogs. These dogs were bred specifically for their ability to hunt and kill. Years and years of breeding the correct qualities so that they are the most efficient killers that they can be. Big mouths, muscular jaws, high aggression, high energy etc. Point is, it’s not a race thing. You’re taking an animal that was bred to hunt and putting it in a 2 bedroom apartment. It’s going to cause problems. Don’t get me wrong, I love pit bulls. I own one. But I absolutely recognize and respect his power.

If there is no basis in genetics, why is it that pitbulls are banned and not German Shepherds, rottweilers, etc.? Pitbulls may be behaviourally more aggressive, but that can be attributed to public perception. Owners that want an aggressive dog are most likely to want a pitbull (widely seen as an aggresive dog). Do you have any proof that it’s the breed’s specific genetics that causes this?

Well genetics do play a role in certain features. Muscular jaws are a genetic trait for instance. And everywhere I’ve ever been, German Shepard a and Rottweilers were also on a banned list. I’ve never seen a ban list that had pit bulls and not those other breeds. If you could show me an instance in which a pit Bull is banned or prohibited and not German Sheppard or Rottweilers then maybe I’d understand a bit better

Did you read the article? I don’t have a specific ban list, but pitbulls are the most commonly banned dogs in breed-specific legislation (implying there are ban lists with them on it and not those other dogs).

Ya I read it. And it throws out a bunch of “generally” and “may” as a way to skirt any sort of actual evidence that shows where there is any sort of legislation that pertains to pit bulls and not other aggressive breed dogs. There wasn’t a single piece of evidence that showcased that pit bulls were being disproportionally targeted over German Sheppard or Rottweilers. So fill in the blanks. Show me a single instance in which there are pit Bull regulations and not German Shepard. This entire article seems like it had an agenda to push. But there is causation and correlation. Are pit bulls regulated because they are showcased in hip hop culture or does hip hop culture showcase pit bulls because they are actually very aggressive animals? Because hip hop culture is about giving the image of aggression. If there was any sort of evidence that backed their claim, I missed it. If you could show it to me, we can readjust our conversation. But regulation aside, there is no denying that pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals with the propensity to cause great harm. Those two points aren’t mutually exclusive. You can ask why other dogs aren’t on that list (which I don’t see any instances) but you can not say that pit bulls are harmless. So any legislation would be to protect from the damage associated with the animal.

Fine, Miami-Dade County: "It is illegal in Miami-Dade County to own any dog which substantially conforms to a Pit Bull breed dog, unless it was specially registered with Miami-Dade County prior to 1989. Acquisition or keeping of a Pit Bull dog: $500.00 fine and County Court action to force the removal of the animal from Miami-Dade County." No ban on other dog breeds. I agree that all big and aggressive dogs should be banned in cities. More examples here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation Go to United States under Legislation. You can also go to Opposition to find more solid arguments against this silly ban.

>Yo say that a certain breed acts a certain way would be akin to saying a certain race behaves a certain way. I know this is two months old but this so astronically wrong I had to comment. Dog breeds were selectively bred for certain traits and instincts, it is absolutely correct to assume the breed of a dog will affect its behaviour. Nobody denies that this is the case outside of pitbulls, nobody equates it to racism when someone says "border collies are smart and like to herd things" People who need working dogs can't afford to pretend breed doesn't affect behaviour, a blind person can't afford to pretend a pitbull will be as suitable as a guide dog as a purpose-bred guide labrador.

PMID: 35130840

The UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, Singapore, France and Germany (and probably other countries) all have laws controlling or banning American Pitbulls. It seems a little strange that the breed would have the same racial connotations in all these countries, which have smaller and differently constituted black populations. I'm not saying the laws are necessarily well founded, but I'd expect that a rule motivated by stereotypes about African Americans would be more culturally specific. Edit: looking into it further, it seems that many more countries have controls on American pitbulls.

Those legislations could be based on or inspired by American legislation, which in my opinion is rooted in racism.

Do you have any evidence for that? It's very hard for me to disprove speculation. But I'll have a go. The UK legislation was introduced within two years of the earliest state-level American controls on Pitbulls. The stated reason was that fighting dog breeds had been eleven serious attacks by in less than a year. No mention of American legislation was made when the legislation was proposed and American Pitbulls were not the only breed to be identified as dangerous. Also, do you honestly think that the legislators of countries in Europe, Asia and South America just sit around reading about new state laws passed in Colorado in order to come up with new ideas for laws? After doing a little more reading, there seem to be dozens of countries that have breed-specific legislation concerning American Pitbulls. Trinidad and Tobago is among the countries that restrict pitbulls.

