Submitted by weebchildren t3_ycqj2e in Connecticut
[deleted] t1_itnxb5i wrote
More and more complexes are banning them thankfully. Hopefully we do the smart thing and declare them a vicious breed like England. 10 years of being illegal to breed and forced neutering and the breed will cease to exist.
I like the two pits in my life, but they are obviously an error in human pet breeding. Lots of health issues and an inbred desire to go from angry or scared to straight up murder. Sweet and loyal, but not worth the risk.
I certainly don’t want them in my apartment/condo complex - I have small children.
pittiedaddy t1_ito19jc wrote
>Insurance data indicates the Pitbulls and Rottweilers account for only 25% of dog bite claims. Which is also in agreement with the Ohio State University's Study that shows that Pitbulls account for approximately 22.5% of the most damaging reported bites. Pitbulls account for ~20% of the dog population by best estimates. Showing that pitbull bites are proportional to their population. In fact, their Breed Risk Rate is in line with other dogs breeds out there that are considered great family dogs. So how do pitbulls account for more than half of all dog bites? Agenda pushing misinformation by groups dedicated to hating a breed.
>Additionally, data from the American Veterinary Medical Association has concluded that no controlled studies have shown Pitbull-type dogs to be disproportionally aggressive.
>Lastly, Studies have shown that Errors in Identifying Pitbulls Link 2 happen approximately 60% of the time with shelter staff that spend a lot of time around dogs, so reports in the media about dog breeds are highly inaccurate and hardly count as a reputable source for a dogs breed.
>Oh you only see videos of pitbulls attacking? Not surprised. There is a group on this site that dedicates itself to reposting old archived videos to keep brainwashing people into fearing an event that happens 25 to 40 times a year with a breed that has a population around 20 million. Save us your anecdotal evidence of outliers.
[deleted] t1_ito1tj9 wrote
I don’t watch videos of animal attacks, and you’re missing the key statistic. Yes, lots of dogs bite, but pits alone are responsible for over 2/3 of fatal dog attacks, despite being a fraction of the dog population.
Sorry friend, nothing you are going to say is going to change the fact that my kid is less likely to be mauled to death by 50 labs compared to 1 pit. What’s the fascination with holding on to one failed breed? I like pits too, but why take the risk?
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itpvo2y wrote
>I don’t watch videos of animal attacks, and you’re missing the key statistic. Yes, lots of dogs bite, but pits alone are responsible for over 2/3 of fatal dog attacks, despite being a fraction of the dog population.
Yes you're missing the actual key point, which is that in OVER HALF OF THOSE FATAL ALL DOG ATTACKS THE BREED INFORMATION IS NOT RECORDED.
>Sorry friend, nothing you are going to say is going to change
Yes we can see that you're dumb, unwilling to accept information that that wholly contradicts your anti-science bullshit.
[deleted] t1_itpwrbq wrote
Anti-science lol. And no, the breed is recorded. In 2019 there were about 50 fatal dog attacks in the US. 33 were from pure pits, and another 6 were from mixed breeds, which are almost always partial pits.
No clue what you’re talking about. Dogsbite.org sources their information very thoroughly. Can you show me a different source that says more than half the fatal attacks in the US are unknown breeds? Browsing through different data sources that seem reliable and they all show the same thing. Where are you getting that fact from?
In contrast, labs and lab mixes result in under 1 death per year average, despite being the #1 dog breed in America by a huge margin.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq29n2 wrote
Those statistics are BS. They come from a group called dogsbite.org which is a lobbying group with the stated agenda of eradicating pit bulls specifically. It's a bit like citing a study written by the KKK when discussing what races of people are more violent. They're not a exactly a neutral, objective or even remotely scientific source for anything. Their reports have substantial and intentional problems with their methodology and are little more than misinformation.
[deleted] t1_itq2pcw wrote
Ok, so please provide other statistics. Both my research and anecdotal experience clearly show me that pitts are more dangerous than all other breeds combined. Can you provide information saying otherwise?
