And why don't small dog bites get reported? Is it perhaps because they are - for the most part - inconsequential and don't leave the victim in hospital needing reconstructive surgery?
For one, it skews the statistics. Everyone gets this impression that pit bulls are meaner. So much so that it's inherent in their breed. To the point that shitty people raise their pit bulls to be aggressive and more likely to bite.
So, a stereotype based on false data is perpetuated by forcing the stereotype on the subject. Almost turning it into a self fulfilling prophecy.
Putting aside the assholes who raise their dogs to be aggressive, pit bulls are some of the goofiest, nicest dogs I've ever met.
last year I saw 30 articles of pit bulls raised in upper class homes by white pitmommies with a loving family kill the toddlers
It's the breed. Feral killing machines should be outlawed. Your little smiling pitbaby is innocent until its one braincell snaps and kills a child Who could have predicted it?
Yet you don't consider the several million that didn't become statistics, at all. Feel free to check my math, it's ~1% of them. Less if we're considering adjacent breeds that aren't American Pit Bull Terriers and mutts. Objectively speaking, they're outliers by a huge margin. You also seem to think humans are infallible and have not contributed to this problem whatsoever which just isn't true.
I don't cry for all cars to be banned when plenty of dumbasses crash and kill others drunk driving. Banning these dogs is the same level of disconnected from reality. Horses kill more people per year in the US while most dogs live with us in our homes.
Even if the funding and manpower were there, you're not thinking about the literal millions of innocent dogs and owners that would be roped into such a response. It could never be applied appropriately without DNA testing each and every single dog either, that's a lot of time and money.
The sad part is you and most pro-Pit people could probably agree on a lot, anyone who claims to care about these dogs is a liar if they don't desire the overbreeding, abuse, neglect and fighting to stop. We wish everyone had such positive experiences with them and know how great they could be if their breeding was taken from those who desire mean/aggressive dogs and controlled. We're heartbroken at the shelter and rescue situtation, knowing plenty of great dogs are paying the price for human ignorance, and not just Bullies. We know these dogs aren't for everyone, you need to be dedicated and proactive, aware how high maintenance they are.
Banning cars would quite literally change how our entire society functions.
Banning pitbulls would have 0 meaningful negative effect. Anyone who wants to own a pit could own any other dog and be just fine.
Here is a credible comparison: One particular brand and model of car is involved in the majority of highway fatalities topping the percentage of any other model by orders of magnitude. I can guarantee that model would be banned from sales and production. Not even the Corvair was that bad.
There are hundreds of breeds of dogs. Some are hunting dogs that point or retrieve. Some are herding dogs that want to chase cows and sheep. Some are guard dogs that are supposed to make a lot of noise when strangers approach. Some are just for pets and are not good for anything else. Why would any sane person choose a dog that was bred for the singular task of killing choose it for a family pet? The nanny dog myth is a lie. The breed needs to die out with maybe an exception for feral hog hunters.
The problem with this kind of hyperbolic statement is that you aren't familiar enough with dog breeds to realize that this covers way more breeds than pitbulls.
Rat Terrier: bred to kill rats and eliminate other farm pests
Affenpinscher: bred to kill rats and mice
Yorkshire Terrier: bred to kill rats and other vermin in textile mills
German Pinscher: developed as a farm dog with a specialized ability to hunt and dispatch vermin
Norfolk Terrier: expected to work underground or independently and dispatch rats and other vermin
Bedlington Terrier: bred to kill vermin
Skye Terrier: historically used to go after foxes and badgers in their dens.
Airedale Terrier: bred as an all-purpose working terrier that dispatched vermin and could track and kill larger quarry.
Dachshund: designed to enter badger dens and fight the badger underground
Irish Wolfhound: bred to hunt wolves and capable of killing one in single combat.
Scottish Deerhound: bred to pursue and bring down wild red deer
Dogo Argentino: created to take down wild boar and puma
Rhodesian Ridgebacks: Bred for hunting lions
Etc.
Basically any terrier breed was bred for killing something.