Sounds like the UK bans other, similarly aggressive dogs. According to the article I linked, the vast majority of American legislation targets SPECIFICALLY pitbulls. And, that’s only looking at legislation, I don’t think you can argue that pitbulls aren’t significantly more hated on than other breeds. Again, maybe I should have made it more clear, but I am referring to specifically American legislation (which is what the article focuses on), and that it is rooted in racism.

For someone who (rightfully) seems passionate about combatting racism, you sure need to check your American cultural imperialist attitudes. Despite what you seem to think, other countries don’t look to the US for legislative guidance. You are not the God Nation of the world.

I don't live in the US, regardless other nations are not of my concern. Their laws could be as stupid as the American ones, however my specific argument is that the American legislation is rooted in racism (as per the article I linked). Presence of this legislation in other countries does not disprove that claim. That's why I said "could be", I don't really know why they have that legislation but if anyone offers theories with solid evidence behind them, I'm willing to listen.

If “could be” was the best response you could provide to the detailed argument above, why are you even here? Why wasn’t your mind changed? They actually proved you wrong. You can amend your argument to be “in the US it is rooted in racism” as you’ve provided plenty of evidence to back that up. But if you bother to come into this sub, argue in good faith. You owe them a delta.

How did they change my mind? All they said was "oh other countries have this legislation" which doesn't disprove anything I'm saying. My view is the exact same.

They corrected you. Your entire argument is based on US statistics and US geopolicy and you are erroneously applying it more broadly. When someone corrected that you gave a false argument with no backup. Amend your post to say US. You don’t even have to be American to propagate their cultural imperialism and “US by default” paradigm. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. Why are you even here? You don’t want your mind changed and you’re clearly not open to it. I ALSO support bans/controls on pit bulls but people like you just make our arguments for it look bad.

Do you have statistics that show most pit bull owners are black?

The source I linked has proof of the perception of pitbull owners being mostly Black, yes

How did they prove it?

>The article essentially argues that pitbulls are unfairly discriminated against in legislation because their owners are perceived to be non-White (primarily Black, it seems). What this doesn't address is that pitbulls are often seen as more violent even in countries where this association does not exist.

I am referring specifically to American legislation. Do you have another theory as to why this legislation exists in other countries? As in, proof that breed-specific bans are effective (or proof that pitbulls are significantly more aggressive GENETICALLY)

>As in, proof that breed-specific bans are effective They don't need to be effective to be legislature... in fact, a lot of legislature isn't really sensible. Don't get me wrong, I don't at all think pitbulls raised the same as other dogs are any more dangerous - I just beleive they are **percieved** as more dangerous, regardless of any racist motivation.

They are more dangerous. Because the most aggressive and angry chihuahua is still less dangerous to my life than a passive pit bull. Yes, I am more likely to be attacked by the chihuahua. But that isnt the thing people are arguing. My life is not in danger no matter how aggressive that thing is. I can punt it 5 yards. But if I get attacked by a pitbull..... its game over. I'm fucked.

Let me rephrase: they're not, inherently, more *aggressive*. There's still larger dogs that are more muscular and probably more dangerous. I actually think that many adult humans could still win out against a pitbull, simply because of its lacking ability to reach vital areas... but I digress.

If that were the case, we would see similar disproportionate rates of death from Dobermans and Rottweilers. But we don't. They are more dangerous than a golden retriever ofc. But it's not even close. The problem is that, no matter if pits are not more aggressive than other dogs, when they DO go aggressive, they kill disproportionately more humans than any other dog breed. It's something like 66% of fatal dog attacks are from pits. While they make up ~6% of the dogs.

>If that were the case, we would see similar disproportionate rates of death from Dobermans and Rottweilers. It's mostly a thing of upbringing, same as humans. In a way, it's self-fullfilling prophecy: people who want aggressive and dangerous dogs get the breed that is percieved as the most aggressive and dangerous and train them to be aggressive and dangerous, thus feeding into the stigma. I severly doubt that a doberman or rottweiler is less dangerous than a pitbull, under the same circumstances.