Also, the comparing the KKK to dog breeds is silly. We created pitts through selective breeding. They are not a natural animal. That has nothing to do with people hating black Americans for their skin color. We DID select the most violent pitts to breed, the ones that were best at fighting, strongest jaws etc. Of course they are more violent - we literally made them this way.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq3bor wrote
The lack of reputable research into this topic does not make dogsbite.org's methodology any less flawed or their reports any more accurate. They're full of poor methodology, unfounded assumptions and unaccounted for variables making them scientifically useless.
[deleted] t1_itq5olq wrote
Ok, so every data source agrees that pitts are responsible for the majority of dog deaths in the US. This is backed up by my close friend who has treated thousands of animal attacks at a SF pediatric hospital. Want to guess which breed of dog she will never buy after treating 16 years of bleeding or dead kids?
So data shows they are dangerous. Anecdotally they are dangerous. And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it? Pass. It’s a breed we created, we can let it die off.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq6wmr wrote
> And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it?
These specific reports from dogsbite.org are full of poor extremely methodology, unfounded assumptions and intentionally unaccounted for variables, and for those reasons it should absolutely be ignored, yes.
The goal of the authors was not to determine what breed of dog is responsible for the most fatalities, it was to prove that pitbulls are the breed of dog responsible for the most fatalities. They aren't starting from a null hypothesis in order to find out something they don't know. They're starting with the 'truth' and trying to find reasons that support that truth. If it doesn't support it, its not valid and the experiment fails. This makes their reports scientifically useless.
[deleted] t1_itq7bhv wrote
Lol ok
Pan1cs180 t1_itq7i79 wrote
I understand you have no response and I accept your concession.
[deleted] t1_itq95u4 wrote
Na, just don’t really care that much. You’re massively invested in pitts for some reason, and I just want a safer society. I’ll let you do you.
Thankfully pitts are on the decline in the US and abroad. Hopefully in a couple generations we let our mistake breed die off.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt32p0 wrote
This is what every think tank does. They work backwards from the result they want.
RunnyDischarge t1_itpvi6p wrote
​
https://www.coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Top Three Breeds Responsible for Fatal Dog Attacks
Pitbull – 185 deaths
Pitbull Mix – 41 deaths
Rotweiller – 26 deaths
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Top 10 Most Fatal Dog Breeds Table
Breed Deaths % of Total
Pit bull 284 65.6%
Rottweiler 45 10.4%
German shepherd 20 4.6%
Mixed-breed 17 3.9%
American bulldog 15 3.5%
Mastiff/Bullmastiff 14 3.2%
Husky 13 3.0%
Unknown/unreleased 11 2.5%
Labrador retriever 9 2.1%
Boxer 7 1.6%
https://www.warriorsforjustice.com/dog-biting-statistics-by-breed/
RunnyDischarge t1_itqx142 wrote
love the downvotes for facts. Pit bull owners are the Flat Earthers of the dog world.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt20i7 wrote
Actually it's y'all. Misunderstanding statistics and research, misquoting data, who sound like flat earthers.
It's like you've never heard of "selection bias" or never took a class that included research fundamentals.
In half of all attacks the breed is unknown.
Of course the worst attacks will be over-reported.
People who play the lottery are bad with money.
It's a selection bias. The conclusion you're drawing (that pitbulls are dangerous) is not what research on the number of dog bites measures.
Doesn't that register with you? That you're not drawing a right conclusion from your data?
Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning?
RunnyDischarge t1_ituf0yw wrote
Flat Earthers, y’all
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt3bvl wrote
The downvotes are because you're quoting a tally and saying it is evidence of propensity.
You can't use a thermometer as a clock.
RunnyDischarge t1_itueyqb wrote
Lol, like I said, Flat Earthers
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itvk6f2 wrote
How do you figure? Counting the number of events doesn't tell you anything about the cause of the events.
This is basic research skills.
Not complicated but for some reason you can't grasp it.
mattyzucks t1_itnyax4 wrote
You are psychotic
[deleted] t1_itnz1j8 wrote
😂😂😂
What? For not wanting the one specific breed around that’s responsible for 2/3 dog killings per year, 30% of which are small children? I have two small kids and there are many breeds of dogs. Pick literally any other one.
I’m not suggesting we euthanize all pits. I’m saying we make it illegal to breed, sell, or purchase them, and require they be neutered as soon as medically safe as puppies. 80% of fatal pit attacks are from un-neutered animals anyways, so it’s an easy win.
mattyzucks t1_itnzpj7 wrote
It's psychotic anti-pit propaganda like this which makes people think they're inherently vicious or scary. They're not.
[deleted] t1_ito0ab7 wrote
Anti-pit propaganda? I’m literally quoting statistics from the CDC website 😂 You might want to look in the mirror before throwing around words like psychotic and propaganda when someone literally just quotes data.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq07yd wrote
Wrongly quoting them. You're not including over half of all dogs. And your quoting a tally as evidence of propensity, which it is not.
[deleted] t1_itq17pq wrote
False. 50ish dog killings per year, 30-40 from pitts. What makes you say that? What other dogs do I need to include? The bottom 20 breeds are responsible for under 5 attacks per year combined.
The dogs were bred for holding large animals by the throat and then rebred for fighting. Lots of mixing has gone on since then, so some pitts have more or less of the parent DNA from actual fighting dogs, but why take the risk? Plenty of other dog breeds to choose from that don’t kill 10-20 kids per year. If a lab bites my kid and I yell at it, it’ll let go. If a pitt goes after my kid, I’m gonna need 2 minutes of gore and trauma and my sharpest kitchen knife.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq4n5v wrote
There's the anti science pure blood bullshit.
That's not how genetics work. ✅
Pitbulls were selectively bred for hunting. ✅
Pitbulls were later bred for loyalty more than for fighting, with only a handful of dogs being trained to fight. ✅
[deleted] t1_itq57sh wrote
Lol!
shoeshouuu t1_ito0kmb wrote
Yeah. Pits gotta go. You are deranged if you think they aren't dangerous. literally 90% of the dog community agrees
[deleted] t1_ito2v3r wrote
Makes sense the dog community agrees. Pits also are responsible for the most fatal attacks on other dogs by far. My colleague had to go to his car, get a screwdriver, and repeatedly stab a pit in the throat and eyes to get it to stop shaking his smaller dog to death.
There’s no other breed that’s going to ignore their owner and a screwdriver being stabbed into their eye to keep trying to kill some random dog at a dog park.
shoeshouuu t1_itp80fy wrote
Yeah fuck pit bulls and fuck pitbull owners.
mattyzucks t1_ito0nae wrote
Yeah I 100% don't give a shit
[deleted] t1_ito0v64 wrote
Judging by your personality and how easily you get triggered to rage, I’m thinking you are the exact type of owner that shouldn’t own an aggressive breed. Maybe pits and crazies naturally attract one another?
mattyzucks t1_ito0zzk wrote
I'd love for you to meet my dog
[deleted] t1_ito28n0 wrote
Thanks for proving my point.
mattyzucks t1_ito2d9j wrote
How? He's the sweetest little guy in the world. What point do you think I proved? That doesn't even make any sense. And you teach critical thinking? Oye
[deleted] t1_ito2z7o wrote
Lol
shoeshouuu t1_ito0qr8 wrote
Sure bud. Don't breed anymore baby killer plz
mattyzucks t1_ito0tj1 wrote
Lol baby killer what the fuck? They're not American soldiers dude they're dogs
shoeshouuu t1_ito0xit wrote
That have the reputation of killing small children. Stop playing dumb
TCPottery t1_ito1gt6 wrote
So do the GOP, but we don't ban them, LOL
shoeshouuu t1_ito1pyg wrote
Mam, we are talking about dogs here
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments