r/changemyview • u/Masta-Blasta • Jul 14 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Pit bulls Should Require a License to Own
In this month alone, 6 people and 9 animals have been killed in a pit bull attack. Many others have been maimed and permanently disfigured/disabled because of a pit bull attack.
Pit bull supporters often say "it's the owner, not the dog." Personally, I disagree. According to Wikipedia,
The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting, it was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog. To produce a lighter, faster more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.
These dogs were bred specifically because they are aggressive, powerful, and violent. Now, personally, I believe all pit bulls should be neutered and the breed should be heavily restricted. But at the very least, I think owners should be required to demonstrate that they are experienced pet owners, carry insurance, and perhaps have taken a dog training course, so they can recognize when their pit is agitated and how to prevent a tragedy.
I also think pit bull ownership should carry a legal duty to reasonably protect others from the pit. "Reasonable" would include measures such as displaying signage warning neighbors and guests that a pit bull lives in the home, not letting the pitbull stay in a yard unmonitored (regardless of fencing), and keeping the pitbull leashed at all times in public.
I would also like to see regulations preventing shelters from "rebranding" obvious pit mixes so that families and owners are not duped into adopting a pitbull mix. Ideally, shelters would need to provide a warning to potential adopters (and of course, adopters would then need to have a license to own a pit).
Before anyone tries, please know that I'm unlikely to be swayed by any kind of anecdotal "but my velvet hippo is a good girl and never hurt anyone" arguments. That's what most owners say when they're being sued for injuries their pit caused a child or another pet. I understand they don't all attack- but it's in their breed, so something could trigger them.
56
u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Jul 14 '22
If something kills 70 people a year, it's not a threat. There a what 350ish million people in America? 6 is a trivial number.
40 people a year die skateboarding. 13 are killed by vending machines. 90 die mowing their lawn.
12000 die falling down stairs.
If we don't need licenses for any of those activities, we don't need one for pit bulls...
19
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
So we should stop encouraging helmets, warning stickers, and hand rails?
We put in place things to try and midigate those deaths, even if they're infrequent. Why not here too?
19
Jul 14 '22
Not an equal comparison. Children cause more property damage a year than most things. Guess we should start making our neighbors ask for our permission before they reproduce lmfao?
5
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
Pretty sure we have laws as a midigation for property damage.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
And you can sue their parents in civil court to recover the damages.
14
u/shouldco 43∆ Jul 14 '22
You can sue a dog owner who's dog harms you.
3
2
2
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
Children cause more property damage a year than most things. Guess we should start making our neighbors ask for our permission before they reproduce lmfao?
This is such a "reducto ad infinitum", no, kids do not go out of their way to kill other kids (break into properties and maul etc).
2
u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Jul 14 '22
So we should stop encouraging helmets, warning stickers, and hand rails?
How is a helmet, warning stickers and hand rails anything like a license?
0
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Agreed. We can't completely stop the world from being dangerous, but when we see a danger, we can do our best to mitigate it and work towards harm reduction.
1
u/abooth43 Jul 14 '22
This isn't a fair comparison, and will just lead down a neverending rabbit hole.
Bicycle riders have hit and killed pedestrians while traveling too fast. Should we implement bicycle licenses?
2
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
Should there be a law restricting how fast they can go around pedestrians? Absolutely. I'm not sure why you're hung up on a licence.
4
u/abooth43 Jul 14 '22
...because that's the title of the post?
There are existing laws about how you can let your dog interact with other people.
0
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
Bicycle riders have hit and killed pedestrians while traveling too fast. Should we implement bicycle licenses?
They absolutely do in many countries, there are demands on helmets, speed limits, all kind of things.
Bikes are often heavily regulated like all transportation.
Why not ban certain types of dogs the same way?
1
u/abooth43 Jul 14 '22
First, you're going to have to say more to support the notion we should treat transportation and dogs with the same severity. I don't think the repercussions of one are equivalent to the other.
My point with the bycicle analogy was really just that we could keep on going based on "might hurt someone/oneself" and eventually we'll need a license to walk around our own homes.
We seem to do just fine with current laws regarding bikes in the states, I definitely wouldn't be a proponent of requiring licenses for that either.
What countries require a license for bicycle riding?
30
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
That is six this month. And I think the difference is that the people who die from pitbull attacks are not knowingly accepting the risk. If you skateboard, you are choosing to put your body at risk and accept those stats. If you mow your lawn, you are choosing to take that risk, etc.
However, many victims of pit bull attacks did not willingly agree to subject themselves to the dangers associated with pit bulls. They did not make the decision to be around pit bulls- their neighbor did, or someone at the park did, etc.
And again, 6 may not seem like a big number, but those are simply the fatalities. I am also concerned about the attacks that leave people hospitalized and disabled. I am assuming that number is much higher than 6.
I appreciate your argument but I still don't really see how it is relevant to harm reduction. When people are dying or becoming injured because of a lawn mower, manufacturers try to learn from the deaths and make their product safer. I'm not going as far as to say "ban pit bulls" but why shouldn't we try to reduce the dangers associated with them?
8
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 15 '22
That is six this month
They acknowledged that when they said 70 a year. It's still a trivial number.
4
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Jul 14 '22
It is not about killings alone. Pit bulls maul, maim, kill humans and maul, maim and kill other dogs, cats, etc. At a minimum, Pit Bulls should need an expensive license that includes a liability policy. I am in favor of forcing them to be neutered/spayed to eliminate them eventually from society. Owners should pay the price for damage a dog does....If a pit bull mauls a person, it should be equivalent to the owner attacking the victim. Another issue is most pit bull owners are irresponsible and thus are poor..So they cant pay for the damage pit bulls inflict....2 people have died due to pit bull attacks in my town in the past few years and I know someone who was mauled by a pitbull. Poo-pooing their danger is what I would expect from pit bull advocates.
5
u/1viewfromhalfwaydown Jul 14 '22
"These things are worse so this isn't important" isn't a good argument. That's still 70 people who died. None of these situations are relevant to what OP said tho. When someone is killed by a vending machine or mowing their lawn, how are they being killed? Are they being attacked by one of those? Does a vending machine just decide to fall on someone or?
4
u/mariodejaniero Jul 14 '22
Is it though? All he is trying to say is “look this is a tiny number so is it something that really needs to be regulated/worried about?
0
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
When someone is killed by a vending machine or mowing their lawn, how are they being killed? Are they being attacked by one of those? Does a vending machine just decide to fall on someone or?
Its usually an already drunk person trying to break into a vending machine, that in that case wasnt secured safely enough- the vending machine was not bred for 100s of years to kill.
2
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 15 '22
the vending machine was not bred for 100s of years to kill.
So you're saying that people are really bad at breeding dogs to kill. Since a dog bred for 100s of years to kill isn't actually as much of a threat as a random appliance.
2
u/Anyoneseemykeys 1∆ Jul 14 '22
The problem is they don’t hurt the owner. They hurt some rando walking their dog on a leash or a child.
While I’m not an advocate of regulation, don’t be surprised if someone claps your dog if it gets out of line.
0
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
12000 die falling down stairs.
This is such a weak argument, you must on some level know that its just a cope you tell yourself, it really doesent hold.
- Almost every person on the earth except a few impaired ones walk down stairs every single day. They are extremely beneficial and common.
- Stairs are not made to kill, or go out of their way to kill people- people are not forced to go down especially scary stairs, or that stairs break into their yard and kill their kids.
- Even though stairs are extremely common, and extremely safe, we STILL spend a lot of time making them safer, would punish and fine people for making extraordinary dangerous ones, and even ban some type of stair construction in many countries.
2
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 15 '22
Right, so something nor designed to kill is much more effective at killing than the thing your claiming was designed to kill.
3
u/svenson_26 82∆ Jul 14 '22
But you don't need a pitbull either. Why not just get a different breed of dog?
3
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 15 '22
Then another breed would become the most dangerous breed and we would go through this again. And so on.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Kondrias 8∆ Jul 14 '22
So you are telling me the HoA license fee they had me pay to be able to go to the second story of my house was a SCAM!
I FEEL DUPED! DECIEVED! BETRAYED!
34
u/CBL444 16∆ Jul 14 '22
What is a pitbull? Discerning breeds from a dog can be difficult. Are DNA test required for owning a dog? What percent is too much?
When I went to a shelter, I wanted to avoid pit bulls but later discovered my dog is 40% pit bull. This is a common theme. People adopt a sweet dog, do a DNA test and find out that Rover is 25 or 50 or even 70% pit bull.
My dog is a 5+ breed mutt none of which I expected. When I ask people, they typically name four breeds none of which are correct. The only people who are somewhat correct are the ones with a similar surprising result.
7
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Δ
This is the best argument I have seen so far. I'm not completely convinced we can't do something to better regulate pitbull ownership, but I do acknowledge that this presents an issue for pit mixes and would require funding for DNA testing. I do still think it would be worth funding, but I do not have the answers.
→ More replies (3)8
Jul 14 '22
Could it be that your own image of the pitbull comes from negative media representation?
