Comic Strips

Because if a pitbull snaps, someone is likely to die.

Because their stereotype can attract shitty owners who want a badass dog but can't be assed to train or care for them.

Or they literally abuse, possibly even with dogfights, and abandon them.

Because most people can't identify one and use it for any mid size dog.

See: Rottweiler, doberman in previous years.

Edit: that includes cops. Same thing applies to police reports. Guess what insurance adjustors use as part of determining insurance rates?

That isn't the slam dunk of info you think it is.

'Pit bull' doesn't even have a real definition. It's sometimes considered a breed or sometimes a family or class and may include more than a dozen different breeds and their mutts depending on who is counting.

Both the CDC and AVMA say there is no sufficiently reliable source for breed data related to dog attacks.

DogsBite.org literally states their objective is convincing people pit bulls are dangerous and claims they can reliably ID a breed from a photograph.

So go pound sand with that 'facts' horseshit.

Even if we wanted to ignore those problems and take it seriously as a source, it completely neglects the only relevant question of the proportion of dogs within a breed that attack. Without reliable information about the sizes of the populations of included breeds, the chart is useless.

Real research on this exists.

CONCLUSION Maulings by dogs can cause terrible injuries47 and death—and it is natural for those dealing with the victims to seek to address the immediate causes. However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: “The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog’s propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.” While breed is a factor, the impact of other factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials.37 Given that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness and pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location.

So. Many. Downvotes. But not a single comment refuting the statistics with facts and evidence…

Yes, because it's clear as day that you're a closeted racist. The argument that you're trying to push, the dishonest appeal to statistics, even the language that you use -- you're trying to normalise the idea that some "breeds" are more dangerous than others, but you're too scared to say that even though you're talking about dogs, what you actually have in mind are humans. Go on, don't be shy, show us your twitter alt where instead of fatal attack statistic you post crime rate graphs and pretend that it's evidence that black people don't serve rights.

Jesus that's sad. Everyone holding your hand trying to walk you down this path of actually learning about how research and science is performed and how to look into a source and you still just decide to spew nonsense.

I hope you learn to walk on your own one day. Don't stop reading and looking into sources just because you found something you like. All of your shit is crappy research that the authors conclude is bad data. It's why the precious dogbite.org focuses on a 1970-99 cdc study, a media review study for statistics slaps forehead.

It's obvious this meme brought in a lot of people who love to classify "undesirables" and a few willing to put up with the misinformation to actually try and teach someone how to do proper research without just "believing" from a few misquoted or misguided articles. I saw at least one person doing the work and realized your links and claims were bullshit so something was accomplished I suppose.

None of them have kids, but I've spent a lot of time around my friends and their dogs. They are just dogs. Many of them are extremely affectionate. When I was a kid my family had a German Shepherd with showdog lineage and my mother had a lifetime of experience of owning and training dogs. Our shepherd exhibited substantially more aggression than any of my friends' pitbulls.

Yes, big, strong dogs can do more harm than smaller dogs and pitbulls can be big and strong. That does make them capable of being more dangerous if something goes wrong. I can't argue with that. However, the mentality is that pitbulls are inherently violent or behave violently by natur is what I call bullshit on.

Pitbulls are regarded as dangerous and vicious. They are also abused and subjected to fighting by their owners because that is their reputation. It's so fucked up. Then, bad owners want a scary dog, treat it poorly, don't train it and when it acts like any mistreated, traumatized animal would the world declares it inherently violent. There is such a thing as a self fulfilling prophecy.

Hell, one friend has a pit mix that is like < 30 lbs, full grown. I've never seen it do anything any other dog wouldn't do. Still, he's extremely careful with it because of the prejudice people have against the breed. Once I was hiking with him and another man with his own dog crossed our path. My friend stepped off the path and kept the dog seated and on a short leash in an attempt to reassure the guy well before he got close to us. The guy immediately asked my friend if his dog was a pitbull and berated him as he passed, furious that my friend would be irresponsible enough to own a pitbull.

Many of the people in this thread remind me of that man.

Another story. One of my coworkers paid thousands of dollars in vet bills for their neighbor in order to stop them from trying to get my coworkers dog put down (and it wasn't one of those "scary" breeds). All because the neighbors small, aggressive dog charged the bigger dog. In its attempt to get away, the bigger dog scrambled and accidentally stepped on the smaller dog and injured it. A poorly trained, off leash small dog almost cost a perfectly average dog it's life because the owners didn't bother to restrain it... but the bad owners made out in the end.

One last story. I was hiking with the tankiest, strongest pitbull of all the ones I know. This guy doesn't want anything to do with other dogs. It's not aggressive - it's frightened. We came across another hiker with their dog... the hiker said his dog was friendly and my friend immediately stated that their dog wasn't interested in making new friends. The hiker ignored the statement and let go of their dog's leash, letting the dog rush the pitbull tank barking and running circles around it. The pitbull panicked and couldn't get away and my friend had to try to keep the other dog away from the pitbull for the pitbull's sake. No harm was done beyond a poor, stressed out pitbull and a pissed off friend.

Should pitbulls exist? I'm indifferent, especially when it comes to purebreds. That doesn't mean that I want them exterminated or left to rot in shelters. Just let dogs be dogs. Try to make sure puppies come out healthy and worry less about whether they look the way you want them to.

Even if they were psychologically identical to every other dog

That's literally my point - they basically are. I won't argue that pitbulls are more capable of harming someone due to their physical characteristics. That's just physics.

Horses are also large, powerful animals and they cause at least a few deaths every year by trampling or kicking humans when provoked, spooked, startled, or whatever - I'm not really a horse person. Obviously, large powerful animals can absolutely cause more damage than lap-sized animals. That doesn't mean they are the equivalent of a monster from a horror movie that could rip someone to shreds at any moment with no provocation. Not does it mean that anyone who owns one is an irresponsible, naive threat to society.

If you are a responsible owner, the dog or horse isn't an unreasonable danger.

Sorry you feel personally attacked when someone says pitbulls are dangerous.

I don't feel personally attacked, but many other people feel personally attacked when someone questions their opinion on pitbulls. I just feel bad for the animals.

Please tell me you see the fallacy here. "If they aren't dangerous why are some people scared of them" has been used to hurt way too many people for you not to see the fallacy.