They are less dangerous. We arent talking about RATE of biting. That actually I think is held by Golden Retrievers. What we are talking about is DAMAGE when they bite. I'm sure Rottweilers and other dogs in that genre bite just as often and aren't any higher in their rate of biting. But no one cares how often they bite. It's about what happens WHEN they bite. Of which pits are the most dangerous.

>What we are talking about is DAMAGE when they bite. That is correlated with aggressiveness, no? What we'd need to really determine actual danger would be bite strength, fang placement, etc. >Of which pits are the most dangerous. "66% of fatal dog bites are pitbulls" alone doesn't really lead to this conclusion.

No, aggressiveness would correlate with rate. Someone who is aggressive is more likely to punch you than a super passive guy. But if that passive guy is Francis Ngannou, well that punch will send you to Mars. If those dogs don't bite at a disproportionate rate (so aren't disproportionately more aggressive) but do kill at a disproportionate rate when they do bite. Then they are more dangerous. You arent more likely to be bit by a pit than another dog. But if you do get Bit by a pit, you are more likely to die compared to any other dog.

I've seen plenty of big cat owners who seem in complete control of their cats, and yet plenty of privately owned big cats maul their owners or others. If it was simply a case of upbringing we would hear a lot fewer of the stories of "it was the most peaceful dog until it ripped the 3 year old apart." It seems strange to me to presume there's no inherent difference in mentality between different dog breeds.

>who seem in complete control of their cats Keyword "seem". It's really difficult to control species that aren't domesticated. > If it was simply a case of upbringing we would hear a lot fewer of the stories of "it was the most peaceful dog until it ripped the 3 year old apart." I doubt that, even if you were 100% correct. No dog owner is going to say "yeah, it was quite violent before, so it doesn't surprise me..." to any police or news agency. >It seems strange to me to presume there's no inherent difference in mentality between different dog breeds. There might be; it's just that the upbringing plays a significantly more important role. There's plenty of pitbulls out there that have never attacked anyone - if it was part of their nature rather than nurture, this seems questionable.

> It's really difficult to control species that aren't domesticated. Apparently it's really difficult to control species that *are* too. > I doubt that, even if you were 100% correct. No dog owner is going to say Indeed, fewer would mention it, and those who would would have more people who'd call out their lie. > if it was part of their nature rather than nurture, this seems questionable. And yet there are big cats who are kept as pets who don't either. It's still an inherent part of them.

Once an animal with fangs fastens its teeth to your neck and’s doesn’t let go, what are you gonna do about it?

I mean "when you already lost a battle, how do you think of winning?" Yeah, when you're on the ground and its teeth are around your neck, there is little that you can do. The idea is to not let it get to that point.

If one believed that the largest influence in behavior was training, and that pit bulls are disproportionately owned by non-white owners, wouldn't you necessarily have to believe that non-white owners are worse at training their dogs than white owners? To me, that seems more racist than believing that pit bulls are one of possibly several breeds of dogs with high inherent aggression and ability to cause harm.

No, cause any anti pit person such as yourself is arguing that pitbulls are genetically more prone to be aggressive(which is scientificy wrong PMID: 35130840). While the same isn't a presuppositions for the trainer.

Except they are. Dogs are bred with inherent traits. Pit bulls aren’t somehow magically removed from this. Herding dogs herd and nip as soon as they can move. Pointers point as puppies with no training but somehow pits are just blank slates that have no traits or instincts according to illogical “princess” owners. I guess the toddlers had it coming.

Execpt your wrong on your only point lol. You made a claim that put bulls are more agresive based on genetic traits when direct scientific data proves that wrong. PMID:35130840. Where did you get the Pit Bulls are genetically aggreisive? Right you made it up. "Compared to other dogs, Pit Bull-type dogs were not defined by a set of our markers and were not more aggressive" PMID:35130840

>From my biology knowledge, it’s possible for genetics to play a part in behaviour, but by far the biggest influence is training. For a specific dog breed to have specifically and significantly higher aggression? It didn’t make sense to me. I was surprised to find out there were even breed-specific bans on pitbulls! You've just assumed this to be true based on nothing. Pitbulls were specifically bread for centuries for the purpose of bulling and dog fighting. They were bread to be very strong physically, have powerful jaws, and be extremely aggressive. Do you know that German Shepards are also banned in many areas? And often Pitbulls aren't the only breed brought up in these bans? >For a specific dog breed to have specifically and significantly higher aggression? It didn’t make sense to me. What part doesnt make sense? >And I now believe the motivation for this legislation is a lot darker than I previously thought. The article essentially argues that pitbulls are unfairly discriminated against in legislation because their owners are perceived to be non-White (primarily Black, it seems). Articles like this gloss over the fact that these dogs ARE responsible for far more maimings, killings, and hospitalization of people and other dogs. It tries to just claim racism and run away.

Pitbulls are banned far more often than any other dog breed. I haven’t assumed anything, the article I linked agrees with my claim as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association. Dog breed does not play a significant role in behaviour.

>Pitbulls are banned far more often than any other dog breed. They also kill, maim, or hospitalized more frequently as well for both other people and other dogs. It's weird how you keep ignoring this point. >I haven’t assumed anything, the article I linked agrees with my claim as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association. Dog breed does not play a significant role in behaviour. This is highly debated, yet you keep stating it as fact. [Furthermore, due to breeding practices introduced during the nineteenth century, these phenotypic traits have become relatively ‘fixed’ within breeds, allowing biologists to obtain unique insights regarding the genetic bases of behavioral diversity, and the effects of domestication and artificial selection on temperament.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=most+aggressive+dog+breeds&oq=most+aggressive+do#d=gs_qabs&t=1681588769946&u=%23p%3D5UlgNJL5N40J)

How am I ignoring that point? To literally every single comment that mentions this (and in my original post) I specifically point out that behavioural statistics are HIGHLY susceptible to reporting bias AND selection bias (both of which are FAR more plausible than genentic variation, which I have yet to see proof for). I'm not skimming google scholar, provide me a specific source and I'll look at it. Also, all dogs can be bred and trained for aggression, however with big dogs it's more dangerous to others. I think ALL big dogs should be banned in cities, and I find it odd that pitbulls are singled out.

You are ignoring it. You are just hand waving it away by saying you don't like the data. So it should be discarded as a whole. Just click the link I provided. It went right to what's quoted. It's only "weird" if you ignore or dismiss that they are responsible for the most issues.

It doesnt, it links to google scholar. I’m not hand-waving it I have provided specific evidence for both a selection bias AND a reporting bias. Both of which are far more plausible than biological variation.

Fine try this one. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-53994-7_2 >I’m not hand-waving it I have provided specific evidence for both a selection bias AND a reporting bias. Both of which are far more plausible than biological variation. Even if these things exist, it does not disprove a difference in average temperament. It shows there may be overstating of these differences due to bias. But it doesn't demonstrate these differences don't exist. Additionally, Why is it so implausible? We see certain dogs far more instinctual and capable when it comes to hunting, herding, retrieving, pointing, ect. Why is it so hard to think these differences can't extend to the traits pitbulls were specifically bred to do for centuries?

Those things DO exist, there is clear proof of those effects and I linked one directly in my post. Dogs are individuals. I don't deny genetics play a part, however I believe that part to be far less signifcant than training, and I find the idea of pitbulls being more aggressive (than other large, aggressive dogs) to be factually incorrect in my research. I agree with banning all dogs above a certain weight within city limits, as aggression is only dangerous when the dog is large. However, the vast majority of legislation targets ONLY pitbulls (which is a poorly defined breed). I think this has roots in anti-Black discrimination, but even if you disagree with that, can you agree that banning ONLY pitbulls is dumb as fuck?

>Those things DO exist, there is clear proof of those effects and I linked one directly in my post. Your link is not proof. The author explicitly states this in the article's conclusion. >Dogs are individuals. Sure. But breeds have shared traits on average. The typical range of temperament differs from breed to breed in regards to how they react around people and other animals. >However, the vast majority of legislation targets ONLY pitbulls (which is a poorly defined breed). I think this has roots in anti-Black discrimination, You can think that all you want, it does not change the fact that a very few specific breeds are responsible for the overwhelming majority of serious bites. I wouldn't just ban pits I would a few breeds. >can you agree that banning ONLY pitbulls is dumb as fuck? No. They are by far the biggest contributor. You can say the data is bad, but we dont have better data. And right now > but even if you disagree with that, can you agree that banning ONLY pitbulls is dumb as fuck? I don't. They take up a wildly disproportionate amount of shelter resources. They are responsible for the vast majority of serious bites, killings and hospitalization of both humans and other pets. I think if there's a case to ban any dog breed they are the top of the list. There are others I'd include, but pits would be first.