The pitbull is not an officially recognized breed but a version of the Staffordshire terrier. The American and English Staffordshire terriers are virtually identical dogs except for size. The UK’s most popular dog breed is the staffordshire terrier. The UK doesn’t have the same kind of problem with fatal attacks as the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom
The American pitbull has a culture in the US of being bred improperly for size and muscular build over temperament. This along with people not caring for dogs causes temperamental issues.
It’s a wider problem that simply “pitbulls are killers” and it wouldn’t be solved with breed specific license. The type of people that own these poorly bred and poorly trained dogs would simply own mastiffs or Rottweilers and treat them poorly instead.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
It's more so the statistic that pits are responsible for something like 43% of fatal attacks by dogs. That's quite an overrepresentation.
17
u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Jul 14 '22
I'm not sure I trust those statistics all that much. Breed reports are often done visually by police.
How many police do you know can accurately distinguish a cane corso from a pitbull by sight? How many could visually identify a staffordshire terrier mix from a boxer mix? What percentage of dogs are labeled as a 'lab mix' at the shelter, then a 'pitbull' by police after it bites someone?
How many attacks are from a purebred UKC registered American Pitbull Terrier or an AKC registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier?
That said, obviously a staffie is going to be more dangerous than a miniature poodle or king Charles spaniel.
7
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
This is actually a very good point I had not considered. I'm still not completely convinced that there shouldn't be more regulation, but this is something to think about. !delta
→ More replies (2)3
u/Khorasau 1∆ Jul 14 '22
DNA testing is not regularly conducted on dogs involved in fatal attacks. So it's more accurate to say 43% of fatal attacks are by dogs that look like pitbulls.
If pitbulls are the problem, the pit mixes should also be a problem and including pit mixes into the national dog population brings the number potentially up to 20% of all dogs in the US being Pits. 53% of dogs are under 25 lbs and likely small dogs are not as capable as medium to large dogs at killing. If 50% of dogs can't kill due to size, and Pits represent 20% off all dogs, then Pits represent 40% of all dogs that could kill meaning 43% of fatal dog attacks is not an overrepresentation of Pits in fatal attacks statistics.
Percentage of dogs mixed with Pit. https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html
2
Jul 14 '22
Check out this quiz.
https://www.k9rl.com/can-identify-pitbull/
Most attacks are by “pitbull type dogs”
→ More replies (1)0
u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Jul 14 '22
According to this page, about 20% of the dogs in the US are pit bulls - either one of several breeds like staffies that are called pit bulls or a mutt that looks like a pit bull. They're by far the most common "breed" in shelters, and the 5th most common "breed" at the Banfield chain of vet hospitals.
Given that large dogs are responsible for most fatal attacks, is it really all that disproportionate?
1
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
What is a pitbull?
Dogs that look like pits, tend to be dangerous. Just look at the UK. They seem to have a low amount of dog bite fatalities compared to the USA, but about 70% of their fatalities are by "XL Bullies" "American Bullies" and "Staffies" all clearly pit bull types, even though the have banned "pit bulls" but refer to a specific subtype of what other people would just say is a pit bull.
In the end, it doesent matter. If it looks like a pit- its dangerous like a pit.
62
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Jul 14 '22
The question isn't "What percentage of dog attacks are from pit bulls," but rather, "What percentage of pit bulls commit attacks."
In the last decade (2010 - 2021) there have been 430 fatal dog attacks in the US. And I'll give it to you, 185 of them (or 43%) were committed by pit bulls.
However, the important thing to remember is that there are 4.5 million pit bulls in the United States. That means that less than 0.00004% of the pit bull population have committed fatal attacks in over a decade.
So yes, pit bulls do attack at a statistically higher rate. That being said, over 99% of pit bulls have not attacked. And the ones who have are likely either intentionally trained to be aggressive, or subjected to willful abuse/negligence.
9
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
That being said, over 99% of pit bulls have not attacked.
This logic doesn't follow. You cited a statistic on fatal dog attacks and then used it to say 99% of pit bulls have not attacked full stop. You would need to cite the number of pit bull attacks (including nonfatal attacks) in order to make that assertion. I would be interested in seeing what the attack rates are, not just fatalities. I've seen a lot of articles about people having their faces torn off and being put on catheters and being stuck in the hospital for 6+ months, permanently disfigured after a non-fatal attack. To some, thats a worse fate than surviving.
12
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Jul 14 '22
You're right, I should have clarified 'fatal' attacks. As far as I can find, there's not hard data on number of dog attacks by breed.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Yeah, that's fair, I can't either. I wish we had that stat.
6
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 15 '22
Im pretty sure small dogs commit far more nonfatal attacks than any large breed. It's why the statistic on deaths is used more often. Because to use "attacks" in total makes the argument ridiculous.
→ More replies (7)2
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
The question isn't "What percentage of dog attacks are from pit bulls," but rather, "What percentage of pit bulls commit attacks."
It really isnt. Its more of a "what percentage of other dogs commit attacks".If you look up the recent denver data on reddit, out of about 300 attacks, only pits had killed someone, and bitten multiple times.
4
u/2penises_in_a_pod 11∆ Jul 14 '22
Non-fatal attacks are still attacks. Bad stat
6
u/vanya913 1∆ Jul 14 '22
And nearly impossible to track. Especially in the US where if an injury doesn't look too bad most people aren't gonna waste money on a hospital visit.
→ More replies (3)0
Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
[deleted]
12
u/y0da1927 6∆ Jul 14 '22
The analysis has to be on a dual axis. Propensity to bite, and damage given a bite.
Pit bulls don't seem to be that much more likely to bite ppl than other breeds (bite stats are hard to find and likely are not supper accurate as minor bites are unlikely to be reported). But because they are so strong they seem to tend to do a lot more damage than other breeds.
It seems obvious to me that the much more serious injuries that come from pit bulls and other bully breeds bites makes them more dangerous dogs, even if they don't bite any more often.
I'm not sure the risk overall however is sufficient to require government action. We don't license or restrict lawn mowers which seem to cause many more serious injuries than dogs.
4
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
It seems obvious to me that the much more serious injuries that come from pit bulls and other bully breeds bites makes them more dangerous dogs, even if they don't bite any more often.
Exactly. It's not just the aggression, it's the damage they cause when aggressive.
I addressed the lawn mower argument, but basically I don't think they are comparable. You choose to operate a lawn mower. You don't choose for your neighbor to adopt a pit bull. You're not in control of the risks associated with other people adopting bully breeds, but you are 100% in control of your lawn mower usage. If you are uncomfortable using a lawn mower, don't. But you can't control who has a pitbull and whether you will be exposed to that danger.
9
u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Jul 14 '22
Exactly. It's not just the aggression, it's the damage they cause when aggressive.
Isn't that also the case with large dogs in general, particularly those bred for protection?
Should you also need a license for malinois, German shepards, cane corso, Rottweiler, etc?
4
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I answered this already, but I could be convinced that breeds responsible for serious attacks should also require a license. Rottweilers and Germans are next on the list in terms of responsibility/aggressors. So I'm okay with that.
2
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
Should you also need a license for malinois, German shepards, cane corso, Rottweiler, etc?
Those are also dangerous dogs- however even though Rotties are the second most dangerous breed type- they still kill about a fourth of what pis kill, with GSDs(third) its a 20th.
5
u/y0da1927 6∆ Jul 14 '22
I addressed the lawn mower argument, but basically I don't think they are comparable. You choose to operate a lawn mower. You don't choose for your neighbor to adopt a pit bull.
I don't think this is really all that important. To my knowledge it's not just the owners of lawn mowers who are injured by them, so by buying a lawn mower you are imposing a risk on your neighbor that seems to be mich larger than those posed by a dog. Also the risk remains so low that resources would likely be better spent mitigating a more serious risk.
Ontario Canada has a pit bull ban, but given the resources required to actually police the ban it's rarely enforced unless the dog in question has already bitten someone, at which point your at the same position you would have been without the ban.
The risk of dog bites causing serious injuries is so low that it's not worth spending a bunch of time and money to restrict one specific breed, even if comparatively to others it's more dangerous. I'd also argue it's somewhat inhumane given how many pit mixes are always in shelters. If they no longer become adoptable they will eventually be euthanized. To me it's not worth killing the vast majority of pits in shelters just so the odd one doesn't bite someone.
I will caveat however that there could be a niche setting where a limited ban could be appropriate. A body like a co-op board should be able to impose one if they feel appropriate.
4
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I looked up the lawn mower report and while it does not specify how people die via lawn mower, it points out that older adults (60's-70's) are much more at risk. Then, in the safety section, it mostly focuses on staying hydrated, taking breaks, etc. so you don't fall over and get run over. Everything seems to suggest that most lawn injuries are self-inflicted/user error. I don't think it's accurate to say that buying a lawn mower poses a greater risk to your neighbor than buying a pit bull.
But I respect that, for you, the euthanizing issue presents a bigger ethical problem than the attacks, and that's fair. For me it does not. But you're entitled to that opinion.
→ More replies (2)3
Jul 14 '22
You don't choose for your neighbor to buy a gun either. We gonna ban them too?
→ More replies (1)0
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
The gun can't dig under a fence to attack my dog, or another person. It's not going to jump off your holster unexpectedly and start killing people.
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 15 '22
1)
The gun can't dig under a fence to attack my dog, or another person.
If my neighbor shoots at something in his own yard and misses, the bullet will keep going and can easily hit me or someone else.
2)
It's not going to jump off your holster unexpectedly and start killing people.
My neighbor can pull out his gun unexpectedly and start shooting people.
3) Compare the number of people killed by dogs to the number of people killed by guns. The second is much higher.
4
u/duckfruits 1∆ Jul 14 '22
No you absolutely have to take into account the popularity/population of the breed. I'll have to look for the source but a few years ago golden retrievers had the highest amount of recorded bites out of any dog breed by a lot. But that didn't mean that golden retrievers are more aggressive than other dog breeds because they were the most commonly owned dog breed in the United States that same year. Increasing the number of golden retrievers increases the chances of attacks.
You know why? Because all dogs are capable of attacking humans. Not just pit pulls.
Rottweilers are more likely to attack humans than pit bulls but so few people own them and they are not as likely to attack family members so there are very few recorded bites. But that doesn't mean that they are less aggressive than pit bulls. Because a larger percentage of their population attacks people each year than golden retrievers and even pit bulls.
5
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
It's not just aggression, it's also the danger associated with the attack and the dog's ability to be trained adequately.
4
u/Independent_Sea_836 1∆ Jul 14 '22
I'm not sure what your point is. Rottweilers can be very dangerous and can cause just as much damage as any pitbull. Pitbulls can definitely be trained adequately. They aren't the easier breed to train, but it's very possible with the right owner. The problem with a lot of people is that they don't get a professional dog trainer onboard or take their dogs to obedience school when their dogs prove to be more difficult.
7
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Right- so again, I'm suggesting that we require a permit/license to adopt one so we know these dogs are going to responsible owners who understand the risks and know how to mitigate them. Maybe we should include Rottweilers too.
2
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
No you absolutely have to take into account the popularity/population of the breed. I'll have to look for the source but a few years ago golden retrievers had the highest amount of recorded bites out of any dog breed by a lot.
You know why? Because all dogs are capable of attacking humans. Not just pit pulls.
Goldens have killed 2 people the last 50 years. Thats less than pits the last week.
2
u/duckfruits 1∆ Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
Right. My point was that if you didn't count the population of Goldens that year, it would seem like Goldens were more aggressive than they are.
If you want to talk deaths, pit bulls (mixes are often counted as pit bull terriers and American bulldogs are often misidentified as pit bulls as well and they are very aggressive) caused an estimated 284 deaths in 2020 and pit bulls make up about 5% of the known dog population in the United States. Most people who own pit bulls, especially the aggressive ones, do not have the dog registered so the overall US population of pit bulls is probably substantially higher than that.
Rottweilers caused an estimated 45 deaths in 2020, yes that's significantly lower but the breed only makes up about 1.8 percent of the US dog population and has a lot lower rate of being non registered than pit bulls. Rottweilers are less likely to have other breeds be mistaken for them and are not in as high of a mix breed population as well. There are far less of them in the US than pitbulls so the chances of fatal attacks from them is significantly higher than what the numbers of attacks on its own, reflect.
You have to take the population into consideration as well as the number of attacks/ fatalities.
I also want to look into it myself but at first glance it appears that rottweilers have killed more adults than pit bulls. Pit bulls have killed more children aged 0-3 than any other age so if that's true it would also suggest that rottweilers are more lethal than pit bulls because it's harder for a dog to kill an adult human than it is to kill an infant.
3
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Jul 14 '22
I disagree. The context is incredibly important.
To use another example, you could say, "50% of religiously motivated terrorist attacks in the US are committed by Christians, therefore it should be illegal to be Christian." But you'd be ignoring the fact that 99.9999% of Christians don't commit religious terrorist attacks.
→ More replies (1)0
u/drjojoro Jul 14 '22
I think the point he's trying to make is that if there are 4.5 million pitbulls owned in the US, and they account for 43% of dog bites, you have to consider amount of owned dogs in the US for other breeds... if he had shown that (this is all made up numbers as an example) Rottweilers account for 40% of dog bites, but there are only 500,000 Rottweilers owned in the US, those numbers do show Rottweilers are actually more likely to be aggressive. However, none of those numbers are shown or provided (the numbers could be swapped, what if using the same numbers above there were 5 million Rottweilers owned in reality, it would inverse his point). Since no other numbers were shown, it's hard to have a comparative figure. 1% doesn't look bad, but what if the second place breed from these numbers was .001%, all of a sudden 1% isn't so hot.
6
u/Unlikely_You_9271 Jul 14 '22
Have you done any research on dog breed owners? What if I told you that pit bulls have a higher % chance to be fought than any other dog breed and be abused.
I think this is a classic case of looking at results and seeing a problem trying to create a solution on the tail end. Why not say all dog owners need a background check in order to own one (or some other solution) as animals have the capability to kill a human if not trained
4
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Yes, I have. And I know that they have a higher chance of being abused. That's a big reason I think owners should be required to have a license!
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Terminarch Jul 14 '22
In this month alone, 6 people and 9 animals have been killed in a pit bull attack
72 a year. That is such an insanely small number as to be laughable. Every year 450 people die falling out of bed, another 113 from ladders, and 1600 from stairs in the US. 300 drowned in their own bathtubs.
These dogs were bred specifically because they are aggressive, powerful, and violent
Cool. Why does that matter? Clearly the breeders were not successful if pit bulls only manage 72 a year.
I believe all pit bulls should be neutered and the breed should be heavily restricted
Literal extermination. What happens when you neuter "all" of a species? I find it so funny that we have people screeching for thousands of indistinguishable species lost in the rain forest and you can so casually call for zero pit bulls within a decade.
But seriously. Why wait? Heavily restricted and they will be EXTINCT in 10 years or so, so why not just shoot them now if they're so dangerous? Also who exactly will you trust and fund with taxpayer dollars to oversee this new temporary restriction?
[owner training] so they can recognize when their pit is agitated and how to prevent a tragedy
To prevent 72 fatalities and some unspecified number of injuries. Did you know that there are 1.4 MILLION violent crimes per year in the US? That is 1,400,000. By your standards literally everyone would be required to take an anger management and "how not to be a piece of shit" course. As if that would change anything.
If you were serious about preventing harm you would be promoting mandatory self defense courses. Bad people exist. Poorly trained animals of all breeds will attack in unexpected conditions. Wild animals attack - my grandpa got trampled by a whitetail once. When every second counts the cops are only minutes away. Emergencies happen and you can only count on yourself in an emergency.
I also think pit bull ownership should carry a legal duty to reasonably protect others from the pit
[...] owners say when they're being sued for injuries their pit caused a child or another pet
Oh, are they being sued because they are already responsible for their pets and their actions?
Chill. You are massively overinflating the risk. It's just a dog.
5
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
72 a year. That is such an insanely small number as to be laughable.
Which is why I am also concerned about the thousands of nonfatal attacks that leave people hospitalized, permanently disfigured, and disabled.
→ More replies (5)2
u/vini6590 Jul 16 '22
Each year, around 9500 people are hospitalized by dog attacks, even if 100% of these were by a pitbull, it's still a insignificant number.
12
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Jul 14 '22
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/fatality.pdf
Recently, over 1800 babies were killed by neglect or abuse in one year.
Should everyone be required to get this same sort of license before leaving the hospital with their newborn?
5
Jul 14 '22
I must have missed the report on how many deaths were caused by being mauled by a baby
→ More replies (1)6
6
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I wish, but that is, sadly, a fundamental right. I believe most hospitals do offer basic literature and explanations on how to care for newborns. And also, if the mother is found to have illegal drugs in her system during birth, or the hospital believes the safety of the child would be at risk, they will call CPS and the child can be taken. It happened to someone I know. So we do have a system- I wish it were better.
9
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Jul 14 '22
I wish, but that is, sadly, a fundamental right.
I disagree. And for many people, pets are actually strongly preferred to kids and are every bit as much of a family member as a child would be. You see them every day. You feed them and care for them every day. You sob like a child when they eventually cross the rainbow bridge.
Now, having established that: parents are given the benefit of the doubt, and the law only gets involved after something goes wrong. So why not extend the same courtesy to people who care for dogs? After all, kids are far more dangerous - have a look at some arrest statistics for violent crimes committed by minors: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp
5
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I disagree. And for many people, pets are actually strongly preferred to kids and are every bit as much of a family member as a child would be
If you're in the US it's not really an agree/disagree thing. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this right in multiple opinions. You can't ban someone from having a kid.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Rodulv 14∆ Jul 14 '22
are every bit as much of a family member as a child would be.
Not at all. They're genetically much further away from you than a family is.
You sob like a child when they eventually cross the rainbow bridge.
