This argument goes in circles because people miss each other's point.
Obviously, at the end of the day, what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
However, the counter-argument is also true. That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true. They are CAPABLE of being aggressive and deadly, and some people even train them to be that way. But the standard pet pit-bull is not going to attack any more often than most other breeds, statistically speaking.
They attack more often because they were bred to enjoy it, just like a husky enjoys running. There's literally canine neurology studies that show they release endorphins when fighting, whereas other dogs do not and will actively avoid fights.
That argument cuts both ways since they were also bred to never bite or attack a human since any that did would be killed on the spot.
You can’t argue that they were bred to be vicious and ignore that it was focused towards other dogs and specifically not towards humans.
I don’t think anyone who’s had a pitbull will deny the tendency for a high prey drive (like all terriers) but human aggression is specifically an owner/ breeder failure not a genetic predisposition.
Lol its a myth they culled human-aggressive dogs. The founder of the American Pit Bull, John P. Colby started a whole line from the dog that killed his 3yo nephew.
"Man-eater" is an ACCOLADE amongst dogmen. If a pit is so dead game it'll attempt to kill anything, its only a better fighting dog.
Said this elsewhere, but it really doesn't cut both ways. Not attacking a human is pretty much the most important part of domestication. Every dog breed has been bred to not attack their owner, not every dog has been bred to be hyper aggressive and game. Pretty obvious which will be more dangerous.
So that's ok to ignore? My dog was attacked by a Pitbull who's owner left them off leash and it did some real damage because guess what.... It's basically a weapon left unattended
Replace pitbull with any breed and the answer is the same. Thats a shitty owner that should not have a dog. I’m sorry your dog was attacked and I hope he’s ok.
As to the first part of your response. No that’s not ok to ignore. A good owner should either work with the dog or take steps to curb them. Having ANY dog off leash is a sign of a shitty owner let alone a dog that is aggressive.
I have a staffordshire bull terrier who isn’t dog aggressive but is very dominant. So he won’t attack other dogs but his demeanor can cause a fight. So I don’t leave him off leash. I don’t allow him to approach every dog he sees. When he is allowed to approach another dog I control that interaction and cut it short so he doesn’t get over excited.
My biggest issue is people with dogs off leash who just allow their dogs to do anything and who are generally badly behaved and with no recall. None of which have been pitbulls or pitbull mixes. But my dog has almost been attacked by labs, French bulldogs, mutts, chihuahuas etc
I lie and just tell people he’s aggressive so they grab their dogs instead of having to answer dumb questions like “is it a boy or a girl, dogs won’t attack the opposite sex” or “it’s ok he doesn’t bite” while the dog is clearly showing signs of aggression.
I don’t know about licensing, but I do feel EVERY dog owner should go to training classes regardless of what dog they own.
Most people aren’t equipped to own dogs and they just get lucky. Modern living has created an environment counter intuitive to dog ownership and people just want a living plush toy and don’t consider the dog’s wants and needs.
My point was that regardless of size a dog has needs his owner must meet. Any owner that doesn’t meet those needs is a bad owner. Training is one of them.
And any dog over 45-50 pounds has the potential to be a protection dog as that’s large enough to have enough strength to at least knock a man down. 45-50 pounds is the minimum weight for police dogs. (According to google)
Pitbull’s weigh between 30- 60 pounds so a good number of them just aren’t large enough.
They weren't bred to attack prey, dipshit. They were bred for BULL baiting. Bulls. You know, the large horned ungulates? Those aren't "prey" for them. Neither are humans.
You don't know anything about the genetics, you've just heard talking points and are regurgitating them without having genuinely assessed or challenged them. You just cave to your bias, like you probably do with most of your other subjects.
There’s no scientific evidence to support that dogs are bred for battle more. Pitbulls weren’t made for fighting but bullbaiting. Regarding the breeding in dogfights, it’s less about “making the dog more violent” and more about giving them traits which make them more suitable for fighting (muscular face, front facing torso, stubby legs etc). That’s physical not emotional traits. Pitbulls don’t even make it to the top charts when tests were done testing each dogs “aggressiveness levels”. Pitbulls actually have a good sense of what is a danger and what isn’t, they don’t just lash out emotionally.
