Pit bulls : Dangerous dogs or friendly buddies?

[Dug]

Then look at it this way. The reasoning behind banning it (I imagine), is that for each friendly pitbull there will be a not so friendly one, and the damage it will cause is easily prevented by banning the breed. Go figure. But since you put so much stock in your own experiences solely, there's not much I can do.

Google pitbull attacks child, that ought to convince anyone that preventing that would've been great. Anyone that has a pitbull can get another breed instead. It's not worth people getting hurt over.

I can also google other dog breeds attacking children and leaving them maimed.

[drakensoul]

But does the data take into consideration the owners of the dogs? Pitbulls are a popular breed among gangster types and guess who's more likely to train them to be aggressive? I think there's a lot more grey area to it.

So you don't think that there are innate character traits? When you are thinking about a dog to buy, you don't read the breed information list about which one is more active, which one more playful, which one better with kids, which one more vocal, which one more trainable, which one likes to hunt? So if all of those can be affected by breed, why would it then become controversial that aggressiveness might also be a genetic trait?

Again, it doesn't matter if there are some superb owners that can handle them -- the superb owner can make any dog unusually well-behaved. But in the superb owner's group of dogs, there is still one most dangerous. Their personality doesn't disappear when they are well trained. They're not borg drones.

It seems logical to me that aggressiveness is a trait like any other. Some owners are more apt at controlling and channeling it, but it's still there and still makes the dog more dangerous than a collie.

[Underverse]

I can also google other dog breeds attacking children and leaving them maimed.

Incidence is obviously a concern.

[Dug]

So you don't think that there are innate character traits? When you are thinking about a dog to buy, you don't read the breed information list about which one is more active, which one more playful, which one better with kids, which one more vocal, which one more trainable, which one likes to hunt? So if all of those can be affected by breed, why would it then become controversial that aggressiveness might also be a genetic trait?

Again, it doesn't matter if there are some superb owners that can handle them -- the superb owner can make any dog unusually well-behaved. But in the superb owner's group of dogs, there is still one most dangerous. Their personality doesn't disappear when they are well trained. They're not borg drones.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

Incidence is obviously a concern.

Indeed it is but see above.

[Tack980]

Pit bulls are dogs that take after their training and owner's personality's really quick and strong, so they can be on both ends on the spectrum. The pit bulls in my family are the nicest dogs i have ever seen, so it relies on proper training. However there are many other breeds that on average can be way more aggressive, so no is my answer.

[Tasttey]

They were bred to have a degree of aggression and, most importantly, they were bred to have incredible locking jaw strength.

There is no "locking jaw" action in a pit bull, or any dog for that matter and as far as bite force goes, both the German Shepherd and Rottweiler have a stronger bite force.

[Cuppy]

If you weren't so busy with this grade school "HAH I GOT YOU!" online e-peen slinging crap you might notice that he actually did post the link to dogbites.org.
But keep calling him names and shitposting.
You're cool you're cool!!!!!

Thanks bud, I know i'm fuckin' cool! YEEHAW!

But to the subject, pit bulls as a breed aren't more dangerous than others. It's like saying glock is more dangerous than other weapons because criminals use it more often than other guns. Derp much?

[bison91]

Hate when people claim that with proper training blah blah and its not a bad dog its a bad owners. owners are like dogs. so its only a possibility and not a fact. also what? you need to be a fcing professor to know everything about dogs and how to train? ofc not. u cant know everything and read 100 books on that subject. so chil down and let the people have some fun with their pets without gaining a pet university diploma.
its a known fact that pitbbuls are super strong and can be very aggressive and that most cases when dogs killed babies in families were mostly PITBULLS!!! so stop fooling around. these dogs are risky. also got bit twice by 2 dogs. when I grew up and I know that these 2 were pittbuls.!!!

[Zoibert the Bear]

Pitbulls are absolutely more dangerous than any other dog breeds.

I understand what you are trying to convey here. But there are breeds that are far more dangerous and aggressive than a pitbull. They're just a very common breed that happens to be more aggressive than most common breeds.

E.g. Fila Brasileiro, Presa Canario, Tosa Inu etc.

[Underverse]

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?

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed it is but see above.

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.

[satimy]

No, you're wrong. They are indeed more dangerous than most other breeds.

No that's objectively wrong, go to a shelter and interact with a Labrador that's been abused. It will act the same way as a scary pitbull. Pitbulls are just a very popular breed in some of the lower iq and poor communities.

[Cuppy]

You chose to come to this discussion with zero background reading and expected someone else to provide you with information that you would have known had you done so.

You then make up some random BS and try to throw the same argument back at me, but the hilarious thing is, I have already done the background reading, so again, I know you're talking garbage.


FYI: Chihuahuas are high among the list of most aggressive breeds, but they are nowhere on the list of most dangerous breeds. So stop being disingenuous. If you have a genuine interest in this topic then do a bit of reading so that you can come back here and discuss this like an adult.

I really hope this was the last thread you go play that game, because you know I really like playing stupid games like that.
But on the subject: Pit bulls have a bad rep because of their owners.

[Puupi]

But to the subject, pit bulls as a breed aren't more dangerous than others. It's like saying glock is more dangerous than other weapons because criminals use it more often than other guns. Derp much?

You are comparing living creatures to inanimate objects. Derp much?

Different breeds have different characteristics. Some are bigger, some are smaller, some are calmer, some are more aggressive, some bark more, some bark less, some howl, some don't.

Not all dogs are the same.

[Shiny212]

So you don't think that there are innate character traits? When you are thinking about a dog to buy, you don't read the breed information list about which one is more active, which one more playful, which one better with kids, which one more vocal, which one more trainable, which one likes to hunt? So if all of those can be affected by breed, why would it then become controversial that aggressiveness might also be a genetic trait?

Again, it doesn't matter if there are some superb owners that can handle them -- the superb owner can make any dog unusually well-behaved. But in the superb owner's group of dogs, there is still one most dangerous. Their personality doesn't disappear when they are well trained. They're not borg drones.

It seems logical to me that aggressiveness is a trait like any other. Some owners are more apt at controlling and channeling it, but it's still there and still makes the dog more dangerous than a collie.

but how cool wouldn't a Borg Pitbull be. Prolly legal too in "most" countries.

[Tasttey]

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.

How do you denote the "value" of a breed of dog?

[Themius]

Pitbulls are absolutely more dangerous than any other dog breeds.

What this means is that statistically they are more likely to harm people than other dog breeds given the same standard of ownership.

What it does not mean is that every pitbull is bad. What it does not mean is that no other dogs have the capacity to be as (or more) dangerous.


People need to stop using emotional arguments in this, especially when that emotion is pride/arrogance. Of course a pitbull in the hands of an irresponsible owner is a recipe for disaster, but even in the hands of a great owner, any dog can be dangerous, and this is more so for the pitbull than any other breed.

Shar peis are more dangerous than any other dog breed.. they are much more likley to bite and are the most aggressive dogs. Their dog owners however tend to be of better caliber as the dogs can cost thousands.

Also fixed pitbulls are just as unlikely as any other dog that's fixed to bite or be aggressive.

[Zoibert the Bear]

No that's objectively wrong, go to a shelter and interact with a Labrador that's been abused. It will act the same way as a scary pitbull. Pitbulls are just a very popular breed in some of the lower iq and poor communities.

This is absolutely true.

Additionally, size is of most importance here (lol), since little fuckers like Chihuahuas tend to be very aggressive, but you would usually not give a fuck about a rat sized berserker trying to eat your shoe.

[shrunken]

Both. Depends on the owner and luck of the draw.

[Underverse]

How do you denote the "value" of a breed of dog?

Look at costs to society through attacks, look at prevalence, look at pet value, which you can assume to be equivalent between species, look at the value of choice. It can be done.

[Shiny212]

I can also google other dog breeds attacking children and leaving them maimed.

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.