Pit bulls : Dangerous dogs or friendly buddies?

[Dug]

This is a standard slippery slope argument though. Accepting one ban does not mean that we have to accept all bans. Each breed can be considered by its value.

And you're right but in this case I can't even accept the initial ban when considering the value that pitts bring to some people (loving pets)

[Puupi]

On that subject though..I'm philosophically torn whether dogs as pets is ethical at all. As you say all breeds of decent size sometimes attack and hurt people. Are pets worth that much really? In an ideal world I'd prefer much stricter regulation on pets that can be dangerous.

So you have never had a pet.

[drakensoul]

And I'm not disputing that. But you ban the pitts and then another dog takes the spot as "most dangerous".. then what? Ban another breed until we're left with tea cup Pomeranians?

Reductio ad absurdum not withstanding, there's a line below which dangerousness doesn't matter. Once you're no longer capable of killing someone and once you no longer kill X people per year, the fact that you may have some small level of 'dangerous' seems irrelevant. You can move the line around and change the variables which define it, but there obviously exists a principle of 'too dangerous' vs. 'dangerous but irrelevant.'

Clearly the idea behind banning pitts is that they are above this line.

I'd be more in favor of requiring a license and/or special training to own one as opposed to banning them.

[Dug]

Sure, ofc that's irrelevant since it's established pitbulls inevitably attack and maim more than other breeds.

On that subject though..I'm philosophically torn whether dogs as pets is ethical at all. As you say all breeds of decent size sometimes attack and hurt people. Are pets worth that much really? In an ideal world I'd prefer much stricter regulation on pets that can be dangerous.

Regulations are pretty strict already in what you can or cannot own. Can't go owning actual wild animals and stuff without the proper permits. Personally I can't get on board with the argument of something that can be dangerous needs to be outright banned or regulated and monitored into obsoletion. That just ties into too many other subjects that will just derail the thread but I'm sure you can imagine what I'm talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Reductio ad absurdum not withstanding, there's a line below which dangerousness doesn't matter. Once you're no longer capable of killing someone and once you no longer kill X people per year, the fact that you may have some small level of 'dangerous' seems irrelevant.

Clearly the idea behind banning pitts is that they are above this line.

The kill X people a year is arbitrary then. If we follow that logic why couldn't it just be 1 person a year killed for an X size dog so potentially it can be banned?

edit: in response to your edit yeah I can probably get on board with something like that if its reasonable.

[Zoibert the Bear]

Sure, ofc that's irrelevant since it's established pitbulls inevitably attack and maim more than other breeds.

On that subject though..I'm philosophically torn whether dogs as pets is ethical at all. As you say all breeds of decent size sometimes attack and hurt people. Are pets worth that much really? In an ideal world I'd prefer much stricter regulation on pets that can be dangerous.

Many European countries force owners to go through a licensing process if they want to own a specific breed, and that is perfectly fine.

The problem here is that people seem to always blame the breed. Any owner that has shown interest and become knowledgeable can rise a dog to be submissive and loving, no matter the breed. But a breed with a predisposition to aggressive behavior + Joe "I'm a Fucking Gangster" Hillbilly is a combination for disaster.

[Aggrophobic]

I love dogs, i adore dogs, i am that type of idiot human that doesnt give a fuck what happens in Africa or how bad another human has it but i cant stand watching a dog get hurt.

But i do not trust pitbulls at all along with rotties and a couple more breeds, i would not trust them around any family member or anyone i care about.

Its not that they are all dangerous but when a pitbull snaps it goes for the neck, it doesnt bite your hand or your leg, it goes for your face and neck, they arent the same as the other dogs in that regard.

They are simply a much more dangerous breed compared to other dogs simply because of that, they go for the throat instantly, it doesnt matter if it was an one time thing, if it bites down you will get insanely hurt or most of the time killed cause the artery will get cut and you are dead in minutes.

That is simply not true though. A bulldog is not more likely to aim for a specific area of your body than any other dog of the same size, should they attack you.

[drakensoul]

Regulations are pretty strict already in what you can or cannot own. Can't go owning actual wild animals and stuff without the proper permits. Personally I can't get on board with the argument of something that can be dangerous needs to be outright banned or regulated and monitored into obsoletion. That just ties into too many other subjects that will just derail the thread but I'm sure you can imagine what I'm talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



The kill X people a year is arbitrary then. If we follow that logic why couldn't it just be 1 person a year killed for an X size dog so potentially it can be banned?