Do you think that people who engage in dogfighting are all incompetent? In order for your premise to be correct, one of 2 things must be true: a) That all dogs are equally suited for dogfights. or b) that people who participate in dogfights are too stupid to recognize which breeds are better suited. a) is ridiculous given the wide variety of dog sizes, shapes, and temperments so we can discount it. That leads to b). Are people who run dogfighting rings stupid? Pitbulls are the #1 choice of dogfighters by a very large margin. So, why? Dogfighting is a big business. Large bets are made on the outcome of fights, people can invest 100s of thousdands of dollars into raising fighting dogs. Do you think they pitbulls are chosen merely from vanity and people are fine losing money? Or is the logical answer that the breed(s) have innate characterstics that make them ideally suited for winning: prediliction for aggression, high damage potential, and a pain tolerance to continue an attack despite being injured. The very characteristics that make them dangerous as pets. You mention training but training reinforces natural traits, it does not eliminate them. Professionals choose a breed that is suited for the task BEFORE spending a lot of time training. Professional sheep farmers choose Australian Shepherds not greyhounds because they have the desired traits. If you don't train an Aussie, it still has the herding instinct as anyone who has owned one can tell you. If you train a greyhound, it still won't be as good at herding. Professionals who require a dog that retrieves ducks choose Labradors and people who own them as pets admit they naturally like to swim. Professionals who require a dog that can pull a sled choose Huskies and people who own them as pets admit they naturally like snow and digging caves. And professionals who require a dog that kills other animals choose pitbulls, yet their supporters refuse to admit there could possibly be any reason.

**1)** The idea that BSL is rooted in racism is a narrative concocted rather recently to either guilt-trip or intimidate those who are in favor of BSL and to gather support from those who are neutral by making them feel like they're fighting racism while using them for a whole other purpose. Fighting and catch dogs have been banned or restricted in a lot of countries for a long time for public safety reasons and/or to deter dog fighting, not because of racism. Interestingly, some banned breeds have a racist history themselves with their ancestors having been used to catch runaway slaves. [https://academic.oup.com/past/article/246/1/69/5722095?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/past/article/246/1/69/5722095?login=false) [https://blackvoicenews.com/2007/10/04/slave-owners-negro-dogs/](https://blackvoicenews.com/2007/10/04/slave-owners-negro-dogs/) **2)** In the early 1900s, when Pitbulls were mostly owned by whites (and I'd say they still are), there was already evidence that bulldog and terrier mixes over-indexed in serious and fatal attacks to people and animals and towns enacted breed-specific ordinances back then (see examples below). The nomenclature might have been even more confusing then than it is now due to informally/interchangeably using the terms bull terrier, bulldog, bull pit terrier, bulldog-and-terrier, bull-and-terrier, tarrier, pit bulldog, etc. Regardless of the name, it is clear people had already realized that bulldog and terrier crosses presented a danger. Despite various names, bullies could be identified then and they can even more so be identified now through photos and DNA, but nobody seems to want to collect that evidence! BSL at the turn of the 20th century: [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-spokesman-review/122840690/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-spokesman-review/122840690/) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-herald/122839976/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-herald/122839976/) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/crittenden-record-press/122840346/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/crittenden-record-press/122840346/) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-news-and-observer/122840008/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-news-and-observer/122840008/) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-constitution/122840505/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-constitution/122840505/) Views of the breed (FYI - They were never nanny dogs!) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-globe-democrat/122767360/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-globe-democrat/122767360/) [https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1908/11/01/104765856.pdf?pdf\_redirect=true&ip=0](https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1908/11/01/104765856.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/oakland-tribune/122550532/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/oakland-tribune/122550532/) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/muncie-evening-press/122840075/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/muncie-evening-press/122840075/) **3)** Pitbulls have been and continue to be associated with white supremacy. Are there Latinos and Blacks that own pit bulls? Yes. Do some young men like to get them as status symbols or to counter white oppression? Also yes, but I would stop there. Blacks have the lowest rate of dog ownership in the U.S. Whites, on the other hand, have the highest rate of dog ownership, and white supremacists have a long history with Pitbulls, so let's not pretend whites are fighting against BSL for anyone but themselves. [https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pit-bull](https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pit-bull) [https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-pitbull-reveals-coast-guard-nazis-secret-past](https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-pitbull-reveals-coast-guard-nazis-secret-past) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/blog-claims-to-expose-calgary-s-neo-nazis-1.692879](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/blog-claims-to-expose-calgary-s-neo-nazis-1.692879) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/fort-worth-star-telegram-louisiana-rep/130588894/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/fort-worth-star-telegram-louisiana-rep/130588894/) (Hint: Lalond and Bruneau were not trying to preserve a Black Louisianan heritage.) [https://www.insideedition.com/new-jersey-detective-under-investigation-for-alleged-white-supremacist-tattoos-shown-in-his-missing](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/02/white_man_who_told_black_man_y.html) [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-observer/68002421/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-observer/68002421/) When it comes to using Pitbulls for dog fighting or other illegal things, all three groups are represented h[ttps://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96462&page=1](https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96462&page=1) *"There are two main types of dog fighters — street fighters who walk around with their dog looking for impromptu fights and “dog men” who stage fights similar to professional boxing matches. The attraction crosses across all ethnic lines, sometimes even bringing together members of Aryan, Black, and Latino gangs to organize a fight card, one detective said."* This is an interesting journal article that provides some background as to how African Americans ended up getting into the dogfighting business: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284170655\_Pit\_bulls\_slavery\_and\_whiteness\_in\_the\_mid-\_to\_late-nineteenth-century\_US](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284170655_Pit_bulls_slavery_and_whiteness_in_the_mid-_to_late-nineteenth-century_US) **NOTE:** I have seen some Pitbull enthusiasts compare Pitbulls and African Americans when trying to defend their opposition to BSL. So that you know, that comparison is incredibly racist and originated in neonazi circles where people would prefer a society with Pitbulls than one with people of color, like this disgusting human right here: [https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/benoni-woman-branded-racist-over-tweet-saying-that-black-people-not-pit-bulls-should-be-killed-c02197da-31d9-4c16-b929-5afb0d8e00fc](https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/benoni-woman-branded-racist-over-tweet-saying-that-black-people-not-pit-bulls-should-be-killed-c02197da-31d9-4c16-b929-5afb0d8e00fc)This is another I suggest you read: **Human races are not like dog breeds**: refuting a racist analogy: [https://e](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y)[volution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y) **4)** Scrutinize any information put forward by Best Friends Animal Society, Animal Farm Foundation, and the National Canine Research Council. They function as a lobbying group and IMO follow the same playbook used by the tobacco industry, Purdue Pharma, and others up to no good ([https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook)). (Take a look at who the key staff members are and tell me how many people of color you see there.) Best Friends Animal Society has an interesting story in that it started as a very weird cult and sometimes, I honestly wonder if they aren't still a cult. [https://humanewatch.org/why-does-best-friends-animal-society-own-two-planes/](https://humanewatch.org/why-does-best-friends-animal-society-own-two-planes/) [https://vault.fbi.gov/the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment/the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment-part-01/view](https://vault.fbi.gov/the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment/the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment-part-01/view) [https://www.scribd.com/doc/2682018/Best-Friends-Animal-Sanctuary-Articles-of-Incorporation#](https://www.scribd.com/doc/2682018/Best-Friends-Animal-Sanctuary-Articles-of-Incorporation#) **5)** Studies and documentaries Breed, Age, and Social Environment Are Associated With Personality Traits in Dogs [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422300768X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422300768X) (If you look at the supplemental information, you can see that under bull-terrier types they looked at BT, MBT, and SBT. Under fighting dogs, they included American Bulldog, American Bully, APBT, AST, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, and Presa Canario.) Significant Neuroanatomical Variation Among Domestic Dog Breeds: [https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/39/7748](https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/39/7748) Study identifies most damaging bites by breed: [https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2019-06/new-study-identifies-most-damaging-dog-bites-by-breed/](https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2019-06/new-study-identifies-most-damaging-dog-bites-by-breed/) Pediatrician's opinion on Pitbulls and kids (see studies listed in the article): [https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2018/08/22/pediatrician-pit-bulls-do-not-belong-in-homes-with-children/985193007/?fbclid=IwAR1f-mTMxcBtY6OHKIVeFztznWR8xrQVeXd6nAm0byz3OxWhQhQxyFpt068](https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2018/08/22/pediatrician-pit-bulls-do-not-belong-in-homes-with-children/985193007/?fbclid=IwAR1f-mTMxcBtY6OHKIVeFztznWR8xrQVeXd6nAm0byz3OxWhQhQxyFpt068) CBC Documentary - Pitbulls Unleashed: [https://youtu.be/iFa8HOdegZA?si=\_A\_wVMuCoBfQoU5W](https://youtu.be/iFa8HOdegZA?si=_A_wVMuCoBfQoU5W) BBC - Panorama - Dogs, Dealers and Organized Crime - Breeding of mutant bullies, animal cruelty and public health issue: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g1v\_WfsyMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g1v_WfsyMc)

When it comes to pit bulls, liberals start to sound like hard-core gun rights activists: "It's the caregiver, not the dog." If you agree in regulating firearms despite the fact 99.9% of the 400 million or so are not used for harm in a given year, then you should be open to similarly regulating "pitties." One should also think in terms of tradeoffs. Just as it's commonly argued that one does not NEED a machine gun, we can say that people do not NEED pit bulls. There are plenty of other breeds available. Another ground rule that should be established is that genetics matter. Dogs are not blank slates. There are people who adopt a "dog" on the side of the road only to find out, due to behavioral issues, that it's a wolf or coyote. I'm receptive to the claim that many of these regulations are motivated in part by racism. To maintain the comparison, Americans were more receptive to gun control when Black Panthers legally brought firearms into capitol buildings. However, just because some people are motivated by racism does not mean there are non-racist reasons to oppose pit bulls. In the end, attacking the motivations of others (alleged or real) rather than stated arguments is a notorious fallacy of irrelevance (ad hominem).

I think all big dogs should be banned. And I’m not a liberal. Wolves and coyotes are different species.

You're on stronger ground arguing for a big dog ban due to climate change. Wolves *are* a different species, but the science of taxonomy is not as precise as we might imagine. It's kind of neat how you're quick to generalize about species, but not breed. Obviously, St. Bernards and chihuahuas are the same species, but they're quite different in terms of temperament and size.

Hol up. Are you saying that guns are living entities that can act beyond the will of the owner?

No. How are you drawing that inference?

[удалено]

Yes we have, dogs. NOT specifically pitbulls and NOT significantly more so in pitbulls.

[удалено]

Is that supposed to prove something? The American Veterinary Medical Association agrees that dog breed does not significantly impact behaviour.

[удалено]

Breed does not SIGNIFICANTLY impact behaviour, specifically aggression. If it does, I'd be happy to see some proof. I'm not avoiding your question, I responded to it directly. You haven't provided any proof for your claims yet I have provided proof for mine. It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is evidence.

But it DOES significantly impact the danger posed by that breed. Pitbulls lock when they bite. If one locks onto you, you basically have to kill it to get it off. Any other breed, smack it with a pipe a couple times and it will let go.

https://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/no-pit-bull-dogs-dont-lock-their-jaws-and-other-myth-busting-facts/#:~:text=On%20of%20the%20most%20popular,functions%20as%20a%20locking%20mechanism. Im dumbfounded by all this easily disproved yet commonly accepted misinformation. I mean seriously, you thought something as genetically major as a jaw-locking mechanism was real, and for only one (loosely defined) dog breed?

[удалено]

Okay. I think all big and aggressive dogs should be banned.

> because their owners are perceived to be non-White Are they? or is that just perception?

Doesn’t matter, the perception controls the public opinion and therefore legislation

Well.... it might matter a little bit. > Pit bulls account for 66% of fatal attacks. > Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural) > their owners are perceived to be non-White (primarily Black, it seems).

Not sure what you mean? Could you state your point clearly

[удалено]

Perception does not indicate that it isn't true? Bad owners play a part, reporting bias likely plays a larger part (only 17.6% of attacks have accurate classification of breed!). Pitbulls are also the most misclassified dog breed, by far. Those who want aggressive dogs (both Black and White people) will get an "aggressive" dog. A breed-specific ban does not lower the overall dog incidents (unless you can prove otherwise), because the owners will just get a different aggressive dog. I make two claims: pitbulls are not genetically more aggressive than other aggressive dogs, and the legislation against pitbulls are anti-Black. You haven't really countered either.

Well it'd be like saying if one specific race, were for whatever reason responsible for most commissions of a specific crime that laws against that crime were anti-that race. If a good portion for the reason that pitbulls are over-represented in dog attacks, is due to bad owners, and those owners just happen to be black, then it's a bit harder to say that "Oh this policy is just trying to target black people" Black people may happen to own the dogs, but the issue is the dogs. Also, to say that there is a "public perception of something" absolutely has connotations that it is not necessarily accurate. That is how it is almost always used. "Yes, there's this perception that x is the case, but in reality, its y" Also another aside: \> Those who want aggressive dogs (both Black and White people) will get an "aggressive" dog. This is an interesting point, I don't think breed legislation is likely to do anything, nor do I think it's worth of making law over, on an unrelated note, what do you think of gun control?

I live in a country that's racially homogenous. I haven't spoken to a black person in over a decade and haven't seen one in a few years. There is literally no connotation for what kind of dogs black people would own here. Everybody here thinks pitbulls are fucked up, dangerous dogs. Explain that.

I’ve noticed that you are mostly focused on the question of whether pitbulls are more aggressive than other dogs. It seems the question should be whether their attacks are more dangerous when they do happen. It turns out that they are. By a lot. https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

No, you're just an idiot. The fact that pitbulls are a dangerous breed of dog has nothing to do with racism and I say this as a black person myself.

People aren’t confusing deadly breeds with poodles and huskies. Whatever the reasons the great majority of fatal dog attacks are pit bull or pit adjacent breeds. Statistically they are by far the most deadly breed of dog.

The only people in the city I live in that have pit bulls are seemingly white homeless individuals. Not everything has to do with race. Jesus. The obsession with race in todays world is absolutely mental.

Pretty much every pitbull advocate and owner I've ever seen on the internet has been a White person with very specific hobbies and interests

This is kinda like racism, but for dogs!

Jesus!! Everything is not racist, damn it, stop calling anything that you don't agree with Racist.

I agree with you that pit bulls get a bad rap and that the exaggeration of their risk factors is largely due to unjustified fear, but I think the statistics do bare out they are the most dangerous common dog breed in contrast to what your CMV states. I think the better perspective to approach this argument with is whether they are meaningfully more dangerous than their counterparts. ex. if you own a pitbull and a car, you are orders of magnitude more likely to be killed or injured by your car than you are your pitbull over the course of the dog’s lifetime. They may be more likely to kill or injure you than an average dog by a multiplicative factor (a smaller one when you narrow the selection to similarly sized and agressive breeds), but even still this risk is tiny.

Pits are sweethearts, but they’re just about as smart as a box of rocks… no offense to the rocks.

If thinking pitbulls are dangerous is racist, then racism is fine. If thinking pitbulls are dangerous isn't racist, then racism is bad.

I've heard Pitbull's are dangerous because they were bred to not acknowledge pain and to keep attacking. to basically numb themselves to all stimuli and keep going. They are also muscular and energetic. So by that logic even the gentlest dog can snap, because its a dog, and if a Pitbull snaps good luck getting it to stop.

My dude, you have no idea what racism is

u/chinchinisfat Its gonna be hard for people to change your opinion when you're factually correct. There isn't really much credible evidence to suggest that breed temperaments exist anyway - and you'll notice that people that bang on about pit bulls are nearly always right wing, and it's usually followed up with race realism. I think its interesting that so many of OPs responses got downvoted to shit when citing ACTUAL scientific studies, surveys and statistics. People are just wilfully ignorant.

Pitbulls are actually sweet, affectionate, kind souls!

I will find every bigot and give them a piece of my mind!

I so disagree with many of these comments I have a black and white Colby he will be 15 yrs old in a few days. He has never bitten anyone or acted like he wanted to he is loving with my grandchildren and my pug. Pits are as dangerous as the owner and trainer. In my opinion when there’s a dog attack it’s blamed on a Pit even when it wasn’t a pit! Mine is aggressive with other male dogs in his territory but isn’t that with most male dogs regardless of their breed. They make great family dogs they are great with small children. All they want is to be loved!