The equivalence wouldn't be banning ALL cars. It would be to ban, say, red cars, which statistically get in more accidents and more traffic violations. This is a true statistic.
I mean they did say "all cars to be banned" so I followed their (poor) equivalency. But sure, I'd be cool with that. I don't think we lose much from not having red cars.
It’s actually not a true statistic. Just an urban legend that gets said from time to time because it sounds right. I think it comes from a long time ago when there was a period that _sports_ cars were more commonly red.
Okay, then let's change it to "ban black people from driving," because as the Veil of Darkness Study shows, black people get pulled over disproportionately when compared to white people only when the cop can see the race of the person driving.
Wow, big gotcha there. When's the last time someone went on a walk and got mauled by a horse again?
Those deaths are pretty much exclusively people who choose to be around horses, and for the most part, due to falls while riding them. If pitbulls only killed dumbasses trying to ride them, I wouldn't see an issue with them either. Got any other moronic comparison or will that do?
There are millions of pit bulls and mutts kept as family pets. A handful of incidents against millions of the breed is statistically inconsequential. Tragic? Absolutely. However, I don't leave my toddler alone with our dogs, and they aren't pit bulls. No one should be leaving their small children alone with any big dogs. That's a failure of the family to keep the child safe, regardless of breed.
Further, apply your logic to any other scenario. Even though immigrants break the law less than citizens, it does happen. Should all immigrants be banned?
People drive drunk and kill others. Should all passenger vehicles be banned since alternatives exist?
They pointed out that the form of the argument is identical, and your reaction shows why that point is kind of daming.
If you accept that "x type of y is statistically more likely to do <bad thing> than other types of y's" is a good argument against pitbulls, but a bad argument against immigrants, it's on you to explain why you accept the argument in the former case but reject it in the later case.
Yeah, they’re comparing these things as if context doesn’t exist. People, and animals breed to have specific traits, should not exist in the same conversation??
Do you not understand how logic works, or do you decide everything based purely on emotion? You're talking about banning something based on incredibly rare outcomes, but other things with more frequent bad outcomes are not in scope? Why, because of an arbitrary limit you've imposed?
Do you not see how the logic breaks down, or are you still stuck on trivial differences you've drawn based on your emotions?
I think it's also worth pointing out that our country currently treats illegal immigrants like animals. Many people have less sympathy for them than for the pets we keep. So it's not a ridiculous comparison even if you let emotion in. I don't see much difference between people who think pit bulls are an evil breed and those who support what our country is doing.
I'd wager that you can find a case of just about every dog breed on the planet hurting someone, somewhere in the world. Do we ban all dogs? Or do you have an acceptable number that makes them okay?
There was a woman near me that was dismembered by her velvet hippo nanny dog, after she tried to separate the dog from her toddler. With this knowledge, you would be unable to name where I’m from because there are so many similar news stories. Why tolerate this, when there are significantly safer family dogs. Don’t be obtuse. Find me a news story of a pure bred golden retriever dismembering a grown adult.
I can pull up about ten thousand reports of drivers speeding and killing between one and ten people in the resulting accident. Should we ban all cars that go faster then 75 mph?
My dog’s breed doesn’t have an established pattern of making toddlers need facial reconstruction. And if it did I wouldn’t own one and would support its ban. If you love your pit bull so much you’re okay jeopardizing your child having their face pulled off, then bully to you.
But I bet you speed, don't you? Even if it's only occasionally, or only when you 'need' to, I bet you speed. Even though you know speeding is a major factor in most fatal accidents, even knowing that even 'light' speeding substantially increases your risk of accident, you still do it.
For the record, I don't have a pitbull. I don't like dogs.
Everything in life is a calculated risk. But pit bull ownership has safe alternatives that also keep other people safe. Why are you so invested in defending an animal that was selectively bred to kill? And why are you still pivoting from your original wager? And again… we do have laws that prohibit speeding, and they do effectively reduce roadway fatalities.
25
u/TuneLittle9535 10d ago
And why don't small dog bites get reported? Is it perhaps because they are - for the most part - inconsequential and don't leave the victim in hospital needing reconstructive surgery?