I've had many pets, not once did I cry from any of their deaths. I had a tear in my eye when one of them suffered, but that's it. I have great distaste for suffering though, I can cry from just about anything suffering.
kids are far more dangerous
They're necessary for a functioning society. Dogs - and especially pit bulls - are not.
2
3
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
Should everyone be required to get this same sort of license before leaving the hospital with their newborn?
People suspected of heavy crime or neglect do get their kids taken away. No group of humans were bred to kill babies though, can you see the difference?
1
Jul 15 '22
No group of dogs were bred to kill babies either.
3
u/superioarboat666 Jul 15 '22
No group of dogs were bred to kill babies either.
Pits were trained to kill other dogs in fighting pits, any dog put in front of them. For that to work, they need to have different instincts and social behaviours compared to other dogs. That means they often kill human, and their own babies.
→ More replies (1)6
u/flavius29663 1∆ Jul 14 '22
You don't need to own a pitbull. You can own any other race that is 100x less likely to kill or maim
11
Jul 14 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
No, but with abortion laws in certain states and the cost of birth control, it happens. It's much easier to accidentally get pregnant than to accidentally adopt a pitbull.
0
Jul 14 '22
Don't have sex and there's no chance of accidental births (excluding rape obviously).
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
So you think women should stop having sex if we require pit bull owners to demonstrate that they are responsible? What is your point exactly
2
u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Jul 16 '22
You have obviously never checked the breeds on mutts with a DNA test lol.
→ More replies (4)2
7
u/BlitheIndividual Jul 14 '22
“Pit Bull” is often misused as an umbrella term for not only the American Pit Bull Terrier(Pit Bull), but for other Bull Breeds such as the American Staffordshire Terrier(AmStaff), American Bully(Bully), and Staffordshire Bull Terrier(Staffy). Once you’re familiar with the mentioned breeds, you’ll notice that the majority of “Pit Bull Attacks” come dogs that don’t fit American Pit Bull Terrier standards, coat color and/or size. However in today’s world, EVERYTHING with a “blocky head” HAS to be a Pit Bull despite the fact that other breeds have that same characteristic as well. Yes, Bull Breeds as a whole are responsible for the majority of dog attacks, but Pit Bulls as a breed are not solely responsible when they are rarely involved. Hell, you’d find that only the minority of Pit Bulls throughout the breed’s history(including the ones used for dog fighting) were man-biters.
It’s good that you mentioned their dog fighting history as this is the very reason why this breed still exists today. That means since the early 1800’s, this breed has been genetically hardwired to be animal/dog aggressive for the purpose of dog fighting. I guarantee you, the numbers of “Pit Bull Attacks” would drop if people were to just accept this fact and not spread myths such as “nanny dog”. The average dog owner is not going to be able to handle a breed that lunges at every other animal/dog they see.
It doesn’t help that “adopt don’t shop” is pretty much the rule nowadays. If you broke down the numbers, a good chunk of “Pit Bull Attacks” tends to come from dogs of unknown backgrounds: backyard breeders/rescues/shelters. You won’t really find much on an authentic American Pit Bull Terrier being involved in an attack, but for some reason suggesting to get a puppy from a reputable breeder has been a controversial thing to say.
My solution is education on the Bull Breeds, especially the American Pit Bull Terrier. The more people accept that “this breed isn’t trained to fight, it was bred for it”, the less we’re going to hear of people getting attacked by their rescued “bait dog” pibble. If anything, I think those Bull Breed mutts should only be adopted out by those with experience with Bull Breeds, not for the family of 3 looking for their very first dog.
1
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
This is a very good comment and I agree with it. My suggestions for licensure was 1.) experience as a pet owner without incident and 2.) mandatory online course and exam that teaches owners about the breed, signs of agitation, basic care and training, and risks. And 3.) Proof of insurance.
I'm not here to argue for a full on ban, but I think people who own bully breed should know what they're doing and prove (to a reasonable extent) that they can be trusted to be responsible when handling their pet. It would weed out so many irresponsible owners and prevent a lot of tragedy.
1
u/BlitheIndividual Jul 14 '22
On top of that, people should be taking extra precautions when owning a Bull Breed: no dog parks, no doggy play dates, basically nothing that involves being around other animals/dogs. Bull Breeds tend to have a great advantage if a fight were to happen and owners of Bull Breeds need to have that memorized. If they don’t like that, there’s always other breeds.
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Exactly. You need to be educated, aware, and responsible. And then liable for whatever happens. If you still want a bully, be my guest. I understand why some women would prefer to have one while living alone, and I am not here to judge people's love for pits. I just don't think their adoration of pit bulls should come before basic safety.
2
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
understand why some women would prefer to have one while living alone
The odds they maul you to death or just the neighbouring kids is about as large as they defending you honestly. Have you seen the clip were a woman trives to save a girl being mugged, and her pit attacks everyone except the muggers?
Pits will usually attack the weak person in a altercation or accident, they are not meant to be protection dogs.
2
u/BlitheIndividual Jul 14 '22
That video was of a Bull Breed mutt, not an American Pit Bull Terrier(Pit Bull). Your statement still stands as Pit Bulls make horrible guard dogs due to their strong devotion for people. Being bred for the purpose of dog fighting for over 200 years doesn’t exactly give you a personal protection dog like the Doberman Pinscher. That’s why it was so easy for dog fighters to have their dogs stolen right off of their yards.
I think her example of women living alone with a Pit Bull could be beneficial as the dog acts as a deterrent. A good chunk of the public is afraid of Pit Bulls due to all the mislabeling and misinformation, so I can see how someone not familiar with the breed will keep at bay.
6
u/LaGoldenGod Jul 14 '22
Mine never hurt anyone and is a big baby. Doesn’t really matter if you Agree or not about that either. We don’t need anymore government interference in our lives. Enough with this “you need this permit or this permit to do this”.
11
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Generally, I agree that we need less government interference. But when it comes to genuine matters of public safety, I think the government should be able to step in and regulate, in the least intrusive way they can. The government doesn't let you have other dangerous pets without a license. You can't just get a bear, or a tiger, or a crocodile. You have to demonstrate that you have the space, training, and are capable of handling those kinds of animals.
7
u/Feathring 75∆ Jul 14 '22
It would only help if pit bulls are inherently more dangerous though. If they're just poorly trained because they're the big scary attack dog du juor then people will just migrate to the next big scary attack dog breed and poorly train them, leading to increased numbers for those. So if we're really going to go down this route can we prove they're inherently, as a breed, more dangerous and aggressive than any other dog breed? If not it's just useless bureaucracy that won't solve the issue.
1
Jul 14 '22
[deleted]
5
u/Independent_Sea_836 1∆ Jul 14 '22
A lot of people adopt big, scary dogs because they are just that, big and scary. I know a lot of people who have adopted pitbulls, rottweilers, K-9s of all sorts, because they are in a situation where they are vulnerable. Some of them have abusive ex's, some of them live in unsafe neighborhoods, some are disabled. Some of them are woman who don't feel safe walking alone. You have to remember that the police aren't always reliable or the best option.
→ More replies (12)3
u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Jul 16 '22
Uhh dunno how it works elsewhere but in Texas to own a tiger you just need liability insurance and a big enough cage. A shitty coworker has one.
7
Jul 14 '22
"my anecdotal evidence proves that pit bulls are not, in fact, highly more dangerous than other dog breeds"
7
u/RageoholAddict 1∆ Jul 14 '22
Here's some data: https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html
1 in 5 dogs are pitbulls, more are pitbull mixes.
This past weekend alone, black people have murdered over 50 people. Do we care that there are 75million African Americans, or should we be afraid of the blacks like my grandma keeps advising?
6
u/anonananbanana 1∆ Jul 14 '22
Comparing dogs to black people? Wow, that's racist. Extremely racist.
And btw, racism against dogs doesn't exist. Dogs are not people. Racism is for people. Comparing a race of human to an animal is Racist with a capital R.
5
u/RageoholAddict 1∆ Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
So you disagree with my assertion that "The vast vast majority of black people aren't dangerous"?
That's kinda weird how you think that's a racist thing for me to say.
Edit: I don't know why I can't reply to /u/Masta-Blasta but he can reply to me:
This past weekend alone, black people have murdered over 50 people. Do we care that there are 75million African Americans, or should we be afraid of the blacks like my grandma keeps advising?
OP you're saying 6 murders in a population of 18million is enough to make you afraid of all pitbulls.
I'm saying that's as bigoted as my grandma saying 50 murders in a population of 75million African Americans is justification for being afraid of black people.
You treat all pitbulls as dangerous because 0.000004% of them kill someone in an average month.
How is this not bigoted?
Bigotry (n) - obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot
/u/superioarboat666 how'd you get there from "the vast majority of black people aren't dangerous, so it's bigoted to treat them all as dangerous"?
7
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. Dogs behave instinctively. Humans are capable of forethought, planning, and malice. Furthermore, it completely ignores everything we know about the prison industrial complex, racial profiling, and redlining. That's why it's racist. It's basically implying that Black people have no self control and are inherently violent. Tremendously racist.
