Are Pit Bulls Dangerous?

[Techno-Druid]

My Opinion:

Yes and no. Pit bulls themselves aren't particularly ranked high in there with dog bites I believe, both golden retrievers and Chihuahuas are known to bite more people than pit bulls.

However what makes pit bulls more dangerous than arguably retrievers is that they're terriers. While a poodle or a labrador may bite the arm or leg and let go, a pit bull and most other terriers are bred to go for the head or neck and hold on. So when they do bite people it usually is a more dangerous situation.

You also have to take into account misidentification. Pit bull is just a general term for many breeds of dogs and many times supposed "pit bull maulings" are done by mongrel dogs and not directly by recognized pit bull breeds.

You also have to take into account bad breeding, many pit bulls are bred for being more fiesty as opposed to being bred to be more docile.

All in all, it depends on how you raise it and how you properly take care of it.

[Deleted]

Most attacks are down to poor training and supervision, every dog can snap for no reason and it is down to the owner to make sure that does not happen round kids.

[ParanoiD84]

Never seen one go crazy and I've been around them plenty, seen them being great with children to. Think most times it's the bad owner thing that's the problem they are not easy to raise.

They got a bad rep becouse most criminals and idiots get them for show and they can't raise them for shit.

[Kasierith]

Pit bulls are extremely impressionable. How "dangerous" they are depends on how they are raised. Which is why they're really risky to adopt and such if you don't have a lot of knowledge of the family who raised them, and its generally "safest" to raise them yourself.

Another way to put it is that if they're raised to be a guard dog, they don't know how to turn off being a guard dog. If they're raised to be cute happy drooling bundles of love, they'll stay that way.

[Spectral]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "dangerous". They're certainly dangerous in the sense that an ~50 pound animal of lean muscle, strong jaws, and low center of gravity can be dangerous. They're also dangerous if we look at risk ratios relative to other breeds - anyone claiming that there's no risk difference between a pit bull and an Australian shepherd is being dishonest or ignorant.

But, on the other hand, if you mean "dangerous" in the sense of "poses substantial risk", then the answer is, "no, not really". They're probably the riskiest of dog breeds and dogs certainly can do substantial damage though.

[GennGreymane]

Pit bulls are more impressionable and thus easier to train/influence. Its much easier to make a Pitbull dangerous than other breeds. But thats the fault of the owner

[Deleted]

My Opinion:

Yes and no. Pit bulls themselves aren't particularly ranked high in there with dog bites I believe, both golden retrievers and Chihuahuas are known to bite more people than pit bulls.

However what makes pit bulls more dangerous than arguably retrievers is that they're terriers. While a poodle or a labrador may bite the arm or leg and let go, a pit bull and most other terriers are bred to go for the head or neck and hold on. So when they do bite people it usually is a more dangerous situation.

You also have to take into account misidentification. Pit bull is just a general term for many breeds of dogs and many times supposed "pit bull maulings" are done by mongrel dogs and not directly by recognized pit bull breeds.

You also have to take into account bad breeding, many pit bulls are bred for being more fiesty as opposed to being bred to be more docile.

All in all, it depends on how you raise it and how you properly take care of it.

They require a firm hand. It's not a dog for everyone. They can be trained to be a very loving and protective family member.
But most people who get them are irresponsible, ignorant, arrogant and self-centered.

[Ichifails]

Most attacks are down to poor training and supervision, every dog can snap for no reason and it is down to the owner to make sure that does not happen round kids.

I'm not entirely sure you understand how genetics work. But then again most "pet lovers" aren't rational people so meh. When you literally breed something to fight and kill, no amount of training is going to fucking genetically engineer them to not snap.

[Techno-Druid]

I'm not entirely sure you understand how genetics work. But then again most "pet lovers" aren't rational people so meh.

Pit bulls are not particularly aggressive, however their anatomy makes them more potentially dangerous than plenty of other dogs

[Treeskee]

I'll agree with the yes and no. I think there are just too many pitbull breeders these days that don't care about filtering the aggression with proper breeding, sadly I've had a few great pits, but at the rate things are going I wouldn't be surprised if the breed ended up just banned completely.

[Mihalik]

No. Pit bulls are not inherently more dangerous than any other big dog. The reputation of the breed tho tends to attract owners who are fucking retarded and shouldn't be trusted with a hamster let alone a big dog.

[Ichifails]

Pit bulls are not particularly aggressive, however their anatomy makes them more potentially dangerous than plenty of other dogs

A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds, and that 67% involved freely roaming animals.

A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded

A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths.

A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45%). Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) of the attacks were by pit bulls. In 45% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.

A five-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of the bites where breed was identified. Of the 269 patients where breed was identified, 137 (51%) were attacked by pit bulls.

A medical literature review of animal-related fatalities, citing the 1979-1988 JAMA study and 1991–2005 Kentucky Medical Examiner study, reported that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks, and that unneutered male dogs were the most likely to bite. Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.

Not at fucking all. Let's use feelings and not science because reasons. I know a guy with a pit bull that didn't do anything so they must be nice dogs.

I mean look how cute this one is! He's smiling

[Kasierith]

Let's pretend that statistics tell the whole story and blindly believe whatever numbers people throw at us. You're a cats are obviously attracted to traffic lights kind of person, aren't you?

[Lightwysh]

The problem is poor breeding by ghetto-thug-wannabe-assholes. Aggressive pits are glorified in rap videos, urban and gang culture. You get stupid people living in impoverished areas breeding aggressive pits in excessive amounts hoping to make a quick buck. The generations of breeding for that aggression has tainted the breed and the fact people are too self absorbed to pit in the time and effort to train out the behaviors, but rather neglecting the dog as soon as it show any signs of aggression or bad behavior.

Personally, I will never adopt a pit. I'm not willing to play the genetic lottery when there are less risky alternatives available in the pound.

[Ichifails]

Let's pretend that statistics tell the whole story and blindly believe whatever numbers people throw at us. You're a cats are obviously attracted to traffic lights kind of person, aren't you?

Nope, I had the pleasure of both my sister and girlfriend studying biology. My mother is a scientist (nuclear fuel/radiopharmaceutics) and my father is a forensics expert. Growing up I was most of the time around people that are beyond the title of expect in various fields and I had access to whatever the hell I wanted from basically any field. Add curiosity to that and you'll get an "asshole" by most people's standards.

I've had the pleasure of seeing an unprovoked rottwiler attack from my balcony when I was like 7 I think. Someone tried to stab it in the neck while it was killing a kid but the blade snapped.


Stating something that's studied for tens/hundreds of years on MMO-champion tends to get me a VAC-ation most of the time because it hurts someone's feelings even if it's factually true. I don't mind random people on the internet thinking I'm wrong when most of them consider a PhD something hard to get or of value.

[Spectral]

Let's pretend that statistics tell the whole story and blindly believe whatever numbers people throw at us.

The stats on this one really are pretty clear though - believing that pit bulls don't pose any additional risk above a typical dog is a form of denialism. You can even see the way it operates similar to climate change denialism - sure, there's a ton of empirical evidence that says this thing is almost certainly true, but we can cast doubts on the exact accuracy of the data and then declare that all of the data is invalid.

[Ghostpanther]

A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds, and that 67% involved freely roaming animals.

A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded

A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths.

A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45%). Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) of the attacks were by pit bulls. In 45% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.

A five-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of the bites where breed was identified. Of the 269 patients where breed was identified, 137 (51%) were attacked by pit bulls.

A medical literature review of animal-related fatalities, citing the 1979-1988 JAMA study and 1991–2005 Kentucky Medical Examiner study, reported that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks, and that unneutered male dogs were the most likely to bite. Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.

Not at fucking all. Let's use feelings and not science because reasons. I know a guy with a pit bull that didn't do anything so they must be nice dogs.

I mean look how cute this one is! He's smiling

The facts confuse some people and some simply refuse to accept them. The breed was bred for one specific reason. To fight in pits. The Rott. is a descendant of the Roman War dogs. They are generic engineered to be dangerous. Most dogs can be trained to herd sheep, but the border collie thru generations was bred to and are also the world's smartest dogs. They seem to do it by instinct because of breeding. Same principle is happening in the case of Pit Bulls and Rotts.

[Kasierith]

Nope, I had the pleasure of both my sister and girlfriend studying biology. My mother is a scientist (nuclear fuel/radiopharmaceutics) and my father is a forensics expert. Growing up I was most of the time around people that are beyond the title of expect in various fields and I had access to whatever the hell I wanted from basically any field. Add curiosity to that and you'll get an "asshole" by most people's standards.

I've had the pleasure of seeing an unprovoked rottwiler attack from my balcony when I was like 7 I think. Someone tried to stab it in the neck while it was killing a kid but the blade snapped.


Stating something that's studied for tens/hundreds of years on MMO-champion tends to get me a VAC-ation most of the time because it hurts someone's feelings even if it's factually true.

Good for them? You should ask them about the risks and shortfalls of working purely by numbers without considering the factors involved in it.

No one here is denying that, as a whole, pit bulls pose a statistically higher risk of harming a human. We're examining it at an individual level, where independent factors matter.

The stats on this one really are pretty clear though - believing that pit bulls don't pose any additional risk above a typical dog is a form of denialism. You can even see the way it operates similar to climate change denialism - sure, there's a ton of empirical evidence that says this thing is almost certainly true, but we can cast doubts on the exact accuracy of the data and then declare that all of the data is invalid.

I consider it overwhelmingly egregious from a statistical perspective to compare a population study with global warming data, and frankly shocking that you would think to try it. The data shows that, as a whole, pit bulls cause more incidents. It does not demonstrate that individuals are more harmful than individuals of other species.

I guess those cats really do love traffic lights after all... I mean, the data supports it, and if you say otherwise you're the same as someone denying global warming.

[Ichifails]

Good for them? You should ask them about the risks and shortfalls of working purely by numbers without considering the factors involved in it.

No one here is denying that, as a whole, pit bulls pose a statistically higher risk of harming a human. We're examining it at an individual level, where independent factors matter.




I consider it overwhelmingly egregious from a statistical perspective to compare a population study with global warming data, and frankly shocking that you would think to try it. The data shows that, as a whole, pit bulls cause more incidents. It does not demonstrate that individuals are more harmful than individuals of other species.

I guess those cats really do love traffic lights after all... I mean, the data supports it, and if you say otherwise you're the same as someone denying global warming.

Are you trying to make an argument for eugenics? Because you sure are making one.

[Kasierith]

Are you trying to make an argument for eugenics? Because you sure are making one.

Umm... examining individuals instead of populations is the opposite of the concept of eugenics, but whatever you say.