Pitbulls are Violent Dogs

[Icoblablubb]

and still Humans kill way more Humans than all dogs combined do .. so lets ban humanity ya? gosh this type of threads are just stupid .. so many people here who never owned a pitbull bashing on them even though i agree without proper training they are aggresive but its always bad owner = bad dog . most of these dog attacks come from owner who just want one of these *violent* breeds to be some kind of cool but don't give a shit about dog training proper handling and if something bad happens its always the dogs fault but not the fking owner or people who try to engage such dogs in a way thats not appropiate and then get attacked

[Holofernes]

the main criteria for the whole breed is its fight willingness. They were bred to fight until they die, in the pits and against rats.

[Ghostpanther]

The data is misleading. Assuming each breed has equal chances of attacking, the larger population breeds are going to have the most attacks/deaths. Pit bulls win due to shear population size. Normalize over population size and pitties aren't number one. Mastiffs are last time I checked.

Lets look at the dog population of breeds which are registered http://www.statisticbrain.com/dog-statistics/ then the statistics which show the number of dog bites,deaths caused by breeds. Notice the Lab is the number one dog and there are 3 times as many as there are registered pit bulls. Granted this is with registered dogs and not all dog owners ( actually less do ) register their dogs. But it is pretty clear which breed is the most responsible for the most deaths from breeds percentage wise even when population is taken into consideration. Mastiffs are another breed which were bred to be powerful, aggressive guards and fighters. And there is a reason most police and military dogs are German shepherds or close cousins to that breed and they rarely pick Mastiffs or Pit bulls.

[gamingmuscle]

Lets look at the dog population of breeds which are registered http://www.statisticbrain.com/dog-statistics/ then the statistics which show the number of dog bites,deaths caused by breeds. Notice the Lab is the number one dog and there are 3 times as many as there are registered pit bulls. Granted this is with registered dogs and not all dog owners ( actually less do ) register their dogs. But it is pretty clear which breed is the most responsible for the most deaths from breeds percentage wise even when population is taken into consideration. Mastiffs are another breed which were bred to be powerful, aggressive guards and fighters. And there is a reason most police and military dogs are German shepherds or close cousins to that breed and they rarely pick Mastiffs or Pit bulls.

Those stats are grossly inaccurate. This year there are roughly 90 million dogs in the US, and your go to stat is an opt in of 400,000? That isn't even a useful gauge of the population distribution of each breed. It is utterly useless in this context. A few years ago there were roughly 6-10 or 8-12 (can't remember, and I didn't save and can't find the links) million pitt bulls in the US.

The last thread about this had all sorts of numbers in, like you are 100 times more likely to be murdered than killed by a pitt bull. Last I looked there are less than 50 deaths from dogs (all breeds) a year, and put that against only the population of 6 million pitties. Yeah that's not a scary percentage. It's just fear mongering.

From my experience German shepherds are smarter.

[Ghostpanther]

Those stats are grossly inaccurate. This year there are roughly 90 million dogs in the US, and your go to stat is an opt in of 400,000? That isn't even a useful gauge of the population distribution of each breed. It is utterly useless in this context. A few years ago there were roughly 6-10 or 8-12 (can't remember, and I didn't save and can't find the links) million pitt bulls in the US.

The last thread about this had all sorts of numbers in, like you are 100 times more likely to be murdered than killed by a pitt bull. Last I looked there are less than 50 deaths from dogs (all breeds) a year, and put that against only the population of 6 million pitties. Yeah that's not a scary percentage. It's just fear mongering.

From my experience German shepherds are smarter.

I call it being logically cautious.

I agree German Shepard are a smart breed. They are also more responsive with their controller and thus easier to control.

[Skandulous]

Lets look at the dog population of breeds which are registered http://www.statisticbrain.com/dog-statistics/ then the statistics which show the number of dog bites,deaths caused by breeds. Notice the Lab is the number one dog and there are 3 times as many as there are registered pit bulls. Granted this is with registered dogs and not all dog owners ( actually less do ) register their dogs. But it is pretty clear which breed is the most responsible for the most deaths from breeds percentage wise even when population is taken into consideration. Mastiffs are another breed which were bred to be powerful, aggressive guards and fighters. And there is a reason most police and military dogs are German shepherds or close cousins to that breed and they rarely pick Mastiffs or Pit bulls.

The reason cops and military dont pick them to use is because they can snap and are to aggressive. German Shepard's when taught right are only aggressive when commanded but also stop when commanded. Once a pit bull attacks it is not stopping ive seen ppl choke, stab, pepper spray and everything else on a pit bull attacking a guy and the dog never let go or backed off you literally have to kill it to make it stop. Yes you can have a pit for years and they are the friendliest and you never have any problems. For guard dogs and companions there are alot better breeds than pit bulls but ppl for some reason gotta have a pit.


http://blog.dogsbite.org/2017/03/dog...-maryland.html

[Ghostpanther]

The reason cops and military dont pick them to use is because they can snap and are to aggressive. German Shepard's when taught right are only aggressive when commanded but also stop when commanded. Once a pit bull attacks it is not stopping ive seen ppl choke, stab, pepper spray and everything else on a pit bull attacking a guy and the dog never let go or backed off you literally have to kill it to make it stop. Yes you can have a pit for years and they are the friendliest and you never have any problems. For guard dogs and companions there are alot better breeds than pit bulls but ppl for some reason gotta have a pit.


http://blog.dogsbite.org/2017/03/dog...-maryland.html

Good points and I agree. I think with some people, pit bulls are a tough guy status symbol. For my self however, it would be like carrying a firearm with a hair trigger and no safety feature.

[Rotted]

The pitbull people are gonna be pissed at me. Imagine that, a dog that was bred to be a violent fighting dog actually contributes to far more fatalities per year than other dog breeds. It's almost like genetic science and selective breeding work, and no matter how well you "raise your dog to be nonviolent" it is not going to change the dogs physical genetics. Accept the science of genetics and spare me your "cute" pictures of pitbulls with children because I believe in statistics and science not propaganda.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...ities-2016.php
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...ities-2015.php
http://www.dreamindemon.com/communit...ite-org.82564/

I don't like pit bulls personally, and I don't normally reply to thread like this, but you need to be told straight,

But 9/10 it's due to how they are brought up and trained, they are usually used by gangs as trophies, tokens, respect lark and all that. Very few dogs in respect to each species population has natural aggressiveness to other dogs or people and that's due to centuries of selective breeding.

I could sit here and give you a lecture about how genetics actually work but I feel my breath would be wasted, just know as a trained zoologist and my partner sitting next to me as a trained geneticist we both facepalmed at this post.

Lastly, if you claim to believe in science and stats, try using a unbiased website. I opened your dog bite one and their main fucking banner shows some sort of staffi or pitbull, as for using a secondary source to back it up, you're using a forum that quoted the first website. That doesn't count as verification.

Find us peer reviewed literature that shows a statistical significance from a credible journal or two that show all or vast majority of pit bulls are naturally aggressive, then we can talk. But let me give you a heads up, save your time, you won't find any

[Celista]

I mean...socialization is probably a huge issue right there.

I think I've told this story before, but my mom has a really good friend who has been a dog groomer for forever. Been around tons of dogs . Knows how dogs are. Understands dogs. Has a Great Dane.

No one ever hears bad things about Great Danes, right?

Never socialized dog. Did not neuter dog. Did not train dog. Dog is a fucking menace - a 200lb menace. He's vicious. He's uncontrollable. He's bigger than she is - and he knows it, which is a huge problem.

The dog is a walking time bomb, but so far has not actually gotten loose to attack anyone. So, technically, Great Danes are not "vicious" dogs and he hasn't actually attacked anyone yet, so nothing can be done, even though anyone with half a brain and any experience with dogs can tell the dog is a fatality waiting to happen.

Contrast with my half-Rott, half-Pitt, who was socialized extensively as a puppy, neutered at 3 months old, given obedience training, and has never been allowed to put his mouth on anything or push anyone around (it's cute as a puppy until it's not cute as a 100lb dog). He's calm, friendly, likes people. Would I leave him alone with a small child? No. But I wouldn't leave any dog alone with a small child, because that's just asking for trouble.

People underrate the effects of socialization, spay/neutering, and not having multiple dogs.

Yeah ofc. She has stated before that she has made attempts at socialization (she alluded to taking her to dog parks when she was a puppy) but I'm not sure if there was an incident at the dog park that made her stop going or if she was inconsistent with her efforts for the dog to end up the way it has, all I know is that Jade (the dog) has been left alone at home for long stretches of time, while she worked, went to graduate school, and completed clinical hours. The dog has a cat companion, but that is not sufficient socialization in my opinion, especially for an introverted owner...

Honestly considering the dog's behavior I'm kindof suspicious that she "did everything possible" but who knows. I have a cat who refuses to be a 100% indoor cat despite my numerous attempts at VERY GRADUALLY increasing his time indoors/making my apartment a cat palace/funhouse, while my dog is a well-socialized angel I can't wag my finger at other pet owners too much.

I am a big believer that behavior is both genetics AND environment, but I do think something somewhere went wrong with that dog on the environment end, despite my friend's good intentions.

[velren]

So, 22 fatalities from in 2016 from pit bulls. How many pit bulls are there in the US? This site http://www.realpitbull.com/reality.html estimated approximately 5 million pit bulls in the US (shockingly, there's not really any accurate census data on dogs /s). 22 fatilities for 5 million? I'll take those odds. The site also satirically describes that a person is 16 times more likely to die from a 5-gallon water pail than a pit bull.

The 5-gallon water pails are the real hidden enemies here.

#stopthepails

Actually had a discussion a couple years ago with someone trying to tell me pitbulls were so voilent. He used similar stats. But if you focus on attacks relative to the popularity of the dogs breed it is quite the opposite pitbulls were just so popular to skew the stats. Less common breeds like shepards, rottweilers, etc had much worse rates of attacks relative to their popularity. As much as people want to bitch about a dog's breed at least 90% of their tempermant comes from how they are raised and trained by their owner.

[gamingmuscle]

I call it being logically cautious.

I don't think fearing a 1 in 200,000 chance event is being logically cautious. That seems rather irrational to me. You are far more likely to die in a car crash, a plane crash, bad weather, gun violence and these are all rather unlikely events.

I agree German Shepard are a smart breed. They are also more responsive with their controller and thus easier to control.

Yeah you wan intelligence and some power to back it up over just a power breed.

[Skandulous]

I don't like pit bulls personally, and I don't normally reply to thread like this, but you need to be told straight,

But 9/10 it's due to how they are brought up and trained, they are usually used by gangs as trophies, tokens, respect lark and all that. Very few dogs in respect to each species population has natural aggressiveness to other dogs or people and that's due to centuries of selective breeding.

Dogs are animals they can snap and when a pit snaps its a killing machine.
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2017/03/dog...-maryland.html

[velren]

Dogs are animals they can snap and when a pit snaps its a killing machine.
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2017/03/dog...-maryland.html

So you respond with a blog post from the same site people have already questioned for bias and legitimacy? Keep up the lack of effort, it's amusing.

[ComputerNerd]

Lack of context can give you whatever answer you want.
How were the dogs raised or treated.

A pretty pie chart still does not include that amongst those breeds there are still nice dogs, and you don't give any numbers there on the proportions.

[Ghostpanther]

I don't think fearing a 1 in 200,000 chance event is being logically cautious. That seems rather irrational to me. You are far more likely to die in a car crash, a plane crash, bad weather, gun violence and these are all rather unlikely events.



Yeah you wan intelligence and some power to back it up over just a power breed.

Statically I am sure you are correct. But you know, if I am a victim or a loved one is, I wound not give 2 shits what statistics say. For myself, I would not own one.

[velren]

Statically I am sure you are correct. But you know, if I am a victim or a loved one is, I wound not give 2 shits what statistics say. For myself, I would not own one.

Don't give a shit what statistics say? Then life will be very dim for you, stats are used daily in thousands of ways to determine things.....but yeah, fuck math and shit right?

[ComputerNerd]

Statically I am sure you are correct. But you know, if I am a victim or a loved one is, I wound not give 2 shits what statistics say. For myself, I would not own one.

So someone on the receiving end of an incident may gain a bias ?
That would not be unique to pit-bulls.
How much is because we are told they are bad ?
Look at the anti-vaccination movement which was based on some "celebrity" making an announcement without proof, and which despite being disproven by many legitimate studies will see the illegitimate results help up high as "proof".

Edit: Found the video.

[medievalman1]

Don't give a shit what statistics say? Then life will be very dim for you, stats are used daily in thousands of ways to determine things.....but yeah, fuck math and shit right?

Yeah, there's a difference between being statistically significant and being actually relevant. Given the sheer enormous number of pit bulls in the US vs how often they are involved in fatalities (because apparently people either don't want to provide just dog attack information, or can't because of a lack of accurate data), I'll just continue being more afraid of 5 gallon pails of water instead of pits (because the pails were involved in more fatalities than the dogs).

[Ghostpanther]

Don't give a shit what statistics say? Then life will be very dim for you, stats are used daily in thousands of ways to determine things.....but yeah, fuck math and shit right?

That is not what I am saying. Nice try on the twisting a statement, but you failed. Statistics are very useful and can be informational in many ways. But with some things, it is a matter of choices we make. I know statistically my odds of having a fatal care crash is pretty damn low. But I wear my seat belt anyway. Plus the statistics show I have a higher chance of surviving and it costs me like 2 secs to hook up..;P There is no need for me to have a Pit Bull as a pet. So I reduce my statistical chances of getting bit by one.

[ComputerNerd]

That is not what I am saying. Nice try on the twisting a statement, but you failed. Statistics are very useful and can be informational in many ways. But with some things, it is a matter of choices we make. I know statistically my odds of having a fatal care crash is pretty damn low. But I wear my seat belt anyway. Plus the statistics show I have a higher chance of surviving and it costs me like 2 secs to hook up..;P There is no need for me to have a Pit Bull as a pet. So I reduce my statistical chances of getting bit by one.

But by getting another dog breed, if you have one you have increased the chance of being bitten by that one instead.
Which at least in this thread there has been no evidence to show is more or less likely.