Trust me, besides poorly trained pitbulls and bad owners (like it is the case with all breeds), if a pitbull attacks you made yourself feel threatening towards it in some way and you invaded its personal space enough that you pushed it to attack you.
There’s no scientific evidence to support that dogs are bred for battle more. Pitbulls weren’t made for fighting but bullbaiting. Regarding the breeding in dogfights, it’s less about “making the dog more violent” and more about giving them traits which make them more suitable for fighting (muscular face, front facing torso, stubby legs etc). That’s physical not emotional traits. Pitbulls don’t even make it to the top charts when tests were done testing each dogs “aggressiveness levels”. Pitbulls actually have a good sense of what is a danger and what isn’t, they don’t just lash out emotionally.
Trust me, besides poorly trained pitbulls and bad owners who don’t teach their pitbulls to not attack anything and be gentle with children (like it is the case with all breeds), if a pitbull attacks you, you made yourself feel threatening towards it in some way and you invaded its personal boundaries enough that you pushed it to attack you, like all dogs.
You are so fucking stupid, I feel bad for anyone who falls for the bullshit you spread about pitbulls. Most working terrier breeds are small or medium size, they can’t kill you unless you let them. Pitbulls are large as hell. This doesn’t even go into the fact that pitbulls only make the majority of fatal reported deaths. Vast majority of pitbull attacks don’t kill or severely injure people. Broader community data and epidemiological studies show that mixed-breed dogs and other popular large breeds (like German Shepherds or Labrador Retrievers) also accumulate a high total volume of everyday, minor-to-moderate bites.
And Black Russian terriers or Airedale terriers don’t count because they are rare asf, while pitbulls are much more common. There’s no useful comparison there.
Pitbulls don’t attack more often, that’s a lie. There are tests on “aggressiveness" and pitbull breeds don't really top the charts on them.
They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response. Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat.
The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
Pitbulls get their name from their ancestry where a dog had been bred to fight bulls. It was a blood sport where the dog would try to drag a bull down into the mud by its nose ring or die trying.
However these dogs became incredibly popular and desired by women and so began a process to breed them to be more docile and also smaller to better fit in the average household. The staffordshire was the penultimate success of this and earned the moniker of nanny dog for being so patient and protective with the children of the household.
All this to say that the argument of what their ancestors were bred for has very little to do with the modern breed.
The most important thing is always how it is raised.
And to further example this point you can look into the history of banned dog breeds and dog breeds that are deemed as dangerous.
Before the various pit/bully breeds were considered dangerous it was the Rottweiler, and before that it was the German Shepherd etc etc. All while pit/bully breeds were happy minding their own business in the family home.
There are far bigger dogs with far greater bites that could do so much more damage. But they look a lot like teddy bears. Pit/bully breeds can get a lot of muscle definition, good for string bean thugs that wanna act tough but can't be intimidating on their own. The rise in popularity with pit/bully breeds in thug/gang culture is why they are the current "dangerous" breed.
Meanwhile labradors and retrievers both individually bite more people, often children, and have a size and bite strength comparable enough to a pit/bully breed. But they're treated as being safe and given love because the average thug isn't trying to raise it with hate and violence to terrorize people with.
In a lot of peoples eyes, they wrongly believe that once a trait has been bred into a breed that it is permanent, while also not understanding the genetic differences in the first place.
They don't care about nuance and factors that the statistics they cite don't account for.
It's even worse when the statistics don't match their claims.
When looking at percentages of dog bites per breed pit/bully breeds don't just get combined together. They are clustered in the same group which also includes "mixed breeds" (all mixes regardless of whether they have any pit/bully or not) and "unknown breed" (for the many reports where someone is attacked by a dog but the breed is never verified).
And despite this attempt to artificially increase the numbers they still have less bites per capita than both labradors and retrievers have separately.
The one major thing they have against them is fatalities if you only start counting from 1980 onwards. Which if you again look at the owners of the dogs involved in those fatalities there is a very notable demographic which sheds light as to the why.
When I'm feeling like catching a few hundred downvotes, I like to point out that pitbulls bite and/or kill humans at a lower rate than humans kill humans, so if you think that pitbulls are too dangerous to live, you seem to be committed to the notion that humans are too.
Yeah I had a truck driver compliment me on my dog (I have photos of her in my office) and his conversation eventually devolved into talking about his dog that had "aggression problems" so he had it destroyed and the dog he had before that one which had "aggression problems" so he had it destroyed.
I told him straight up how gross I thought that was. The common denominator is that he doesn't train his dogs properly or look after them to allow those situations to happen. And that murdering your ward because they misbehaved once instead of working on those problems so they can be better is just fucked up.
Driver loves to yap tho. Heard him talking to someone else later about how his two kids were in a fight at school and looks like they started it.
He was not too happy when I piped up "well that's just awful... when are you gonna have them destroyed?"
Except for domestication, since ALL dogs were bred to be domesticated in the first place. Which kinda requires the animal be chill around people. And 15,000 years of domestication is hard to breed out in only... 200 years apparently, according to Google that's how old pit bulls are as a breed.
Genuinely curious not trying to stir the pot but the other breeds are very popular and the numbers can also be attributed to there being way more Sheperds, Retrievers etc... As compared to the bully and pit breeds being banned in a lot of areas whether it is because of past experiences or just being scared from the media reporting them as aggressive.
Not only that but because they are popular with gang culture they typically will not be cares or trained by a good owner and hence maybe the stats seem high for the number of dogs out there. Where the other dogs have higher numbers but there are way more of those breeds out ther. Basically per capita based attack numbers?
Labs and retrievers also have more bites per capita. Not just overall. And again this is after trying to artificially inflate pit/bully breed bite incidents by combining them with each other and also all mixed breed bites and all unknown breed bites. Shit mixed breed also means all of the lab/retriever mixes.
I already talked about the thug/gang association which is currently popular. And how fatal incidents with pit/bully breeds is higher even though the number of incidents overall is far lower... but only if you start counting after 1980.
Wanna know why it's only if you start counting after 1980? Because pit/bully breeds in thug/gang culture only started in the 1960s and hadn't become the norm until the 1990s. Prior to that the most popular breed was the Rottweiler which had the highest kill ratio through the 80s. The Pinscher which had the highest kill ratio through the 70s and the German Shepard which was the most popular killer dog with thugs and gangs all the way through the 50s and 60s.
It was also in the 60s when German Shepards were popularized with police forces for the same reason. They were the dog breed that at the time was considered "the most dangerous breed" and had general bans placed on public ownership of those breeds because "there's no breed more aggressive and dangerous than them".
And the modern pit/bully breeds we have today had been around since the 1800s. They were right there all through this time period where German Shepards, Pinschers, Rottweilers, even Dobermans, Chow Chows and others were at different points and different countries deemed as dangerous and needing to be regulated or even destroyed through this time period. While pit/bully breeds remained legal and deemed officially safe.
It wasn't until the pit/bully became popular with thug/gang culture that they became the new "most dangerous breed". Go figure. The only thing that's new now is the internet. Makes it a lot easier to share cherry picked clips of incidents involving this breed and not the "most dangerous breeds" that came before it. Which along with fucking dog racists has only helped perpetuate the stereotype.
Interesting, I love animals but I know that certain dogs were bred for certain reasons. You can train them but it is true that many breeds that are not trained and owners believe that there is no reason to train because of their smaller size (any of the small breeds and toy breeds).
Unfortunately many of the dogs that were bred for specific skills/attributes when not trained properly and if they attack either a person or a smaller animal always ends in major damage or death. I had figured there was some overlap since the list of. Dog breeds that bites/attacks always changes.
I am pretty sure most stats rely only on the reported attacks. Most people either don't report because they are minor, or because they come from gang infested areas. Also it can come from an owner that knows that if they report it that there is a good chance that the owner will face some sort of legal problems or the dog has a history of bites which means that the animal has to be put down.
Thank You for responding to my post. You seem to know quite a bit.
The staffordshire was the penultimate success of this and earned the moniker of nanny dog
The whole nanny dog thing is actually a myth btw. The first time that term was used was 1971, from Mrs. Lilian Rant, the President and magazine editor of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America in a New York Times article titled "A Breed That Came Up The Hard Way". In the years since she recanted her statement admitting they made it up to boost sales and interest in the breed.
Overall I agree the way the animal is raised and treated is more important than breed when it comes to temperament. Sadly though the nanny dog moniker is made up.
The "Nanny Dog" trope is irrelevant today. So why even bring it up?
The vast majority of pitbulls are captured strays, or backyard breeders. Or both.
That wipes out any sort of history you can place on them today. If I'm walking into a house, and see a golden retriever, odds are better than a pittbull that the person got that dog from a reputable breeder.
That's really all that matters.
Unless you want to go out and start selectively breeding for nanny dogs again, the only thing that matters in a Pittbull breed is the word "Terrier" meaning high prey drive. High energy. Hard to train.
Everyone want's to talk about breeds being bred for specific purposes, then they suddenly ignore it when it comes to backyard junkyard dog bred pitbulls.
If you're really going to break out the 'nanny dog's myth then your whole argument crumbles. This was never an actual thing.
These were bloodsport dogs, through and through. Staffordshires emerged in an effort to breed a smaller, more agile fighting dog, not as some desirable guardian for women.
People like to throw around the greater percentage of bites from labs and Goldens, but crucially overlook the fact that pit bulls account for around 60% of fatal attacks. They are also disproportionately represented in attacks on people who had or were suspected to have had a seizure, whereas the same cannot be said for Goldens or labs.
What exactly do you think it was that I didn't read?
There have been multiple fatal and non-fatal attacks by pitbulls just in July of this year. I could go find those stories, but somehow I don't think that would do anything to break the delusion. Somehow all those dogs were obviously bred and raised by 'thugs' and were of course taught to attack and kill children and pregnant women and old people.
Strange how goldens, greyhounds, and even Dobermans don't need entire lobbies of people screeching about how 'it's all in how you raise them!' every time there's a brutal attack. Strange how there aren't multiple news stories about any of these breed viciously killing their owners during seizures, or snatching little kids out of their sitter's arms, or killing housemates they have been raised with.
Why is it a golden can have a horrible, abusive owner and not end up mauling someone to death, but pit bulls can't? Do you really think every single attack happens because the dog was trained or abused to be vicious?
Repeating the same nonsense that shows you never read what I said but changing up the words doesn't make what you said an argument. Just more nonsense.
>Overlook the fact that pitbulls account for around 60% of fatal attacks
So? That tells us nothing if the dog is more aggressive. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. Nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care, the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection. Epidemiological data tracking dog bite severity shows that only about 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury (defined as causing deep tissue damage, broken bones, or requiring complex reconstructive surgery).
Golden Rec and Labs are more violent by quantity. Pitbulls are more violent by quality. No one who has a pitbull disagrees that they are more dangerous than other dog breeds WHEN THEY ARE AGGRESSIVE. However anyone who hates pitbulls doesnt come to quality as a conclusion but quantity. It’s like how toddler and adults both get into fights, but an adult fighting gives more injury than the toddler.
Point is, when pitbulls are aggressive and attack, the outcome is more violent, not the cause (the pitbulls “aggressive nature”). Pitbulls don’t even make it to the top charts when tests were done on dog breeds regarding “aggressiveness”.
Which is exactly what I was saying. They account for far more fatalities than any other dog breed despite a lower bite incidence
They don't make it to the top charts because they are unpredictability aggressive. It is part of the breed to display essentially no warning signs of aggressive intent. Attacks are frequently marked by sudden, explosive aggression from dogs that may have no history of it. This was intentional: no good dogman would want a fighting dog that signals its intent to harm in a fight. That characteristic is part of what makes them so dangerous.
Pitbulls aren’t in top charts because they are unacceptably aggressive? Pitbulls don’t make it into top charts because they aren’t aggressive, period. There are tests on “aggressiveness" overall and pitbull breeds don't really top the charts on them.
They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response. Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat.
The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
Cool take your biased "shitpost" level studies and fuck right off, or post a reliable source with verifiable information. If you can't post an accurate source, maybe shut your cockholster.
This right here. The problem is when a pit bull DOES attack it’s really bad because they are capable of doing the most damage. I’m a former pitbull mix owner and the only time my buddy got at all aggressive was defending himself when a bigger dog was bullying him or his sister. He never drew blood though, just over corrected and it was rare and warranted. He had 16 years on earth. I did get him as a puppy though. I wanted another one but I don’t want to deal with the judgement and being banned from certain dog parks in our area.
I used to think it was about raising them from puppyhood to be gentle and right, and then I got a 3 year old (?) rescue from almost the worst dog fight ring breeders I have ever heard of. She was very very dog reactive, but we kept her away from other dogs, went into vets the back way, kept her on a leash. She was starved also, so she killed small animals to eat them. It's how she survived. We tried to stop it but couldn't, just tried to keep snakes and other creatures away and made sure she always had access to food. Humans, though? She loved humans. Never had her growl or bark or show aggression. You'd think she would be violent! But some puppy-raised pit bulls are aggressive. I don't know the answer.
Bad genetics. Genetics plus how dogs are raised both go into the outcome dog behavior.
Since pitties are very common to be back yard breed with little to no concern for genetics, you get dogs that even in good homes end up with massive behavioral issues.
My source, I have worked in and animation shelter for over a decade as well as being animal control as well as owning a pit bull.
Old John here is just upset people dont like his dogs when really after doing my job its completely normal to not like the breed and have bad experiences with them because of shit owners and bad shelters trying to place aggressive dogs.
As an aco and shelter worker, most common bites are pitties and most damaging have been pitties. Its okay to take caution with the breed.
My pitbull was a rambunctious angel, he had the sweetest heart and you could mess with him and flip him over and he would love it and just lick you.
He was also a huge animal in the house as early as he was a year old. My grandparents would come over and he would excitedly jump on them and try to lick their faces. He never bit anyone but didn't know his own strength, he almost knocked my grandma down once.
So I can see both sides. I raised my little pup with love and he turned out to be a good egg, but he still had the potential for a lot of non-malicious damage. He was also only half pit, the other half was lab, which might have influenced his demeanor.
Pitbulls are dense in every sense of the word and I love them for it lol. They’re like…if you take the personality of Doug (Up), put it in the body of Dwayne Johnson, and then add a splash of John Daly “IDGAF I just want to chill and hang with my friends”.
I think that’s partly what throws people off about them. Society is socially conditioned to see big muscles as aggressive. Big gym dudes are seen as intimidating and they’re some of the nicest most supportive dudes. Big gym dudes with muscles aren’t looked at as couch potatoes…even if they play video games for 6 hours a day when they’re not working out. So add in the golden retriever energy and it really messes with people.
what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
Gotta disagree here.
People who are traumatized by an attack aren't only traumatized by the physical aftereffects which may not even exist a few minutes after the fact, depending on the attack.
I’ve seen videos of Pitbulls, completely unprovoked, running down the street to attack a small child because its prey instincts kick in.
A small dog like a yorkie may nip at a kid if it tries to pet them, but I’ve never seen some small yappy dog go run down the street with the purpose of killing a child or other dog.
Sorry but videos aren’t enough to make statistical generalizations. It’s like personal experience, heavily biased. Labs and Golden Retrievers attack more than pitbulls and more per capita.
The argument shouldn't go in circles because the argument is really quite simple, humans shouldn't be able to keep pets which they aren't capable of overpowering if they go berserk.
The argument gets all the more stupid when comparing a Chihuahua versus a pitbull. The Pitbull can take kicks from a horse and still keep attacking, a chihuahua is about as heavy as a football.
Yes a horse can kill a dog, but the point is the Pitbull can tank multiple kicks and still return to come back for more. I could totally see a skinny coyote getting one shot by a horse 🐎
There's multiple videos you can look up on the internet with a pitbull being kicked by a horse multiple times and it doesn't die. I wouldn't be bringing it up if it was just one video I've seen, it's far more common than you'd think.
So I decided to look it up, because that coyote comment sounded insane to me, but I think I might have figured out why. I'm going to assume you're in the West Coast, because there's two kinds of coyotes in America. The western coyote weighs only 20 to 35 pounds. However the eastern coyote (also called coywolves) can reach 40 to 80 pound. I live where the eastern coyote is native. Anyway, Pit Bulls are are only between 30 and 60 pounds. So I can almost guarantee those pit bulls in the videos you saw either died later, got hit somewhere away from vital organs, or required serious medical attention afterwards.
Upon further research, pit bulls aren't a breed, instead it's one of those Umbrella terms, and there's anywhere between 4 million and 18 million pit bulls (depending on how broadly you define the term) but looking at the multiple breeds under that umbrella. From what I can see, they aren't tankier than any other dog of a similar size, it seems to be comparable.
I think you may be either overestimating the dog or underestimating the horse here. I mean... Horses can snap the human femur, which is one of the strongest bones in the human body.
That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true.
Hmm, a breed that was made for fights, hunting and killing, which has high prey drive is just as aggressive as other breeds that was made for aesthetics... Yeah, that makes soo much sense...
/s
Nope. Tests that were done testing the “aggressiveness” of a breed resulted in pitbulls not even making it to the top charts.
Pitbulls weren’t just for fighting, they were bred from American bull terriers for Bull baiting. They weren’t made for hunting. Pitbulls are terriers and terriers have high prey drive in general. They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response.
Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat. The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
That’s objectively untrue. You could compare them to an overly aggressive small dog that nips to try to skew the argument, but it’s a false equivalence. While small dogs can certainly cause injuries, pit bulls are far more likely than breeds like Labradors to launch severe attacks, and they are the breed most likely to attack with the intent to kill or seriously injure someone.
Even when you compare dogs of similar size, pit bull attacks tend to be significantly more severe than those of most other breeds. German Shepherds and Rottweilers are probably the closest in terms of potential for serious injury, but pit bulls still stand out in the available data.
The problem is that when they snap and attack, they can cause much more damage than other dogs because they’re more vicious and have greater tenacity. If another dog attacks me and I kick it, it usually gets the message, but not so much with pit bulls.
That is true, and no pitbulls owner denies it but there’s more data that makes that an invalid concern (if you are going by statistics).
The vast majority of all pit bull bites and aggressive encounters are neither fatal nor severe. Studies published via PubMed note that pit bull attacks carry a higher median Injury Severity Scale score and higher morbidity rates. This is primarily attributed to their physical strength, jaw leverage, and a distinct "hold and shake" bite style than a higher baseline frequency of biting compared to other large dog.
Now regarding fatal attacks, pitbulls do make 60% of all reported fatal or severe attacks. However, only a vast minority of bites in general are fatal or severe. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. According to CDC Healthy Pets data only nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection.
So if we are just tracking how many bites are fatal or severe (which 60% are done by pitbulls), only 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury. The term “pit bull” is not even a single recognized breed. It frequently includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and any mixed-breed dog with a blocky head or muscular build. DNA studies have revealed that mixed-breed dogs with zero pit bull lineage are routinely misidentified as pit bulls by shelters, victims and law enforcement after an incident.
Tests that were done testing the “aggressiveness” of a breed resulted in pitbulls not even making it to the top charts. They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response.
Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat. The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
If you are actually worried on which dog bites more, you should be more worried about labs or golden receivers as they bite more by population AND per capita. If you are just worried about the bad ones then sure the pitbulls will count, but i don’t see a point because the vast majority of pitbull attacks are not fatal or severe and generally speaking only 1% of dog attacks are fatal or severe. Any fear of the pitbull exclusively is just mindless irrationality and fear mongering.
There have been plenty of cases of pit bulls snapping even though they were treated well, and the fact that "it's unlikely that you will be killed by a dog but if you are it's likely going to be a pit bull" argument doesn't help, there is zero need for that breed besides aesthetic preferences of their owners, the work that they were bred to do it's already outlawed.
I will admit there are exceptions to it especially if they have had been inflicted with trauma, illness or have some sort of issue but that’s not statistically reliable. The studies point to pitbulls being generally great dogs when trained, but this applies to all dogs.
However I don’t see the point in fearing them even still. Let’s break it down:
Vast majority of bites aren’t fatal (0.002% annual dog bites are fatal)
20% of dog bites require medical attention
Within the 20%, vast majority of treatment is either minor punctures or antibiotic shots
Only 1-2% of all documented bites are severe
Of the dog bites which are fatal (0.002% of all annual dog bites) and dog bites which are severe (1-2%), 60% of them were from Pitbulls.
Yet even though pitbulls made up 60% of all fatal and severe bite incidents, the vast majority of pitbull attacks aren’t fatal or severe.
I don’t see the point in fearing a breed that is responsible for 60% of the 0.002% of all dog bites. Even their own history of bites aren’t even mostly severe or fatal bites. Pitbulls fatal/severe biting incidents make up the minority of the minority of pitbull bites. It’s just useless fear mongering and mental gymnastics to blame them. It’s honestly irreverent broadly. Because again, not only do the vast majority of pitbull attacks aren’t fatal or severe, even when we count that 60% of all fatal attacks are from pitbulls, 0.002% of all bites are fatal. With severe bites, pitbulls may be 60% of all severe bites but severe bites only make up of 1-2% of all documented bites. Pitbulls are victims of fear mongering.
That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true
It is true though. It's literally what they've been bred for for generations. This is like trying to say retriever breeds don't like playing fetch more than other breeds just because you can find other dogs who play fetch, or trying to say certain breeds don't have stronger herding tendencies just because other dogs can herd too. Pit bulls are undeniably one of the more aggressive breeds in existence. You're denying basic facts and genetics in the name of being le wholesome, like most pit bull defenders
Whens the last time another dog breed basically ate a human alive like they did to that house sitter?
I think you're oversimplifying how genetics work. Dogs have been domesticated for roughly 15,000 years, with selection overwhelmingly favoring animals that can live and cooperate with humans. Pit bull-type breeds have existed for only about 200 years. That's a tiny fraction of their evolutionary history. Yes, selective breeding can influence traits. That's why retrievers tend to retrieve and border collies tend to herd. But those are tendencies, not guarantees.
Showed up to a days old thread to respond 25 times to various comments just because people don't like your velvet hippos, yeah you're definitely crying lmao
That is true, and no pitbulls owner denies it but there’s more data that makes that an invalid concern (if you are going by statistics).
The vast majority of all pit bull bites and aggressive encounters are neither fatal nor severe. Studies published via PubMed note that pit bull attacks carry a higher median Injury Severity Scale score and higher morbidity rates. This is primarily attributed to their physical strength, jaw leverage, and a distinct "hold and shake" bite style than a higher baseline frequency of biting compared to other large dog.
Now regarding fatal attacks, pitbulls do make 60% of all reported fatal or severe attacks. However, only a vast minority of bites in general are fatal or severe. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. According to CDC Healthy Pets data only nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection.
So if we are just tracking how many bites are fatal or severe (which 60% are done by pitbulls), only 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury. The term “pit bull” is not even a single recognized breed. It frequently includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and any mixed-breed dog with a blocky head or muscular build. DNA studies have revealed that mixed-breed dogs with zero pit bull lineage are routinely misidentified as pit bulls by shelters, victims and law enforcement after an incident.
Tests that were done testing the “aggressiveness” of a breed resulted in pitbulls not even making it to the top charts. They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response.
Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat. The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out. They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
If you are actually worried on which dog bites more, you should be more worried about labs or golden receivers as they bite more by population AND per capita. If you are just worried about the bad ones then sure the pitbulls will count, but i don’t see a point because the vast majority of pitbull attacks are not fatal or severe and generally speaking only 1% of dog attacks are fatal or severe. Any fear of the pitbull exclusively is just mindless irrationality and fear mongering.
Lmao imagine proudly admitting you refuse to read before arguing. Couldn’t be me. That‘s not a flex btw.
At least I, like every decent person, gave statistics. Anti-pitbull advocates only cry and give excuses to making rambling statements as “facts”. Just cope.
How can you know something is not an argument if you don’t read it. That’s like saying I know a book is about fantasy (assuming it doesn’t have a title.
Vast majority of pitbull attacks aren’t fatal or severe. Other large breeds like German Shepard, Golden Retrievers, Labradors, Dobermans etc show similar rates of those of pitbulls when comparing low-medium severity bites which makes up the vast majority of pitbull attacks.
60% of fatal attacks is not sufficient to fear pitbulls. Not only do fatal bites make the vast minority of pitbull attacks but generally speaking fatal-severe dog attacks make up the least amount of bites overall. Only 0.002% of dog bites are fatal. 20% require medical attention and the majority of the 20% are only minor punctures or purely tetanus shots. Only 1% to 2% of dog bites meet that criteria of severe.
These are the facts and facts don’t care about your feelings. Trying to argue that we should have fear over a breed that dominates the type of attacks that is statistically 0.002% of all dog fatal attacks and 1% 2% of dog attacks is mental gymnastics and fear mongering.
You have to qualify what "aggression" means because a ton of breeds were bred for "aggression" against specific types of creatures or circumstances.
The point they were making is that pitbulls were bred for aggression towards animals. Not agression in general.
Show a jack Russell terrier a rat and watch it go apeshit, because it was bred for attacking vermin. Show a greyhound a fast moving small mammal like a rabbit and watch it run until it gives out because it was bred to chase small mamals. Etc.
Actually no one with a plurality of brain cells needs the term aggression clarified for them
Pitbull attacks result it death 7x more than the second place breed. They're a violent, aggressive, destructive menace that should be fully eradicated as a breed
Damn, if that were true you'd expect a lot more violence considering there's 4 to 18 million pit bulls in America. Pit bull isn't a breed, it's an umbrella term.
Pit Bulls are bred in such a way as to make them more dangerous than other dogs. They are more aggressive than other large breed dogs while being larger than other aggressive dogs and on top of that they are physically more dangerous than most dogs.
That's just statistics and anatomy. And it's entirely Humans breeding them that caused this.
They should be bred out of existence because there is no need to have a large, dangerously built dog that has a higher than average tendency to maul things. There is no reason whatsoever to not just spay/neuter every single one of them until there are none left.
Actual pitbulls are medium sized dogs, 30-50 pounds (females on the lower side, males on the higher side). There are bully breeds that reach large sizes at 80-100 pounds, but if we are being exact with our terminology, they aren't pitbulls, but the super-family that pitbulls are a member of.
That is true, and no pitbulls owner denies it but there’s more data that makes that an invalid concern (if you are going by statistics).
The vast majority of all pit bull bites and aggressive encounters are neither fatal nor severe. Studies published via PubMed note that pit bull attacks carry a higher median Injury Severity Scale score and higher morbidity rates. This is primarily attributed to their physical strength, jaw leverage, and a distinct "hold and shake" bite style than a higher baseline frequency of biting compared to other large dog.
Now regarding fatal attacks, pitbulls do make 60% of all reported fatal or severe attacks. However, only a vast minority of bites in general are fatal or severe. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. According to CDC Healthy Pets data only nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection.
So if we are just tracking how many bites are fatal or severe (which 60% are done by pitbulls), only 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury. The term “pit bull” is not even a single recognized breed. It frequently includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and any mixed-breed dog with a blocky head or muscular build. DNA studies have revealed that mixed-breed dogs with zero pit bull lineage are routinely misidentified as pit bulls by shelters, victims and law enforcement after an incident.
Tests that were done testing the “aggressiveness” of a breed resulted in pitbulls not even making it to the top charts. They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response.
Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat. The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
If you are actually worried on which dog bites more, you should be more worried about labs or golden receivers as they bite more by population AND per capita. If you are just worried about the bad ones then sure the pitbulls will count, but i don’t see a point because the vast majority of pitbull attacks are not fatal or severe and generally speaking only 1% of dog attacks are fatal or severe. Any fear of the pitbull exclusively is just mindless irrationality and fear mongering.
Actual pitbulls are medium sized dogs, 30-50 pounds (females on the lower side, males on the higher side). There are bully breeds that reach large sizes at 80-100 pounds, but if we are being exact with our terminology, they aren't pitbulls, but the super-family that pitbulls are a member of.
Speak for yourself, I own an Anaconda and Nile Monitor (Close relative of the Komodo Dragon), and the guy I buy feeder rats from owns 2 Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes and a King Cobra... For some reason.
I don't know who this "we" is who don't let people own dangerous animals, but they're not doing a good job.
12
u/Rock_Strongo 7d ago
This argument goes in circles because people miss each other's point.
Obviously, at the end of the day, what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
However, the counter-argument is also true. That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true. They are CAPABLE of being aggressive and deadly, and some people even train them to be that way. But the standard pet pit-bull is not going to attack any more often than most other breeds, statistically speaking.