• obelix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’d just like to see a sensible discussion that doesn’t involve the falsified statistics presented by the Dogsbite blog and its offshoots.

    The so-called academic behind their “statistics” was outed for multiple frauds, the blogs are all set up by shadowy anonymous individuals with opaque funding.

    It’s all just so janky, like there’s a big movement intent on muddying the water of actual useful conversation.

    Large terriers are undoubtedly a potential problem in the hands of inexperienced or irresponsible owners, but to over simplify the argument to “pitbull dogs bad” is irresponsible.

    Any dog over ~15kg can do great harm, and when you take into account the breed traits of terriers, it’s easy to understand the importance of proper debate.

    But the crusaders need to be ranked out in favour of proper discussion.

  • plaguesandbacon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m a strong proponent that it’s the owner, not the dog that is ultimately the reason pitty’s get a bad rap. I’ve rarely come across a pit bull that isn’t a big lovable goofball that just wants belly rubs and to play tug. But the one’s that haven’t been seem to have irresponsible owners that either don’t know, or don’t care about how to properly train their dog.

    That said, it’s hard not to look at the data and agree that a breed ban would be best.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Who wants to talk about why it’s 90% black people in city jails and see how well your pitbull argument holds water against rational thinkers with larger scale ethics to consider.

  • skeezix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s two types of people: those who hate pitbulls, and those who’s pitbull hasn’t mauled someone yet.

    • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Pets are family, so people have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone badmouthing their pets even if the other person has a point.

      My sister has a rescue pit. He’s the sweetest dog ever - he was afraid of men for a while due to his previous owner, but gradually warmed up and now runs up to everyone he sees for cuddles.

      However, when they took him to visit someone in a nursing home he ran off and bit one of the staff unprovoked. It turns out how a dog behaves around family versus around strangers are two completely different things, and dog owners rarely see the latter so judge their pet’s personality based on the former.

      A dog can be an absolute angel around people introduced to them by someone they love and trust, but if their little doggy brain registers someone as a threat (or even just an intruder in their space) things can go very wrong, very quickly.

      • dnick@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s why these discussions generally come down to understanding/misunderstanding ‘instincts’. Certain breeds have at least broadly understood instincts when it comes to offensive/defensive postures, and those instincts may never be triggered in their day to day, even year to year, routine…but extrapolating that to mean ‘my little Cuddles would never X if Y happened’ is dangerous and selfish.

        • Zanz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Lots of dogs are like that too, but most don’t have tools to kill like a pit. You basically have all the aggression of a Yorkie and the bite of a bear. It doesn’t help that are pack motivated too. God help anything that looks like food or a toy when 2 of them are out.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    These things need to be absolutely destroyed. There’s no good reason to own one.

  • Cloudless ☼@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/

    In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/

    In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.

    https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Or maybe it’s just the type of people who are drawn to this violent record are being terrible dog owners.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The statistics about 90% dog attacks being pitbulls is because cops can call any dog a pitbull.