I don't think you're making a point. I didn't define X, simply suggested that at some point if one breed is killing above a certain number of people per year where other breeds are killing zero, that is an intellectually acceptable impetus for banning the breed.

You keep making the fallacious argument that there is no spectrum of aggressiveness or dangerousness. You're arguing that since even a water gun could be considered dangerous in the wrong hands, banning real guns is a slippery slope that will lead to eventually banning the toys too, as if there's no way to distinguish and no point of being able to mark reality. This is reductio ad absurdum and is not an argument. Alternative facts.

The fact that all dogs can be dangerous is not the issue. No, it is not correct that if you ban one breed responsible for 70% of killings by dogs per year that you're now unable to distinguish and must ban all dogs. There is a gradient, and intuitively at some point one must accept that X is particularly more dangerous and damaging than the rest. Or maybe you're not mentally capable of making that distinction, I don't know.

If the argument is that pitts tend to be more aggressive and are responsible for more dog related deaths per year than any other breed, recurrently, I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make against that. "Owner quality" would simply be a confounding variable that, with a large enough sample size, is no longer statistically significant. I'm not sure whether or not there exists an adequately powered study to comment, but the underlying thought process is fairly simple.

If their dangerousness is negated by having a high-quality owner, then there should be some process by which only high-quality owners can have one.

[Bakis]

Hah you have not met my mothers chihuahua then or many! They do bite and if they were any bigger then they would do just the same amount of damage as a larger aggressive breed. They're limited by their genetics

They are feisty sometimes but if Im in peril I can strangle one in 10s. Which I cant with a pit bull

[Tasttey]

While this is a point, all it means is that when talking about dangerous pitbulls, one must assume that one is talking about the amalgamated group, which is statistically much more dangerous than any other amalgamated group.

From dogsbite.org here is a very pertinent statistic:

"31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population"

71% of fatalities from a group constituting 6% of the dog population says it all really.

Did you even bother to check your source's sources?

The supposed 6% of the population is based on a market survey of classified ads offering dogs for sale or adoption, denoting their popularity not population. There is no census taken of dogs in the United States.

Unless you're going to argue that percentage of dogs available for re-homing is equal to percentage of total population.

Although one could attempt to extrapolate the percentage from the AKC's registration lists, however it only counts the Stafforshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier since it doesn't recognize the American Pitbull Terrier nor American Bull Terrier. Well that and its numbers for 2016 put the Labrador Retriever at the top spot as opposed to the survey that put the Dachshund as the number one singular breed.

[Archon14]

They are feisty sometimes but if Im in peril I can strangle one in 10s. Which I cant with a pit bull

There are jaw-breaking and tongue-pulling methods for bigger doggos. 99% of my encounters with dogs were great, I hope I never end up in a situation where I have to use it.
One of my friends was, and he had to pull the tongue out to not lose his hand. Awful stuff.

[Dug]

If their dangerousness is negated by having a high-quality owner, then there should be some process by which only high-quality owners can have one.

Something I addressed in an edit in the post in response to your edit. I'm not opposed to a permit/mandatory training system if the dog breed can be proven to be genetically more aggressive that other breeds. My point is that out right banning is excessive is all.

[Witchblade77]

since some of the people keep bringing up anecdotal evidence, here's some of mine. based on combination of factors - having pets and going to dog parks/vet's office with them, as well as working as a dog walker for a few months. I have yet to meet a pit that was in any way human aggressive. whether they get along with other pets depends on combination of individual temperament and early socialization or lack of thereof. but with humans they are absolute sweethearts. dogs that I've had the most issues with, were usually smaller dogs. most problematic in my experience? Jack Russel terrier. yep, the same breed as the dog in "Frazier". our current dog is the first pit that I have lived with full time (basically I dealt with other people's pits before, this one is the first one that is mine) she is almost ridiculously eager to please, and after constant push and pull of wills that I had with my rottweilers (who are known to be a stubborn breed) its... so weird to live with a dog who doesn't keep testing you over and over.

so in my anecdotal experience, pit dogs are not more dangerous than any other dogs. all dogs can be dangerous. all dogs can be aggressive. and statistics? well....

context. is. key.

1. they have been the type of dog preferred by criminals due to their muscled, intimidating appearance (with cropped ears) while being easier to handle then some of the other intimidating looking dogs.
2. statistics lump several breeds as well as any dog that vaguely looks like a pit bull under that label when it comes to cataloging bites.

statistic that is far more interesting to me is just how high the rate of rehabilitation is for pit dogs when they are given a chance to BE rehabilitated and rehomed. dogs that can be so easily rehabilitated even after being systematically abused and forced into aggressive behavior? are damn amazing

P.S. when a dog, ANY dog snaps, unless they were trained to go for specific part of the body - they will go for whatever is closest to their mouth. THAT is a fact. so one has to wonder.. why is it that people who are not apparently trained to watch for signals of distress in a dog, get their damn faces in dog's faces? I mean... I, a human have actualy bitten someone who kept getting in my face and would not take no, get away from me for an answer or release my arms. is it a wonder that dogs lash out?

[Raelbo]

I really hope this was the last thread you go play that game, because you know I really like playing stupid games like that.

Good to know you're in this to play stupid games. Maybe it would be more appropriate to try to engage in more intelligent discussion. Assuming of course you are capable thereof.

But on the subject: Pit bulls have a bad rep because of their owners.

A weak narrative parrotted by lovers of the breed to try and handwave away pretty damning stats. While it's very likely that bad owners have exacerbated the situation and skewed the stats even worse than they should be, I can't see how any intelligent, unbiased individual wouldn't see the obvious underlying problem that was there in the first place (and is the very reason why pitbulls attract bad owners)

[The One Percent]

They are fine with their "pack", the problem is people see how they act at home and assume they will be just fine with strangers. This is not limited to pit bulls.

[Darsithis]

As I've said in like 50 threads on this forum on this exact subject...

...a dog has a personality that is magnified by their training and socialization. Dogs are not inherently cruel, but dogs like a pit bull are obviously capable of dishing out considerably more dangerous bites than a smaller, but more aggressive dog. Are they dangerous? If not properly socialized or trained, yes. If they are properly cared for, no, they're incredibly sweet, generous dogs.

[Tasttey]

2. statistics lump several breeds as well as any dog that vaguely looks like a pit bull under that label when it comes to cataloging bites.

Considering most of the reporting is done by either victims, witnesses, or law enforcement who may or may not properly identify the breed.

Even vets and shelter staff identify them incorrectly at a rather high rate.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9002331500310X

[Adolecent]

I don't think it's pitbulls per say that are problematic, it's the way special kind of people are attracted to this race. The Dutch Animal Protection Service states it like this:

"You build dangerous fighting machines"

The survey shows how easy it is to buy a real fighting machine with some simple calls. Covert talk shows with the breeder that this dangerous dogs is that you can not leave alone when children are around. The intersections of pitbulls and Staffords enjoy great popularity and are estimated to thousands around the Netherlands. A dangerous development takes Nagtegaal of the APS: "If you go through breeding for fighting characteristics, then you build really dangerous fighting machines."

I personaly am in favour for implementing a permit system to hold domestic dogs, like we have with guns.

[Raelbo]

Did you even bother to check your source's sources?

The supposed 6% of the population is based on a market survey of classified ads offering dogs for sale or adoption, denoting their popularity not population. There is no census taken of dogs in the United States.

Unless you're going to argue that percentage of dogs available for re-homing is equal to percentage of total population.

Although one could attempt to extrapolate the percentage from the AKC's registration lists, however it only counts the Stafforshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier since it doesn't recognize the American Pitbull Terrier nor American Bull Terrier. Well that and its numbers for 2016 put the Labrador Retriever at the top spot as opposed to the survey that put the Dachshund as the number one singular breed.

I actually did look at the source (2). And yes you're probably right in that the "6%" is only a rough estimate.

Now my question to you: Did you even think about the impact that the margin of error would have on the argument? Would, for example, 71% of fatalities from 20% (a massive error indeed) of the dog population be ok? No it would not.

My point stands: Pitbulls have a massively disproportionate number of kills. Nitpicking at the precision of their population estimate isn't going to change that.

[gushDH]

The problem is that they are very strong dogs. And when ANYONE can get one, some of the owners are gonna be bad, so they grow a bad strong dog. They are not an aggressive breed, but they are a strong breed. Strength in the wrong hands can only end up badly

[ParanoiD84]

Seen tons of them and never once seen them attack anyone, there is literally millions out there not harming anyone, id say it's more of a owner problem seeing as many criminals gets them for show/respect and cant raize them for shit.

I love them specially the females they look so cute.