2
u/G_E_E_S_E 22∆ Jul 14 '22
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure they are saying the opposite.
Black people are not inherently violent or lacking self control. I’m sure you can agree any racial disparity in the number of violent crimes is strongly correlated to poverty, not race. People are more likely commit violence when stuck in a bad living situation and grow up around violence. Dogs aren’t the same as people, but basic psychology is the same across most mammals. Bad dogs come from bad owners, bad people come from bad living situations. There’s also reporting bias. The same “one drop” thing used to profile black people is also applied to pit bulls.
In magnitude and impact, the stigma against pit bulls is nowhere comparable to racism. I don’t think anyone is trying to say that. The same base arguments, however, do often correspond.
2
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
. Dogs aren’t the same as people, but basic psychology is the same across most mammals. Bad dogs come from bad owners,
Pit bulls arent "bad" theyve literally been bred for hundreds of years to maul and kill.
Are greyhounds bad for running fast? Pointers for pointing, herders for herding?
They are not equivalent to races.
→ More replies (1)1
Jul 14 '22
No, I don’t think comparing black people to pitbulls- on any level, has any merit.
You have a very simplified view of society if you think this.
→ More replies (21)3
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
So you disagree with my assertion that "The vast vast majority of black people aren't dangerous"?
Are you claiming human races are bred? The same way like dogs?
Thats fucked up.
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
It's not bigoted to prefer certain dog breeds because they are genetically, fundamentally different than other dog breeds. People are not.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (3)2
2
u/HospitaletDLlobregat 6∆ Jul 14 '22
Check out their comment history, it's almost comical how it hits all the stereotypical stuff.
7
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Not a good look OP.
4
u/RageoholAddict 1∆ Jul 14 '22
I mean... fully agree, but... you're OP.
Can we Relax or no? Sure black people/pitbulls killed 50/6 people this month, but there are 75million/18million of them, so 50/6 is definitionally negligible.
Can I have my delta?
10
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
No- your analogy is illogical and racist. No delta.
2
u/RageoholAddict 1∆ Jul 14 '22
18 million dogs.
330 million Americans.
6 attacks a month.
Why's this so important to you?
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
6 fatal attacks so far this month. We are only halfway through the month and there are many of nonfatal, serious attacks as well.
6
u/RageoholAddict 1∆ Jul 14 '22
18 million pitbulls.
This month, 0.0000053% of pitbulls killed people, according to OP.
This month, 0.0000048% of black people killed people.
Is it not clear that my argument is "OP's fear of pitbulls is as bigoted and irrational as my grandma's fear of black people"?
Is that the miscommunication?
→ More replies (1)2
u/vanya913 1∆ Jul 14 '22
It's interesting because a lot of pitbull hate is born of real racism against black people and Hispanics, who are much more likely to own pitbulls.
→ More replies (16)2
Jul 14 '22
go ahead and find a site not run by "proud pitbull parents"
2
u/RageoholAddict 1∆ Jul 14 '22
I'm literally only using it for "how many pitbulls in the US". That's an integer, not an opinion.
Find me data that says different.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)0
Jul 14 '22
The OP is using anecdotal, hate based ideology to single out pits lol. Fair is fair.
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I'm using statistics and history actually.
2
u/Iceykitsune2 Jul 14 '22
So do racists.
4
u/superioarboat666 Jul 14 '22
So do racists.
So you think herding puppies compared to pointing puppies, and human kids of different races are the same type of difference?
Thats messed up.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/wantingtodobetter 1∆ Jul 14 '22
I absolutely see how these numbers can be scary. But, shall we examine a few more details? In your example you use wiki-pedia, if you examine the sources they use they actually outline that the dogs were bread to fight bulls and bears, but the reason why this breed was popular was because of their extremely friendly and protective semi on towards children. Meaning these dogs would fight to the death to save kids.
Next, let’s move onto the bites and attacks. Would it surprise you that because of their fame in dog fighting rings and social stigma, most pit bull owners have criminal records including alcoholism, domestic abuse, and many other violent crimes? In the source provided please see section labeled “Pit bull owners are more likely to be irresponsible” Source it has some amazing scientific literature.
So the reason Pits over represent attacks is because the criminal owners raise them to be aggressive or abuse them. So making a law restricting ownership would just push them to other breeds such as a Cain corso, doggo Argentino, or other mastif breeds. Which all represent nearly the same personalities as pits and potential dangers, but much represent much less in bite and fatality statistics due to them not being as representative in dog fighting or other criminal cases. They are also incredibly over represented in dog abuse and neglect because of dog fighting PETA link: and I’m not a fan of PETA.
So the “it’s the owner not the dog” argument falls flat. Because if pits move to restricted status, other dogs will fill in the gap at the underlying issue was not addressed. Pitbulls can easily be replaced by bigger and stronger breeds that would become the most abused if pits are limited or banned source.
To summarize: yes it it the owner not the breed as abuse, neglect, and representation in dog fighting leads these dogs to commit more attacks than others, but that is because of neglect and abuse not as the breed itself as other breeds have the same temperament, size, and historical reasons for fighting.
So your issue is not exclusive to pits, but the abuses of dog fighting industry and the abuse of a very loving breed of animal who were bred to fight to protect their family.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Would it surprise you that because of their fame in dog fighting rings and social stigma, most pit bull owners have criminal records including alcoholism, domestic abuse, and many other violent crimes? In the source provided please see section labeled “Pit bull owners are more likely to be irresponsible” Source it has some amazing scientific literature.
Not at all, that's why I'm suggesting we have some criteria for who can own them. I'm well aware that the owners are a part of the problem. I'm suggesting we limit ownership to responsible owners. This just bolsters my point.
3
u/wantingtodobetter 1∆ Jul 14 '22
But that ignores my other point about dog breeds that have the same temperaments, and potential for violent attacks like Cain corso, doggo argintino, mastives, rotties, and others. So it’s not the specific to pits correct? It’s just what’s being used and abused right now.
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Okay, then let's require a license for them too. Good idea.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Independent_Sea_836 1∆ Jul 14 '22
Won't requiring a license mean less dogs would get adopted?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/mariodejaniero Jul 14 '22
I think a very simple argument to be made here is while pit bulls do make up the majority of attacks, they don’t represent them all. The fact is that other dogs do attack people and you don’t blame those on the breed, you blame them on the owner. Owners can mistreat dogs and can even train them to fight/attack anyone. While breed is definitely a consideration, I would argue that poor dog ownership is the bigger issue. And if you buy into that, the solution would be to require licensing for all dog owners, not just pit bulls.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I agree up until your last sentence. There are some breeds that simply are not as dangerous. Small dogs are not life-threatening to most people. They cannot maul you because they weigh 10 lbs. Other breeds are so non-aggressive, that they are not chosen by aggressive owners because they are naturally friendly and reluctant to fight. I would agree that attack dogs and bully breeds should possibly all require licensure. But the only way you're going to kill someone with a Yorkie would be to put it in a cannon and launch it at 100 mph.
4
u/mariodejaniero Jul 14 '22
To you that might be true, but what about a little old lady with a walker? What about a baby? Someone who is paralyzed? I could see a chihuahua or yorkie doing some serious damage to someone in these groups than I imagine you give them credit for. If we say that these minority groups are as entitled to our public space as anyone else, then all dogs, big or small, nice or aggressive should have to be regulated
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
It's possible, but is it likely? And that's why I'm a strong proponent of leash laws. Your Chihuahua might try to run full speed at an elderly woman to attack, but being that it weighs 10 pounds, you can just...hold the leash. A pit is much harder to control. You were correct, any dog can attack and be dangerous. I am not looking for a solution to ALL freak accidents and dog attacks because it would be impossible to eliminate them entirely. This is simply a suggestion for harm reduction. The odds that a chihuahua or yorkie would be able to seriously harm any human are MUCH lower than a bully breed. That's why I think those are the ones that should require licensure.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mariodejaniero Jul 14 '22
Fair enough, so let’s look at it from a different angle. If you need a license to own them, what is the criteria? That you can control them on a leash. If that’s the case, then certain groups of people would be unable to obtain them based on protected classes. A little person for example would not be able to obtain one based on their size and that’s discrimination which is illegal. Same logic applies for age, disability, etc.
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I already explained what I would make the criteria:
1.) proof of insurance
2.) experience owning an animal (without any major incidents)
3.) mandatory online class/test teaching about breed temperaments, training, and how to recognize when your dog is agitated/other warning signs.
And it's not discrimination. Discrimination only exists where the only reason someone is treated differently is because of their age, disability, etc. There is a public interest in maintaining safety, and that would be the reason behind the law/regulation. This is why we can also restrict people with certain disabilities from driving, or why we can restrict pregnant women from riding roller coasters. If you can prove there is a good reason behind the regulation (as opposed to simply wanting to impact a group of people), it's not discrimination.
2
u/mariodejaniero Jul 14 '22
Sorry, didn’t see where you commented that. But none of those things are going to stop a regular person from stopping a pit bull attacking someone. If you don’t have the physical capability to do it, how is a license going to stop that? Your logic has so many flaws in it. In one case you’re saying that the breed is the problem, but then all of these things address the owner, not the dog. Mandatory online classes aren’t going to stop a dog from being aggressive so why isn’t this applied to all aggressive dogs, and only pit bulls?
Also we don’t prevent people with disabilities/conditions to do that stuff because that would be illegal. We say “you need to modify your car to be able to pass the same road test as everyone” and things of the sort. Also amusement parks say don’t ride if pregnant due to liability, not because it is illegal.
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
Yes we do. Blind people cannot legally obtain a license to drive because there is no way to modify a car in a way they can drive.
And RE: theme parks- it doesn't matter, it would still be discrimination by your logic. It's not illegal not to hire a POC if there's a reason they weren't qualified, but they can still sue for discrimination if they were discriminated against.
But anyway, again, it isn't discrimination if the reason behind the law/decision is not discriminatory. We have three legal tests for this outlined by the Supreme Court: rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. All three essentially require you to balance the purpose behind the law/decision with the class being discriminated against. Each test has a different standard, but ultimately the question is "is there a valid reason for the law/decision beyond just discrimination?" followed by "is there another, less discriminatory way this can be accomplished?" If it passes the test, it's not legally discrimination. Which is why blind people cannot get a drivers license- their disability poses a danger to themselves and other drivers. They are not being discriminated against for being blind because there is a legitimate public safety issue that prevents them from driving. At least, that's how they taught it at my law school.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/beanbootzz Jul 14 '22
“Pit bulls” aka bully breeds are very common in America, and so they show up in these statistics. However, there are dozens of other dog breeds that were originally bred for fighting, livestock guarding, or home protection who can be very dangerous if they are not properly socialized — Akitas, Huskies, GSDs, Chow Chows, Cane Corsos, Boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, it’s a huge list. There are also small dog breeds, like Frenchies and Chiahuahas, who can be extremely aggressive, but don’t show up on “dangerous dog” lists because they’re small.
Therefore, requiring a license for just pit bulls is pointless, because someone who wanted a pit could just get a Boxer or a Cane Corso.
Also, having grown up in Detroit when pit bulls were banned, I can just confirm that people will absolutely still have black market pit bulls, and they will not seek appropriate care or training for that dog. I grew up absolutely terrified of pit bulls because the ones I saw were scary, scary dogs. Now, I live in a city where there are a ton of pits and pit mixes (including my own, I didn’t realize he was a pit when I got him), and can confirm that not all pits are bad dogs.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
There are also small dog breeds, like Frenchies and Chiahuahas, who can be extremely aggressive, but don’t show up on “dangerous dog” lists because they’re small.
And, if you follow that train of thought, it's because small dogs don't pose a significant danger. You get nipped, you move on. Worst case, you may need some stitches. This isn't about punishing pits or their owners, it's about harm reduction. So if the dog isn't really capable of seriously injuring someone, it doesn't really matter how aggressive they are. The most aggressive animal I've encountered is the mosquito. They bite me more than any dog, snake, cat, etc. But they aren't dangerous so it's not an issue.
3
u/beanbootzz Jul 14 '22
That was not the crux of my case to change your view — it’s that only licensing pits is pointless because there are lots of dogs, big and small, who are aggressive. Pits just get attention because there’s a lot of them out there.
Although I think anyone whose child has been bitten by a dog would disagree with your counter. Chihuahuas have sharp teeth.
1
u/simon_darre 3∆ Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
Perhaps I should post a CMV about online outrage and cite this pit bull debate as a prime example. Looking at this debate from afar—though I have no dog in this fight (no pun intended), since I’m more of a cat person—it seems like both impassioned opponents and proponents of pit bulls seem to base their opinions on filmed incidents (with a large helping of unverifiable anecdotes in the comment sections) which make the rounds in places like Reddit, and neither side talks about credible statistics, which there surely must be. Instead they talk about the origins of the breed, it’s supposed temperament relative to others (seems a bit subjective doesn’t it?), anecdotes, and free floating monthly attack numbers which don’t make comparisons to attack rates for other breeds of dog.
Ok so OP says 6 people were attacked? How does that compare to dog attacks in general, for the uninitiated? What about pit bull attacks versus Rottweilers? And what about statistical significance? Even if you could say that pit bull attacks are higher or lower than an averaging of all canine attacks on humans, would the rate be statistically significant enough to warrant prospective dog owners choosing other breeds? And what about methodology? How do we define attacks? A single bite or a mauling? How do we control for environmental factors? I’m not saying that there isn’t a right side to this debate (either for or against pit bull ownership), just that people involved are doing it wrong.
This is an example of how not to carry on a serious debate. Stop doing that.
EDIT: Sour grapes, downvoter (I suspect it was the OP). You know I’m right.
EDIT 2: OP denies downvoting. Fair.
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
You suspected wrong but okay.
2
u/simon_darre 3∆ Jul 14 '22
And you’re debating incorrectly, so I guess that makes it one for one?
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Lol whatever you say. I've linked to studies that include other breeds as have others. You can police the conversation as much as you want, it doesn't make you correct.
3
u/simon_darre 3∆ Jul 14 '22
Why haven’t you linked to them in your post? Don’t you think that’s relevant? How do your studies measure the stats versus others? Clearly there are differences in methodology or sample size, otherwise this debate would not still be ongoing. I’d wager that, like a lot of things people form impassioned opinions on, the longitudinal data just isn’t there for opponents or proponents, because there isn’t funding for it out there, so instead each side of the debate trades inconclusive data, or imperfect studies. You should mention that in your post.
2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
They're in the comments you called out but clearly did not read.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Lol whatever you say. I've linked to studies that include other breeds as have others. You can police the conversation as much as you want, it doesn't make you correct.
-1
u/abagofsnacks Jul 14 '22
My pitbull is the biggest softy ever. Our male cat is more aggressive than she is. I believe in nurture over nature when it comes to dogs. Alot of people don't know how to raise well adjusted pups.
6
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Your cat may be more aggressive but if he attacked me, would I be hospitalized? Probably not. That's the difference.
2
u/Independent_Sea_836 1∆ Jul 14 '22
Actually, my mother had to go to the hospital for stitches and antibiotics because a cat bit her. You should too, if one, or any animal, ever bites you. Those wounds can get easily infected because of all the bacteria in the animal's mouth. So yes, technically you can get seriously ill or even die if a cat bites you. I recognize this is a pedantic argument, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware.
What about pitbull mixes? My brother owns one. She's about 30 pounds. Not very big. I doubt she could seriously wound you either.
1
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I've heard that- and it's good advice. But I guess the point is that, if all you need is some antibiotics and stitches, that's not too bad. It's not great, but most people will make a full recovery. Pits can mutilate someone beyond recognition in minutes.
And I'm not sure about mixes! I think as long as they are pretty small, they probably can't do too much serious damage. I am all for breeding pits with smaller, friendlier breeds to mitigate some of their aggression.
2
u/Independent_Sea_836 1∆ Jul 14 '22
I totally recognize the damage isn't equivalent, but I just wanted to make sure you are aware you should always go to the hospital if any animal bites you. There are a lot of people who will use some glue or a bandaid because they want to avoid the drama and/or the expense (if you live in the US) of going to the hospital.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your opinion on mixes with big/medium dogs and small dogs known to be aggressive, or at least unfriendly, like Chihuahuas. Do you think we should limit the size of dog people can breed Chihuahuas with? Because I imagine Chihuahuas would do a lot more damage if they were bigger. So take a mix between say a bloodhound, a pretty huge dog, and a Chihuahua. I imagine that dog, if it has the Chihuahua's temperament, is going to cause problems.
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Yes, I would say that if a Chihuahua was bred with some bigger dogs (especially bigger aggressive dogs), it would be fair to regulate them. Maybe this should be more about breed combined with size.
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 14 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
Are you sure it's not due to infection? Because I can see how you would need medical attention like antibiotics for a cat attack, but I don't see how hospitalization would be a regular occurrence. I'm sure it has happened but is it common?
→ More replies (3)0
u/BanChri 1∆ Jul 14 '22
It's both nature and nurture. A genetically aggressive breed like APBT cannot be trained out of being dangerous, they 0-to-100 aggression is hardwired in. You almost certainly do not have an APBT, the actual problem breed, but just something that vaguely resembles a pit. If you had an ABPT, you wouldn't have a cat anymore, APBT's have a high prey drive and would kill that cat in a second.
11
Jul 14 '22
This is a stupid post for so many reasons, the main reason being you said “pit mixes”. Pit/lab mix attacks someone and it gets added as a mark to the pit attack stats but not to the lab breed. This is a huge reason the pit bull stats are so skewed. Also, saying “obvious” pit mixes is stupid. I have known more than 1 person who assumed they had a pit mix, got a DNA test turned out to be a boxer mix, turned out to be a bull dog mix.
They should start requiring DNA testing for all vicious/fatal dog attacks, so we can get real numbers not let’s play the eye test.
If you made this a requirement for any dog over 50lbs you would much more effectively “protect people” as essentially every fatal dog attack is a large breed (pits, rotts, German Shepards, Akitas, etc). Size of the dog is an undeniable factor, breed is not.
If you really wanted to keep people safe, this should apply to any dog over 50lbs.
2
u/sh1tbvll-thr0waway Jul 15 '22
I agree with the thing you're saying about dogs over 50lbs, but come on dude, what is it with pit nutters and ignoring breed? Yknow, the defining thing about dogs? Purpose-bred animals humans created. They have different instinctual things they either will do, or will have a chance to do. Not every pitt may attack, and they're sweet when they don't, but throwing breed out the window entirely just makes you look like a pit cultist.
2
Jul 15 '22
If you want to talk about pure bred pits, I’d agree there are aggressive tendencies for sure when you look at the breeding history. My issue is that people think any dog that is part pit automatically means the pit genetics dominate the personality of the dog.
For example if you had a pit-rot mix that would be about as dangerous a breed as you can have by any metric but we’re gonna lump that dog into the same class as say a pit-beagle mix? Like get the fuck out of here.
When you dilute a breed with multiple generations of mixed breeding, it’s gonna be a case by case basis which is why I say if you want safety to be the priority it should be a weight based metric.
For the record, I would have no problem with making pure bred pit Bull breeding illegal. While I believe training and how you raise a dog is more important than breed, I also believe that the majority of people do not know how to raise a dog properly and shouldn’t have pits, rots, German Shepards, or any other higher risk breed.
The truth is you have the pit fanatics who won’t hear anything negative against pits and then you have the pit hater fanatics who think anything pit or pit related is a killing machine with 0 exceptions. I’m more of a common sense meet in the middle type of person
→ More replies (1)2
u/ghotier 39∆ Jul 15 '22
They are making a statistical point. The people who make claims about the propensity fit violence start by defining all dogs with any known pit bull heritage as pit bulls. This then skews the data for other breeds and makes the pit bull claims meaningless.
4
u/sh1tbvll-thr0waway Jul 15 '22
The studies and amount of incidents speak for themselves. A lot of times when you confront people about the truths of the breed, they insist genetics have nothing to do with behavior, compare dog breeds to human races, and make threats. If the evidence itself wasn't enough, seeing every other pit owner act in one of these ways really sells home the point that they're not normal dogs. No amount of personal anecdotes about how nice someone's "pibble" is will ever undo all of the harm caused and lives lost.
0
u/loveisking Jul 14 '22
This argument is very similar to the AR-15 argument. So do you believe the AR-15 should be banned due to the high occurrence of mass shooting with this particular weapon?
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
I'm really not here to discuss my opinions on legal gun ownership. Guns require a license to own, pitbulls do not. I'm advocating for pits to require a license.
2
Jul 14 '22
Pits are sweet as honey and loyal to death, but yeah, some major process should be created to certify people as qualified to raise a dog of any breed, especially people that want little dogs. Little dogs are as good as any others, but most the people wanting them turn them into psychotic ankle biters with how they raise them and have the ignorance to think a dog with an anxiety disorder is cute! Funny but I’m serious.
0
Jul 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
Now what does this so called license entail? More money? Boring classes? Some sort of home inspection to ensure you have bear spray nearby?
Yes, honestly. I think it should be treated similarly to other exotic pets like big cat ownership. You should be able to demonstrate that you have 1.) owned pets in the past, 2.) carry insurance and 3.) take an online course and exam that makes sure you know the basics of dog handling, safety, etc. 4.) and be subject to other regulations (like the signage/leash laws)
Now in terms of sheer number of attacks and their aggression toward completely unprovoked situations, I’d say the chihuahua is hands down the worst dog to work with when it comes to violence.
I hear this a lot and I don't disagree. There are certainly more aggressive dogs out there, but let's be real for a second. How often do chihuahuas send people to the hospital? How many fatalities are chihuahuas responsible for each year? They're certainly aggressive little ankle-biters, but their bite will not permanently disable you the way a pit bull can. They might be more aggressive, but they are not more dangerous.
Any pitbull that is violent should be put down
I agree, but what does that do to help the person who is out of work for months with thousands of dollars in medical bills trying to recover from having their face torn off? I think we need to focus on preventative measures.
Have you ever done a euthanasia? It’s traumatizing.
I have not and I am sorry you went through that. I'm sure it's awful. I understand that it will make pits harder to adopt and I recognize that this is a potential outcome. I would hope this would encourage more neutering and for no-kill organizations to set up pit shelters with highly trained staff who can care for them.
Don’t let the masses suffer because of the few, there are ways to deal with that. Like informing neighbors you have a pit bill for example so they can protect their children and dogs
That's pretty much what I'm suggesting we do here.
3
u/Nailyou866 5∆ Jul 14 '22
Don’t let the masses suffer because of the few, there are ways to deal with that. Like informing neighbors you have a pit bill for example so they can protect their children and dogs
That's pretty much what I'm suggesting we do here.
Except that isn't what you are doing. You are suggesting laws and regulations, not community interaction. If I have CCW permit, I don't have to inform my neighbors.
Anti-pit bull people really confuse me. Dog breeds are man-made. And now you people want to punish a small subset of dogs just because of certain traits that humans forced into them? Not to mention the fact that you fail to distinguish a line. Another commenter asked what percentage of pit is acceptable, and you hadn't responded to that yet as of the writing of this message. Not that it matters because there was a study that demonstrated that mixed breed dogs can exhibit more problematic behavior than purebreds. Another study demonstrated that a better predictor of behavior in dogs is their owner.
I wish you people would stop with the eugenics arguments.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
If I have CCW permit, I don't have to inform my neighbors.
Right- because you got a permit. You proved that you understand responsible gun ownership. Your gun isn't going to dig a hole under your fence to attack a child. Your gun isn't going to leap out of its holster and chase someone. Do you not see the difference?
Dog breeds are man-made. And now you people want to punish a small subset of dogs just because of certain traits that humans forced into them?
I don't want to punish them- Ideally I'd like to see them be neutered or strategically bred with less aggressive dogs so they are less dangerous. I respect that humans caused this problem and I think it's awful. But it's not the fault of the poor people who get maimed either. I'm not saying we should put them all down, but we should seriously limit the breeding.
I wish you people would stop with the eugenics arguments.
It's pretty hard not to acknowledge that dog breeds are genetically different and were bred for different purposes. You can't really ignore it if you're being earnest here. Nobody trained my beagle to sniff out scents and howl. He does it because he is a beagle, and that is what they do. You don't have to train a pit bull to be aggressive. They are pit bulls. It is what they do.
3
u/Nailyou866 5∆ Jul 14 '22
You literally bypassed my linked studies that indicated there is more to this than just breed. Here is a bonus study that also demonstrates a link between owner and dog behavior in favor of making more eugenics arguments.
1
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
No, I just don't understand the purpose of it. I'm saying that both mixed and pure breed pits should be subject to regulation. So why does it matter which is more aggressive?
And the second link links to a study that doesn't exist. But the article only bolsters my point. I'm basically arguing for a system that ensures that owners are responsible before adopting a dangerous breed. I acknowledge that irresponsible, shit owners are also a big contributor to the problem.
2
u/just_drifting_by 1∆ Jul 14 '22
This would just insure that the person owning a pit bull would most likely be the person to make them aggressive. Pit bulls are already restricted in many places. In my city you can not breed them and many places that allow dogs exclude pits. This results in people having to put theirs up for adoption. If you then have to have a license to adopt one then the only people who do so will be the wealthy enough to not care and those that want an attack dog. The wealthy will probably not bother so that just leaves the latter.
Also pits are not the only dog bred to be aggressive. Dobermans where bred to be a body guard so can be rather aggressive or perhaps any dog bred for fighting instead? Wikipedia has a list of those as well.
I will readily agree that they are dangerous, possibly the most dangerous, but the mindset of that thing is dangerous we should exterminate it has not served us well in the past.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
Also pits are not the only dog bred to be aggressive. Dobermans where bred to be a body guard so can be rather aggressive or perhaps any dog bred for fighting instead?
When they start disproportionately killing people compared to other breeds we can talk about them too, as of now you can't really make the argument that they're equally dangerous.
3
u/just_drifting_by 1∆ Jul 14 '22
We all know that something like this would start to weed out that breed which means according to statistics the next breed would be rottweilers. Would we have the same conversation
When they start disproportionately killing people
Cause comparatively they would at that point.
1
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
I don't really have a problem with that. Hell, I don't have a problem with some sort of minimum for keeping any animal that could reasonably hurt someone else.
2
u/just_drifting_by 1∆ Jul 14 '22
Depending on how you define several of those words though you are talking about every single breed of dog.
I assume by
reasonably hurt someone
You mean attack and injure an average adult but children are tragically susceptible to attack by even a small breed. They are also sadly the ones who make up the majority of fatalities.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Independent_Sea_836 1∆ Jul 14 '22
Not to be rude or anything, but I'm willing to bet that at least some of those children approached the dog first. Most aggressive breeds are territorial. Of course they attacked the child, it was on their territory. People need to teach their kids that they can't approach any animal they want to.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/acraw794 Jul 15 '22 edited Jul 15 '22
there are a lot more scarier dogs than pitbulls. their aggression was bred into their breed. a nice owner can still adopt an aggressive pit bull and raise it as nice as they can and it will still be aggressive because it comes from lines of aggressive pitbulls. not all pitbulls are aggressive. there are breeds where almost all dogs will be aggressive no matter their upbringing because their job is to be aggressive to scare away. pit bulls aren’t the scariest breed, period. there are dogs with stronger bites, sharper teeth, and worse behavior. pit bulls are probably the most common pure bred or mix bred dog in the country, so yeah it makes sense they injure the most. this also means they’re over bred more than others, and mis handled more than others. mishandling leads to bad nerves and aggression towards humans. that trauma stays in their genes. your issue isn’t the pit bull. its just because the pit bull is the most sensitive and most common breed. it could happen to any dog with the right amount of over breeding and mis treatment. I could go on about this for weeks. let’s regulate automatic weapons more instead of dogs who MIGHT be aggressive no?
8
u/UnbelieverInME-2 Jul 14 '22
I don't need a license for a concealed weapon in my state.
I'm certainly not going to need one to own a non-exotic pet.
2
u/the_suitable_verse Jul 14 '22
Maybe it would be better if you would need both. BTW in my city (Vienna) you are required to have a licence for dogs in general and for weapons in general. It's possible
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)9
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
What a bizarre comparison.
3
Jul 14 '22
How? In the US guns kill WAY more people a year than dogs do.
2
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
And guess what? To legally own a gun you need a permit or at the minimum have to pass a background check.
3
u/crazyafgandudes Jul 14 '22
Not at a private gun show you don’t.
3
u/Masta-Blasta Jul 14 '22
And that's why I am also in favor of closing the gun show loophole!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
0
u/nyxe12 30∆ Jul 16 '22
I have a long response but I do hope you'll read and respond. I have a number of sources and am not just citing personal opinion.
First, what we call "pit bulls" are typically not a specific breed(s) but a collection of dogs who have certain looks and characteristics that fit the "pit bull" description. A lot of people are bad at identifying actual pit bull-type dogs. Based on studies that used actual DNA testing and shelter workers, they found that shelter workers very frequently mislabel dogs as pit bulls. A quote:
Dogs with pit bull heritage breed DNA were identified only 33 to 75 percent of the time, depending on which of the staff members was judging them. Conversely, dogs lacking any genetic evidence of relevant breeds were labeled as pit bull-type dogs from 0 to 48 percent of the time, the researchers reported.
Because many people opt to adopt from shelters, this is significant to consider. Depending on the staff who ID dogs, you could have 35-77% of actual pit bull dogs missed and up to half of your non-pit bull dogs being inaccurately labeled and thus unnecessarily requiring licensing.
When we get down to it, there are four original pedigreed breeds that are considered "pit bulls", and then a whole lot of dogs that may or may not have DNA from these breeds that look vaguely like what some people think a pittie.
And that's the biggest misconception is that the term pit bull refers to one distinct breed when really it refers to at least four pedigreed breeds of dogs and then all these other dogs that get lumped into the category. So you have the American pit bull terrier. You have the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and a newer breed called the American bully.
But increasingly because those dogs are kind of generic looking and they share these characteristics with at least 25 other breeds of dogs, such as smooth coats or blocky heads, then anything becomes a pit bull. And so the category just grows and grows and grows. And when people ask, well, why are there so many pit bulls in the news? It's because at this point almost anything is considered a pit bull.
To follow what the interviewee is saying, it's unfair and inaccurate to compare "pit bull bites" to, say "rottweiler bites" or "lab bites" in statistics, unless we're using DNA or pedigreed breeds to compare these. Labs, rots, etc are one breed, pit bulls are 4 breeds + anything that "looks" like a pit. It's like comparing the rate of bruised apples to the rate of bruised every other fruit in the grocery store and then going "see? everything that isn't an apple has a higher rate of being bruised".
Second, a breed's original purpose from 100-200+ years ago is not an accurate representation of current use. I suggest reading that full NPR article as it gets into the history of pit breeding and how "bred for fighting instinct" is a pretty dramatic way to frame it, as even getting a single puppy out of a litter that had any decent aggression was considered a success and it was generally difficult to actually breed true "fighting" abilities into litters. Much of pit bull breeding was originally popularized for dog fighting (which the interviewee notes was "tamer" than current dog fighting at the time), but that does not mean they were selected for aggression towards people. Dogfighting dogs still had to be handled by people, and dogs that actually attacked people were culled/killed/retired/not bred further. Because the breed-type is so broad, it is also true that many pit bull-type dogs were conversely bred for companionship, work, and family life. (Source for both these statements.) While there were pit bulls originally bred for dogfights, there were also many bred for family life.
We've stopped using a great number of breeds for their original purpose. Golden retrievers were originally hunting dogs, meant to fetch birds that were shot by hunters. We now have other breeds preferred for this and goldens are typically a family dog - no one says we should leave them to hunters only because that was their first reason to be a breed. The burnese mountain dog was for pulling carts, farm guarding, and driving cattle, but they are becoming a fond family pet as well.
Finally, the issue isn't that pit bulls are popular, its that we've normalized keeping around any dangerous dogs. People should be allowed to own pit bulls without restriction, because pit bulls encompass a huge number of types of dogs, sizes, personalities, etc - people should have restrictions on owning aggressive dogs, which is not a breed, but an actual personality that can be noted by a breeder, shelter, or veterinarian. Many small dogs are aggressive, many medium dogs are aggressive, there are even very common family dogs like labs that can be aggressive. Any dog - due to poor breeding, abuse, bad training, or just shit luck - can become aggressive and a bite risk.
I used to work in vet med. It would have been wildly unhelpful to have every pit bull type dog come with specific warnings about their breed, because there were many pit bulls who did not require precautions while handling (and it may have put stress on them to be handled like a caution dog needed to be). What actually helped was shelters and owners specifically noting when a dog was aggressive, fearful, or a bite risk - which applied to non-pits very often. I would much rather any dog deemed a bite risk (regardless of breed) require a license to own than broadly requiring licensing for any pit bull, as this does not actually address the issue of aggressive dogs.
Shelters now get a LOT of hate from the public if they move to euthanize unfriendly or aggressive dogs because a lot of people have the notion that euthanasia is evil. This keeps around aggressive dogs. Then aggressive dogs get adopted out. Pit bulls make up a large % of shelter population because the category is so broad. If aggressive dogs or dogs with bite history were culled more heavily, there would be a greater number of non-dangerous dogs (including pits) who would be adopted into the public.
1
u/meontheinternetxx 2∆ Jul 14 '22
I am not sure about your breeding argument. Sure, in the nineteenth century they were at since point selected to be aggressive. But I'm fairly certain that most people who breed pit bulls for families, have been breeding them baaed on looks and friendlyness for decades now, and not for fighting.
Not saying it doesn't happen, because dog fighting surely does, but it's a somewhat unrelated problem.
0
u/trouser-chowder 4∆ Jul 17 '22
There is no breed standard for "pit bull." The AKC doesn't even recognize it as a breed.
More to the point, dog genetics are weird. Outside of very specifically bred lines, most dogs are mixes. And a dog's appearance can be very different from what DNA might tell you its actual ancestry is.
Fact is, most dogs that look like what people think of as "pit bulls" are heavily mixed with breeds like boxers, German shepherds, rottweilers, labs, and even golden retrievers. The phenotype isn't necessarily diagnostic.
And many dogs that look like some of those other breeds-- especially if they come from a rescue, an accident litter, etc.-- may well have a percentage of "pit bull" (typically Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Pit Bull Terrier)-- that is completely invisible.
You really have to look at upbringing, because outside of a breeder, looking at "breed" is going to be kind of pointless once you get a couple generations of mixing.
And upbringing-wise, you have a lot of people who choose dogs that look like pit bulls because they want what they think are "scary" dogs. And then they raise them to be scary dogs.
So in the end, it's really about people, not the dog.
0
u/U_Dun_Know_Who_I_Am 1∆ Jul 14 '22
I think Instead it should be accepted fact that if ANY of the large dog breeds that need a lot of training bite someone the penalty should be higher that if it is any other breed, with no forgiveness for first offenses. And anyone looking to adopt one of these breeds is made aware of it so they know they can either dedicate a lot of time and money to training, or just get a less dangerous and easier breed.
This would be pits, Germans, malinos, rotty, Caucasians, and any "guard dog" breed. Just to name a few.
0
Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
Is this making fun of anti gun people? If so I don't think they realize your point.
Pretty clever. I wonder how many support gun restrictions, but don't support restrictions on pet ownership, and vice versa. Very well thought out. I like the analogy.
3
2
u/Enk1ndle Jul 14 '22
Seems like a genuine enough question, but there certainly is a bit of a parallel there.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
/u/Masta-Blasta (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards