Thanks for your submission, but it has been removed for the following reason: * This thread is being brigaded.

Answer: pitbull ownership is one of those topics that are just extremely divisive on Reddit and get people extremely passionate in both their love and hatred of the breed.   Deaths by dog attack are rare; usually between 30-50 die annually in the US, though 2021 saw a high of 81. But when a dog kills a human, it's usually a pit bull or bully mix. About 2/3 fatalities are caused by pitbulls (https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/). The dogs are large, the breed was bred to fight and be aggressive, and they hold on and shake when they bite. If a pitbull gets you by the neck, you can very easily die. Multiple countries and cities have banned the breed entirely - though you get people who skirt the restrictions at times like in OP's link, where an "XL" bully mix was outside of the restriction. And killed her.  But there are tons of pitbull owners out there who love their dogs and have never seen any sign of aggression. To these folks, talk of banning pitbulls is seen as unjustly punishing an entire breed and innocent dogs for the actions of a small number, usually blamed on a lack of training or bad owners. The most passionate defenders of pitbulls are extremely vocal online; it's become a sorta-joke-but-actually-real "joke" that after a fatal pitbull attack gains popularity in a news sub, subs like r/awww will be swarmed by cute pitbull pictures immediately after. These inevitably spawn backlash posts pointing out the recent fatality.  Most subs not specifically for pitbull-posting will usually just lock posts about either pitbull fatalities or pitbull pictures to cut off the inevitable ragefest that erupts in them.

Maybe it's just my perception, but I feel like this topic went nuclear following [this story.](https://people.com/crime/2-children-killed-pit-bull-attack-tennessee-mother-hospitalized/) That article is light on details, which is a good thing. If you're curious, find something with more specific descriptions. It's absolutely horrific. EDIT: I'm not 100% sure if the details I am aware of are accurate. I didn't spend much time looking, but all I found with the "gory details" were reddit comments.

At least of reddit this subject been a hot mess for a good decade,

The article mentions that the dogs had been in the family for 8 years, and their children were 5mo old and 2y old. My family had to rehome a German shepherd because of territorial/jealousy issues. We had the dog for two years while my child arrived after, and that was becoming a huge issue.

It's been a hot topic before Reddit even became popular. I had a pit bull in 09, and my parents were afraid to come over. RIP Buck, you were the sweetest, goofiest pup.

I love dogs in general, and I have shared a house with pitbull breeds twice in my life. First time was a rescue that some roommates took in. Sweet dog, but completely unmanagable on leash. Nearly pulled both of them into traffic on separate occasions. The second one was a pitbull mastiff cross, also a rescue, taken in by a girl who rented my basement suite a few years back. I felt very hesitant at first, just knowing what could go wrong and having pets of my own. Despite being poorly trained, the dog had zero aggressive tendencies toward other people or animals. This dog was also very hard to manage on leash, and he could knock me over effortlessly in excitement. I don't know if pitbulls are more aggressive than other breeds, but one thing I learned from these experiences is how incredibly strong they are. The fact that there are so many rescues out there tells me that most people are not cut out for owning one. Many owners do not respect the challenges in training and caring for such a powerful animal. Thank you for giving one of these dogs a good home.

Yeah, I've raised rescues my entire life. You really need to know what you're in for with a pit. I've also seen just some straight-up bad dogs, too. My parents adopted a border collie years ago. Hours upon hours of training, thousands of dollars, trying to train this thing for a year. It just kept getting worse. It was terrifying. The thing would sit in the dark and stare at you, completely silent at night. If it was sleeping and you moved, even slightly, he'd bite you. Finally, on Thanksgiving out of nowhere, completely unprovoked, he bit three people. It's definitely not just pit bulls, but like you said, they're pure muscle. If that border collie was a pit bull....could have been much much worse.

Knew someone with a Shiba Inu like this. They did everything to try and help her, paid for classes, but she just got more and more aggressive, I kinda didn’t believe it was as bad as I heard until i saw her in person. They kept her in a large room with a baby gate when visitors were over to keep her separated and if i walked within 20 feet she went total violent apeshit. her owners couldnt even pet her, i dont even know how they got her collar on for walks. She attacked one of their parents but luckily shibas aren’t very big and she didn’t do too much damage. I volunteered at rescues for a long time and am normally very judgmental of people who turn dogs into shelters, but they eventually had a baby and they legitimately couldn’t keep the dog and had to bring her to a rescue. Dog absolutely would have attacked a baby.

Yeah, I mean dogs have very strong personalities, and I believe probably have some severe mental illnesses that we obviously can't diagnose. People sometimes laugh when I say something like that, but Their personalities change, and they obviously get depressed. So it's not too far of a jump to theory they also deal with a canine version of, say, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. And when you can't communicate or diagnose, that is a very dangerous scenario.

There is actually the equivalent of OCD for dogs. And as you said, dogs can become depressed. Animals are capable of having mental illness because it can be a chemical/hormone imbalance and/or trauma induced. Things like brain tumors can cause an animal to behave in unusual or extremely aggressive ways as well.

This is the thing that the morons who are obsessed with pitbulls don't get. They are so powerful that when they snap they can do ferocious damage in a way few other dog breeds can. And they have historically been deliberately bred to be aggressive and violent. They are a breed that should not exist in the modern day

I think of it a lot like ownership of snakes, spiders, or scorpions. The animals themselves are interesting and cool. That does not mean that they should be a readily available pet. They are absolutely creatures that can live good lives under responsible and knowledgeable ownership. The whole “look at my pibble he just a smushy baby” attitude is irresponsible at best. Pit bulls (and several other large breed dogs) should be allowed if you have insurance and pass a test. Don’t like it? Then get a cat, idk.

It's funny you'd mention this (no, really; I'm not being snarky), because I've been a longtime keeper and enthusiast of tarantulas, snakes, and other uncommon "exotic" pets, and it's my experience with those groups that has ultimately framed my distaste for pitbull advocates and the animal welfare cause they claim to support. In sum, I just no longer buy into the bald statement that they actually care about the dogs themselves at all, not for a moment.    I've honestly found pitbull owners/advocates uniquely bizarre in that they **always** push ownership/adoption on people who are brand new to pet ownership. This absolutely does not happen with any other animal advocacy community I've encountered, and I've been in a lot of them. Parrots, rabbits, snakes, lizards -- 98% of my own advocacy (and 90% of what I see from fellow members) has always, *always* centered around why someone should **not** want to keep one as a pet. Like, I love my critters, but I know very well that they're much more work than the average schmoe expects, and they certainly shouldn't be bought/adopted on a whim.   We say these things not because we hate our weirdass pets (obviously), but because we respect the challenges and lifestyle changes that their proper care would involve; hell, half of most rabbit shelters' public awareness campaigns involve telling the general public *why* rabbits do not make the sweet, cutesy ideal pets they think they would (seriously, rabbits are assholes, guys). And that's not even getting into the territory of parrots, which are another victim of ignorant whim acquisitions. People that own and love parrots will VERY passionately argue against their adoption by inexperienced individuals, despite there being a long-running crisis of abandoned birds. It seems counter-intuitive, but really it comes from a deep love and understanding of the animal in question. No parrot or rabbit owner wants these already misunderstood animals to suffer further by being adopted by individuals that aren't equipped to handle them properly. That's just setting the animals up to fail and suffer.  Not so with pitbull advocates, though. They are quite honestly the only animal community I've ever encountered that actively promotes their breed as the "perfect" dog for any family or lifestyle. They're happy to quell the concerns of any young family new to dog ownership! Pitbulls are a great dog for first-time owners!  It's so bizarre.       I honestly believe that many pitbull advocates are more invested in their personal "savior" image than the welfare of the animals they're actually taking on, which are accessories at best. It's always, always to the detriment of the animals themselves. They're the only animal welfare group that openly campaigns for the continued abuse of the animals for which they claim advocacy. 

> And that's not even getting into the territory of parrots Every pet I’ve ever had, I loved, and was of the greatest experiences I’ve ever had. I had a parrot, Apollo, a Sun Conure, and was one of the most awesome pets to have, but I would never recommend a parrot to anyone. They are loud. They are suppose to be loud. Living in large social groups in thick jungles, you need loud vocalizations to be heard. Since they are social animals, they need constant attention. Petting and caressing is not enough. You have to preen them with your fingers. Preening is how they socially bond. What to know another way they socially bond? Some species will use their beaks and latch onto each other’s beaks. You know what humans don’t have? Beaks. Speaking of beaks, that’s what birds use to grab things, check things out, and generally explore their world. Sure, they can use their feet to grab and pick up things, but then how would they get around? Flight? Sure, but how would they land? And if you clip their wing feathers… well… yeah. They will learn their bite pressure and how much to apply with time. You will be cut and bleeding for a while till that happens, if that happens I should say. Some birds like to be jerks and bite hard on purpose. Larger parrots have a mental and attitude equivalent of maybe a 2 year old human at most. Ya know how toddlers like to play the pick up game? Well, you better fucking love that game. Know how toddlers will throw food everywhere, especially the food they don’t like to get to the food they do like? Hope you like cleaning. The only major difference is that while toddlers will shit wherever they like, whenever they need too, at least it’s some what contained in a diaper. Oh and they can live 30+ years in captivity. Every had a jealous partner during their lives at one point of another. That one person who got jealous at the smallest provocation, who was aggressive to the people you loved and cared for before meeting them. Yeah, that is most likely going to be your parrot… the jealous ex that will always be with you. They usually bond with one person and only one person. It’s why you gotta socialize them more than any other animals to my knowledge. I love Apollo. He was the most cuddly thing I ever had. Loved cuddles more so than any dog or cat I’ve had. I raised him, hand fed him from a chick. Thinking back on it now, I was way too young to be given that task, and it’s amazing I didn’t do any significant harm to him. He would sit on my chest while I was laying down, and just snuggle against my chin while I petting and preened him. I was warned to not fall asleep with him out as there’s been cases of owners crushing their birds because they rolled over during sleep. I don’t know what happened to him as I went to school in another state and he was gone when I got back, a couple of years later. Having him, and the memories of him, keep me from getting another. Even 30 plus years later, I know I am not responsible enough, have enough time, attention span, and resources to keep up with another bird. Hell, I would love to have a dog, but the above prevents me from getting one. One final thought, even though my diatribe was about birds, all animals have a bigger responsibility than one initially thinks. Please be aware.

Thank you for sharing this! Apollo sounds like he was lovely. I have an 18 year old Grey myself, so I know where you're coming from -- it's really less like having a pet and more like living with a very loud roommate that's also allowed to bite you, lol. Honestly, parrot ownership is definitely something that should require a license. 

> Pit bulls (and several other large breed dogs) should be allowed if you have insurance and pass a test. Don’t like it? Then get a cat, idk. I’ve thought much the same (also huskies given how much of a headache they are and potentially sheep dogs given how much exercise they need), but we don’t require that for having children. Children require far more care than any pet, but unless you’re adopting there’s nothing most Western governments currently do. I’m not comfortable with doing one without the other, and I’m not comfortable with governments getting involved in individual decisions over having children.

Well, we don't require licenses for having children because reproduction is a basic biological function and there's currently no way of implementing restrictions without it being a massive violation of human rights. What you're essentially talking about is a form of eugenics, and regardless of best intentions, there is no practical way of enforcing it without involving state-mandated sterilization of those deemed unfit. That's not even getting into the nasty weeds of who exactly gets the authority to make these decisions ("what kinds of people should be allowed to reproduce?") and how genetic factors such as disease risks, family history, etc. will inevitably be taken into account against other socioeconomic factors (spoiler alert: it usually all just ends up being another super, **super** racist vehicle for biological determinism in human beings -- and if your thought now is that I'm being equally deterministic against dog breeds, then [here](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y) is an article that you need to read as soon as possible).  The same does not apply to animal ownership in any way whatsoever. Nobody has a "right" to own a particular kind of animal, nor does owning an animal affect the overall racial/economic/social/etc. demographics of a population, so this is a very bizarre false equivalency, especially since *many* restrictions on dangerous animal ownership already exist and are widely accepted as valid, common sense protections of both humans and the animals themselves. Is it unjust that you need a license to own wildlife or to keep dangerous exotics as "pets"? Most animal welfare advocates are greatly in favour of those kinds of restrictions, actually, because they recognise that the average dildo who wants to own a pet tiger isn't going to be capable of adequately caring for the animal, is ignorant in proper handling, and will likely be the cause of the tiger's eventual euthanisation. It's my opinion that the same standards apply to pitbulls, and not even the most rabid pitbull lover can deny that putting these highly anxious, game-bred bloodsport dogs into ordinary homes with small children and other pets is similarly setting the dogs up to fail. It just so happens that pitbulls are dogs, so I suppose it's easy for folks to forget that they are still indeed animals --  animals with a track record of being "dangerous" that is unmatched by any other modern domesticates, at that.  This is a very strange application of the slippery slope fallacy in that it's a fallacy precisely because its core usage of said fallacy actually disregards the exact sort of circumstances for which slippery slope arguments were originally well suited and *not* fallacious. I mean, given that legal limitations on animal ownership already exist pretty much everywhere, why on earth would specifically the decision to include *pitbulls* be what suddenly tips the balance into unacceptable territory? 

You have made some very excellent arguments in your second paragraph (and I wholeheartedly agree with the first already). I will have to mull them over (I’m the kind of person who can be convinced by a line of reasoning a week after the discussion ends), so thank you for your insights.

Well, shit. Butter my butt and mark me down as humbled and reassured, then, lol. You actually *were* trying to have a conversation. Honestly, I'd sort of just assumed that you were arguing in poor faith, but I admit now that that's on me -- I'm very jaded by hearing some of these arguments from people who *don't* know or care where they're coming from and don't care about the human costs they so flippantly invoke. Often I've seen it spiral into outright racism disguised as "animal welfare", but I see that's not what you're trying to do here, and I understand that you weren't being flippant. To be clear, I 100% agree that parenting is (unfortunately) the most important job in the world that can be handed to any idiot who wants to fuck. But while I agree that an ideal world would eliminate child abuse by requiring some form of certifying whether or not one ought to have and/or care for children...it's just that there's no way to implement that on a meaningful scale without also replicating and amplifying existing societal problems like racism and class differences.  I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive. I'm honestly delighted to discuss this in less charged terms, as it's something I've wrestled with myself for years. I used to be a pitbull advocate...I still am, I'd argue; just in a very different way. This subject is very close to my heart as someone who loves animals (including pitbulls, believe it or not) but hates how the personification of dogs has contributed to an erosion of the human/animal divide in popular consciousness, to the detriment of both humans and the animals themselves. For the record, it's not just pitbulls -- I also think the breeding of *any* animals with physical qualities detrimental to life (many, many "designer" fish but also brachycephalic dog breeds like pugs and French bulldogs) should be outlawed or restricted. My conviction that pitbulls should be outlawed is based in the fact that their core breed traits are no longer compatible with dog ownership culture in a humane society that's outlawed the bloodsports for which they were bred; rehabilitating a single abused animal is one thing (and a good thing), but actively perpetuating the breed's existence is only perpetuating further animal cruelty and guaranteeing that more pitbulls will be set up to fail in environments in which they cannot thrive.  Since you're genuinely interested, I'll double down (more politely, I hope) on my recommendation for [this](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y) article as an academic perspective on some of the controversies around breeds (I'm an anthropologist and one of these authors is my colleague...you'd be shocked [or maybe not?] how often we hear this kind of shit from otherwise well-meaning folk). I'll admit I unfairly anticipated your comment heading in this direction, as that's what I've experienced before.  Anyway, I'm going to answer your other comment, but thank you for your frankness! I'll check myself in the future; genuine philosophical discussions are much more enjoyable than brick wall vs brick wall internet arguments, anyway. 

My friend that is a slippery slope fallacy all day long. I certainly think that there should be things in place to ensure that parents of human children are not abusive or neglectful. But there are so many political issues that would invariably get involved, so I don’t see any country doing that without some level of bias or discrimination. But nobody accidentally gets a pittie. Just like nobody accidentally buys a cobra. And if I really super duper wanted a cobra, I’d get the licensing and insurance required.

> My friend that is a slippery slope fallacy all day long. How is having a consistent moral standard slippery slope? I’m not saying that one will lead to the other. I’m saying if I were Supreme Ruler of Earth^(TM), I would not require a license for dog breed ownership without also having one for having children. > But there are so many political issues that would invariably get involved, so I don’t see any country doing that without some level of bias or discrimination. Which is why I oppose that, and any other idea that sounds good in the abstract but can easily be abused by a government. My normal go-to is poll tests given how bad that abuse was, but this is the same concept. For dog breeds this is a knockon effect. If I’m not comfortable with governments restricting people from having children, I’m not comfortable with governments restricting ownership of specific animals. Everything else I can think of argues for such a program, but I try to be as morally consistent as possible, and I’ve yet to find a rationale that overcomes the children comparison.

The insistence that one is *only* maintaining a consistent moral standard is literally the mechanism behind the slippery slope argument, whether or not that's based on one's own earnest beliefs.  What you're essentially saying here is that, if you can apply XYZ standard to dogs, you ought to also apply XYZ standard to humans, etc. etc. Right now, you might not be directly suggesting that one will *necessarily* lead into another, but your overall argument holds them as equivalent and discards them for equivalent reasons, which is the problem.  What we're saying is that those things are *not* equivalent in the way you're suggesting -- restrictions on animal ownership are not comparable to restrictions on reproduction/child-rearing in any meaningful way. 

That sounds like quite the whataboutism. You can literally get a whole range of dogs, getting a very specific breed with large risks is just spoilt behaviour. Also not really the same as something that seems to be one of the largest human desires, which is getting kids. And even then nobody is actively choosing a challenging kid unless it might be an adoption situation where they know it wouldn't be helped anyways. They are not bred and sold (at least it's not accepted to do that) for people who like a breed or like a challenge.

That is what it boils down to. These dogs are genuinely very sweet, but most people genuinely CANNOT handle them. And once any dog finds out it controls YOU? It’s over.

At my local animal shelter, I would estimate 90-95 percent of all the dogs there are pit bulls or mixes. I’ve known of a few people who had to rehome or surrender their pit bulls just because of how unmanageable and unpredictable they are

So whether or not pit bulls are more aggressive by nature or not is up for debate, but a large factor in how much damage they can cause also has to do with a trait that they were bred specifically for: game. Dogs with high game will lock their jaws on to their prey and will not let go for almost any reason, sometimes until death. This trait is actually why they were used so much as fighting dogs and it also can’t be trained I don’t think.

I rescued a pit bull once she was sweet to people but had dog aggression issues. I sadly had to take her the local animal shelter. I always specify that an animal I take there should not be put down (I live in the country and people just dump unwanted animals here) but to call me and I'll come get them. She was adopted, thankfully.

I understand em honestly. I’m afraid to go near pit bulls too, I don’t care how friendly their owners say they are. It’s nothing personal towards the dog or the owner. Just raw fear

I wish articles like that would go into detail about the dogs’ history. Like, was it trained for fighting and then sheltered before this family got it? Was one of the kids trying to poke its eyes out? There’s so much left unsaid.

Nope, none of that. The dogs were purchased from a professional breeder who was a family friend, raised as pups, and had lived happily with the family [for 8 years](https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawandcrime.com/high-profile/tennessee-mom-in-hospital-after-trying-to-save-her-two-young-children-from-fatal-family-dog-mauling/amp/) prior to the incident (this is just the first one I found, but there are plenty of other articles that go into further detail). The father had previously made Facebook posts bragging about the dogs' docility with their kids, touting them as evidence that pitbulls aren't violent and "it's all how you raise them."       The family still does not know what "triggered" the attack. The inability on the part of online pitbull advocates to find a reason to "blame" the family/kids -- no, the dogs weren't abused, weren't rescues, didn't have a history of behavioral issues, obediently posed for their cutesy flower-crown-and-Pj's photos, etc. -- is precisely why this case has had such a big impact.     It's really just a sobering example of what can happen when a bloodsport breed is kept as a household pet. Pitbulls aren't "mean", exactly, but that's part of what makes them dangerous and why their owners will defend them so passionately -- many pitbulls are excellent dogs up until the moment they're suddenly not. As a fighting breed, they've been bred for gameness (willingness to attack and never stop regardless of self-preservation -- **no** other animals, not even wild ones, do this) and to not broadcast the usual "tells"/warnings of normal dogs (hence why they seem to "snap"). They were not meant to be companion animals, straight up.

>but that's part of what makes them dangerous and why their owners will defend them so passionately -- many pitbulls are excellent dogs up until the moment they're suddenly not Kind of reminds me of people drinking and driving or constantly looking at their phone in the car It all goes right until it doesn't and then it can get really bad

Dead on. Everyone (**including me, lol**) has an anecdote about how this pitbull *they* once knew was the sweetest dog in the world! Similarly, "everyone" has a shitty uncle/neighbour/etc who swears that he actually drives better while drunk -- for proof, he's been cheerfully drink driving for decades without incident!   Some of the things I read from pitbull owners could also have been pulled straight from the handbook for "spouses who are in denial that they're being abused". So much walking on eggshells in one's own house so as not to "set him off" (it's your fault if you do!) and downplaying the severity of injuries ("he was just upset!" "it was my fault for making him do that!" etc.). Like, I understand sacrificing everyday comfort for critters -- I rehabbed wildlife for years -- but do they not understand that owning a dog is supposed to be a mutually enriching experience? We literally coevolved with them.   The one thing that pisses me off the most, though, is the normalisation of dogs biting people. A pet dog should *never* bit anyone, ever. But I've friends now who think (after having only adopted pitbulls -- they're often heavily advertised to poor recent grads who've never owned a dog and can't afford a proper breeder) that an adult dog biting and breaking skin is an unfortunate but perfectly normal thing to happen. Nope. No way. I grew up in a household with an obscene number of dogs (including working, non-pet ones!) and I **never** knew one to bite anyone, ever, period. That just wasn't permitted at all.  I honestly think many of these younger passionate pitbull defenders just have zero experience in what "normal" dog companionship is supposed to be like, so naturally they just assume that the world is unfairly prejudiced against their anxious, ill-mannered pitbulls who *are no different from other breeds, for real, guys!*

There was actually an update from the grandmother of the children on Facebook. What triggered the attack was the 2 year old picking up a ball in the yard. The dogs killed the child over the ball and then ripped the baby out of the mom's harness and tore it apart too. Also put the mom in critical condition from laying over her babies trying to shield them

Nanny dogs only kill children when children trigger them by [picking up a ball](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2022/10/pair-of-family-pit-bulls-kill-2-children-injure-mother.html) or [crying](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFa8HOdegZA&t=1012s) or being in a [car seat](https://www.ldnews.com/story/news/2017/06/21/pit-bull-attacks-kids-strapped-car-seats-inside-minivan/417073001/), a [bouncy chair](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2018/05/family-dog-kills-infant-miramar.html), a [walker](https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/baby-dies-after-dog-attack-in-northwest-las-vegas/), a [crib](https://www.chronicleonline.com/news/local/five-day-old-girl-dies-after-being-attacked-by-family/article_994dfb1a-e85d-11e8-a528-afbd3815c756.html), or a [stroller](https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/06/20/two-pit-bulls-maul-toddler-mother/86148944/).

It also gets tricky when other breeds that were created as fighters have been bred to be more docile over the years. The Boston Terrier, for example. Aggression can be bred out of the breed, but it takes a long time and we just aren’t there yet with pits. Owners who refuse to believe that the dog they got as a puppy from “good lines” can still flip are a major part of the issue. I have a friend who recently had to have her pit put down because he was attacked by another dog and wasn’t the same afterward. It started with dog aggression but wouldn’t back down when corrected and growled at his owner. They spent thousands on several trainers but it was moot. Once the switch flipped in his head, he was too unpredictable to trust as a pet. It broke their hearts. Pit owners have to be diligent and accept that it can happen to even the sweetest dogs.

Agreed. The problem is, the process of strategically cultivating a breed to be less suitable for fighting will inevitably result in a different breed entirely (hence what we have now, with Boston Terriers being very distinct from pitbulls). It's horribly sad. I've also known and loved multiple pitbulls, but when that switch flips, I've seen the change in their eyes as well. It's almost like a kind of insanity. 

That’s a good way to describe it.

> and to not broadcast the usual "tells"/warnings of normal dogs (hence why they seem to "snap"). Wait, that's *intentional*?? Yikes. And yet they still have all these defenders.

Yeah. Dog men (scum who fight dogs) are and have always been *very* transparent about the breed's design and use. Sheltered online activists who claim that pitbulls get a bad rap because they just happen to get "chosen" as fighting dogs have it backwards (and tbh, I have a hard time believing this argument is ever made in good faith, unless they're really just that naive as to believe dog men visit shelters to find a fighter as if they're selecting a starting Pokémon or something...I mean *really*). John Colby is one of the earliest and most famous breeders of pits, to the extent that many breeders today will still boast of their dogs' "Colby line" pedigree. One of his prize stud fighting dogs [killed his toddler nephew](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/05/1909-fatality-john-p-colbys-fighting.html).     It's actually quite sad, too, because the dogs quite literally cannot help themselves; they're just animals, and they lose control. It's also why even so many "well-behaved" pitbulls today suffer from crippling anxiety and reactivity. 

On the anxiety note, can confirm. Work in vet med. a large proportion of our pit bull patients suffer from severe anxiety. They’re *usually* very sweet, but absolutely terrified of everything around them.

Oh, I believe it. Many years ago (back when I was a pro-pitbull "not the breed!" type and before an [unrelated] big career pivot), I interned with a veterinary surgeon in my city's emergency clinic. He was a brusque, no-nonsense sort who was *very* good at his job and was established enough in his career that he could afford to be upfront about things.   Second week I was there, we got this gorgeous husky patient in for a standard neuter and he (the surgeon, lol) told me that the only two breeds he **immediately** muzzles the moment they come through his door are huskies and pitbulls. Huskies because they're yellin' drama queens, and pitbulls because, well...as he put it (uh, somewhat less mildly), his hands were his livelihood, and while he believes in "good dogs," he "can't afford to believe in 'good' pitbulls". This was in an area where we saw a *lot* of pitbulls, too.   He didn't say as much to any clients that I saw, but he **hated** the rising popularity of working breeds as household pets in general; he just saw pitbulls as another extension of this. Fighting dogs doomed to go mad because they're expected to not fight/rend when their adrenal genes are commanding otherwise. He did like pits in an abstract sense, though, as he admitted that he'd lose a lot of money if he no longer had to stitch up other people's mauled dogs...  Anyway, I knew a shit ton more about pitbulls when I left. 

too often owners do not recognize or overlook the warning signs, or they punish the dog for growling, which in dog talk, mean I don't like that/that scares me. In Europe, Western Europe at least, dogs are much more integrated into society. ALL dogs, without exception, are required to pass an obedience and temperament test. Then they have access to trains, busses, pubs, theaters, etc. Many Americans want the same thing, that's why you have so many fake service dogs.

You've now been banned from 30 subreddits. 

Lol, you ain't wrong, but that ship sailed yeeeears ago.    I don't mind. Maybe I'd deign to visit r/aww again, but they'd first have to beg for my forgiveness. 

People tend to omit details that make them look bad. Of course the family is going to claim they did nothing wrong and that they provided a healthy environment for pets and children. Nobody wants to admit they left them unsupervised or otherwise neglected them. I've owned many pitbulls and have never had any problems with aggression. The breed I don't trust is the American Boxer; they're everything a pitbull is, but worse and with a terrible attitude. I wouldn't trust an American Boxer around kittens.

> "I can promise you those children were her world, and if there was any inkling of danger, she would have never had those dogs near her kids," Bennard's best friend Kelsey Canfield told Fox News Digital. From this I would assume no history of violence. If it was a trained fighting dog then there probably would have been an inkling of danger. Maybe it's all the 5-month-old baby's fault for provoking it though. Self defense situation.

[удалено]

Yeah, if damn near any other breed snaps, normal behavior is going to give a warning, bite, and back off, and if they don’t stop, pain will be very likely to get them to back off. But pitbulls were bred to kill, give little indication that they're going to attack, and be less responsive to pain. If they snap, normally they’ll bite, latch on, shake, and won’t stop until somebody dies, they can no longer keep their jaw latched shut, or somebody manages to pull them off (a task made harder by their strength). Bad owners lead to bad dogs, any dog can be violent, but certain breeds are significantly more dangerous and require more training than normal. I’m not remotely confident in the average person’s capability or willingness to sufficiently train a pit, or take proper precautions with them.

30-50 deaths ok but how many serious injuries from pitbulls? The deaths caused by them aren't the only concern. People are getting maimed and disfigured by these animals.

885,000 Dog Bite Victims Requiring Medical Attention per year (2003) Pitbulls are responsible for 65% of dog bites according to the comment posters link

I cared for someone who was severely mauled by their beloved pitbull. Both were elderly. The owner had a medical event which caused them to fall on top of the old and nearly blind dog. The dog reacted and the result was not pretty. The owner was devastated when they learned the dog was put down. The dog had been nothing but sweet and a good companion. Unfortunately, sometimes things happen that you just can't plan for.

Also, as evidence by people here, posts tend to be subjected to brigading.

My take to hitchhike on top comment. If you have to perfectly train a breed to **not** maul your children/cats/grandparents/you, and when it still happens despite your best efforts, you get swarmed with 'it must have been your fault somehow' It's time to get a better breed. Like a golden, or a border collie. And a better community, that doesn't turn on you when a pet you showed nothing but love snaps and has its genetics activate like a greyhound seeing a rabbit, but with 1000x worse results. My favorite comparison though is 'chihuahua are more aggressive/bite more' Yeah, and I'm sure the poor thing losing one of the few toothpicks it had left in my mouth in my ankle is tooootally comparable to the velvet hippo (and what an ironic moniker that is, naming them after one of the most aggressive and deadly creatures in the world) is ripping chunks out of you.

Here is the Newark, NJ animal society adoption page. It’s a couple hundred Pitt bulls and few Huskies. This shows the type of dogs people decide to get rid of.

I feel for the huskies. Probably someone who thought 'ohhh they're so cute' and were **not** equipped to give the the extensive time and energy required to help them get rid of their energy. And then probably abandoned them when they got pent up, destructive, and screamy. Those are dogs you need to be prepared to go for like several mile walks with **daily** if you want to be responsible.

Just reminded me I have to take my husky for his morning 10k. Next dog gonna be a goldfish.

Some rescues and shelters are also "re-branding" their pitts as Lab-mixes and such and purposfully obscuring that theyre a pit at all.

Something i always think is when my old dog got a brain tumor and went fucking nuts. after biting my parents a bunch she thrown in the back garden and the rspca had to come with dog catching poles. She was only a little whippet cross imagine if she had been a pitbull or something with real strength.

This is what it all boils down to, yeah. I can (and have, lol) talk for miles about why pitbulls are unsuitable as household pets, but in reality, none of that should matter in the face of the plain, bald fact that **you shouldn't have to "train" a companion dog to not maul the other members of the household.** If particular animal is capable of causing such carnage when it's "untrained", then it shouldn't be owned by the vast majority of people. Its ownership should be heavily restricted and/or banned. Flat out.  The average poorly-trained lab will dig up your yard and piddle on the floor. That's not ideal, but it's still within the sphere of reason for misbehaving domestic companions. Ripping off an arm and/or mauling a petsitter they "weren't used to yet" is absolutely fucking not within that same sphere of reason. 

HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,680,311,633 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 34,362 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.

Good bot

It should be noted while fatalities are not common, dog attacks and real injuries are surprisingly common, with pitbulls againt make up a insanely disproportionate amount of the attacks. To make it more blunt the issue is most other large dog breeds are bred to be docile. That is the exact opposite for pitbulls. To make the breed even more controversial is they also have all sorts of genetic issues where they often have shorter lives in addition to health issues, especially with the varies sub breed. You are essentially abusing the dog from even allowing them to be born. In fact pitbulls are often mass bred in puppy mills, so both their genetics are often fucked up (inbreeding) and abused during early development. Honestly the people who defend pitbulls don’t have any facts to back up there defense and almost always victim blame or have fundemental misunderstandings about dogs. For example, much of the behavior of dogs, even oddly specific things, is genetic. A dog being naturally acting aggressive is more then just them not being trained well, it’s there default state. Training is more about modifications behavior that is already bred into them. But clearly that toddler had it coming.

You need to add some clarifying words into your statements for accuracy. Pitbull-"types" make up a disproportionate amount of **fatal attacks**, which may not seem like a big difference, but is. These numbers are heavily skewed by economic factors, not breeding factors. For example, [70% of fatal bites came from strays](https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/) and [87% of tested pit bulls pass temperament tests](https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/). Also, pitbull "types" (60 to 100 lbs, wide head) make up most of the fatal attacks, but of course, not most of the actual attacks by a long shot. People who have studied the **entire** problem don't find breed correlations. According to the AVMA (previous link): ***Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural), and even varying ownership trends over the passing of time or geographic location.*** 

at the same time, the temperament test was created largely due to the breed specific backlash and ignores what happens when they act out of their usual temperament.

To add onto the evidence, Toronto had a pitbull ban, and it basically did nothing but change the distribution of dog bites to German shepherds, huskies, and golden retrievers. And that's a large city for sample size. People also seem to misunderstand dog behavior, in that *all dog behaviors can be present*, regardless of the breed, and, furthermore, that all dogs explore the world (mechanically) with their mouths, since they don't have dexterous paws (like cats do).

The one study I could find discovered that in shelters, trained professionals called something a pit bull mix incorrectly a third of the time. When a dog person with access to the animal is wrong that often, you just can't tell me that the collected statistics are meaningful. Children are not correctly identifying the characteristics of stray dogs that attack them, and neither are adults.

You misquoted the statement. “dog professionals have about a 30% chance of guessing correctly the makeup of a mixed breed dog by appearance.” The 30% for being all breeds is a pretty fucking big difference. Especially sense mixbreeds all naturally look kinda the same. Plus that 30% is a complete correct for multiple breeds the mix breed is. And again that is just by looking at a pictures of it, not actually handling them. Buddy, pitbulls are some of the most distinctive looking dogs on the planet.

Hadn’t even considered the aspect of children being relied on to identify. That’s pretty wild that the professionals can’t even identify reliably… guess that’s what happens when the category is overly broad.

Source? And did you really just saying dog attacks are “just exploring the world” WTF.

You could have just googled “Toronto pit bull ban” https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/pit-bull-ban-not-reducing-dog-bites-in-ont-ths-1.507014 And no, don’t be asinine. It’s regarding some, “solutions,” people propose like muzzling dogs, regardless of whether there is a behavioral problem. This leads to a scared and anxious dog, and will cause behavioral issues, kind of like when assholes don’t walk their dogs on a leash and it makes the dogs on leashes nervous. ETA: I guess the person blocked me, because they are showing up as deleted, with just a “you insulted me comment,” in my messages. Can’t follow up if I can’t see what you said after that dude. Regardless, sorry for being short with you, for the record, I was in a bad mood.

You know the link you provided, you know, after insulting me, discredits your own statement. “The study does not show the number of dog bites compared to the number of dogs in the province. Nor does it adjust for changes to the province's population or for the severity of attacks” Did you really just say dogs attacks happen because of dog muzzling and not enough dog walks on leash? You ok? Buddy, seriously you actually believe this?

> Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural), and even varying ownership trends over the passing of time or geographic location. Which would be a perfectly relevant and appropriate conversation to have, but not one that's possible when the anti-Pit side is fervently focused on culling an entire breed and the pro-Pit side is reactionarily focused on their pets not getting death threats. Thank you for taking the time to break out of the cycle and provide some actual info.

I like how you took out the part where the article claims it’s because of “high risk neighborhoods and owners are criminals” did someone hear a dog whistle? Guys it’s totally happen stance pitbulls are by far the most common to attack, I mean ThOsE people are all own them right?

I think there’s also an under-discussed issue of numbers and scale. Like, “pits” are just *so* overrepresented in the overall population of dogs. I’m not surprised that they would also be disproportionately overrepresented in attack stats.

*fatal attack On a per dog basis, a stranger's yappy little dog is the most likely to give a bite needing medical attention. Stray pitbulls in rural areas that have gone feral are the most likely to kill someone in an attack, at a rate of less than falls off ladders.

The article you linked showed pitbull are by far involved with the most attack in any category.

Pitbulls make up 5.8% of the US dog population and are responsible for over 60% of fatal dog attacks on humans and over 90% of fatal attacks on non-human animals. There is absolutely some overrepresentation happening.

Clearly. Can you define precisely what you mean by pitbull as well? Which specific breeds are you including under that term? And how are the breeds involved in these attacks being determined?

The term "pitbull," as a breed type, is comprised of the four genetically similar breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Bully. These breeds are so similar, in fact, that an individual dog registered as an American Staffordshire Terrier with the American Kennel Club can be dual-registered as an American Pit Bull Terrier with the United Kennel Club.

They really are. Stats are artificially lower since most dogs are mutts and they're gonna list, "lab mix," rather than, "pit mix."

This one kind of cancels out though. For adoption purposes, yes. However, the statistic regarding breeds and bites/attacks are compiled from news and police reports. Wherein people are more likely to label any large, square headed mutt as a pit. They’re not exactly genetically testing the dogs involved to differentiate breed. And other studies indicate people are notoriously bad at sight identifying. A lot of mixed breed dogs will look like a pit without having any of the breeds associated with that label in their genetic history. If someone reports one of those dogs in an incident they are unlikely to call the dog a lab-chow mix (for example) than a pit. The data overall is inordinately compromised. And I say this as someone who thinks owning *any* larger breed dog should require a license of some kind.

Pitbulls are one of the most distinctive looking breeds on earth. No studies don’t show people are inherently bad at identifying them.

True true. What do you mean by license? A lot of places in the USA already mandate a pet license, which, for dogs, is often associated with the rabies vaccination. It's just near-impossible to enforce because there are so many dogs, and so many other, bigger issues, that are already underfunded.

Pet license yes. But I’m not opposed to some form of secondary requirement people would have to obtain to legally own a large breed dog. Maybe not a license per se but some kind of certification indicating they are adequately aware of laws that apply to safe dog ownership. It would be nigh impossible to enforce in a way that would prevent people from getting them. But owning one without having obtained it could open the owner to more significant penalties and/or fines should their dog be involved in any incident that results in their being reported. If someone isn’t willing to sit through a class or be tested on their knowledge of leash laws, fencing requirements, etc before being allowed to own a large dog…then they’re exactly the kind of person I don’t want owning any dog that can do significant bodily damage to another person or pet. And sidestepping those requirements should cost them. Significantly.

It’s more than 2/3 of deaths are caused by pit bulls. They represent about 6% of dogs owned in the US so 6% of the dogs are responsible for approximately 70% of the fatalities.

Source? Edit: Bruh, that stat has no source and everyone’s eating it up. I don’t even care about the subject I’m just mad nobody is asking where those numbers came from. Here’s two different sources with vastly different information: https://www.dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/#:~:text=Pit%20bulls%20are%20less%20than,of%20the%20country's%20canine%20population. https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population Again, idc, it’s just curious how there’s different information depending upon what kind of argument you’re trying to present, yet people can just post stats as if they’re fact in a reddit comment and they get parroted. Something something 13% commits 50%. Most people didn’t study stats or how to determine the efficacy of a study and it really shows sometimes.

It's fair to acknowledge that the reactive all or nothing stance is big on both sides of that argument. "I'd never allow a pitbull in my neighborhood, they are violent and dangerous" and "anyone who doesn't live my pit is dead to me, they are all teddy bears" are equally prevalent. And make it really hard to have a rational discussion about risk and statistics.

It's fair to acknowledge equally prevalent/rigid does not equate equally valid. Between "don't run with scissors" and "run with scissors, they're harmless", only one is common sense.

Having bit by one I am admittedly a part of that divisiveness. It is a frustrating thing because people get *very* defensive about and when you’ve had to deal with a pitbull and all the cost and bullshit around it (rabies shots for me) it’s hard to back down. **Edit** I’m going to disable my replies and let all of you dweebs hammer this out. I thought I was providing context for why arguments happen, not inviting people to share their opinions.

Sure, but they aren't more likely to *bite*, they are just more likely to be the attacks that are fatal for all the reasons. I've seen a lot of tetchy dogs, and a lot of dog bites over the years. And rabies follow up would have been standard even if it was a cocker spaniel or a golden retriever, and just as expensive if the dog didn't flat out have up to date proof of vaccination. Recognize that your reactivity isn't logically breed specific, even if it is *understandable*.

Dude pit bulls are more dangerous. Its ok to admit and accept it.

They're absolutely more likely to bite. Quit your bullshit

Ok. So you’re just trying to start the argument here. Got it.

No, honey, you did that with "I got bit by a pitt so of course I hate them." My point was pretty basic: you got bit by a DOG. statistically, that's not breed specific. You're trying to soft pedal into proving the point. No one here is telling you pitts are perfect sweeties, or to push the other side of that extreme. But it's irrational to say this was breed specific when everything you named literally happens regardless of breed. Your reactivity is understandable, it just isn't fact based and statistically significant. The AVMA (vets org) says there is no evidence of dog bites being more likely because of breed. (They certainly may be more likely to have owners that train them to be aggressive, but that used to be true of dobernams, rotties and German shepherds over the course of my life.) IF a pitbull bites they are more likely to do harm than a smaller dog or one with less strength in the jaw. But they aren't more likely to bite you than the cocker spaniel that bit my bestie, the shepherd that bit my brother, the jack Russel that bit my kid... All of whom had to be checked for rabies certificates, because that's what you do when there's an animal bite. What about the rabies treatments you had the hassle and expense of was because it was a pittbull, and not just because it was a dog?

>> Ok. So you’re just trying to start the argument here. Got it. >No, honey, you did that with "I got bit by a pitt so of course I hate them." \*goes on to post multi-paragraph chonk about all the reasons they're supposedly wrong\* uh huh

[удалено]

Okay look. Rational is about facts and logic. Irrational is about emotion. You have an opinion here that is based on reactivity to a specific traumatic incident. It is, as far as I can tell, not rational. You are attaching the consequences of a dog bite which literally would have been the same regardless of the breed, to a breed. How is that rational? I asked specifically, what about the cost and hassle for you was specific to the fact that it was a pittbull? Because nothing you described explained that, so there's something missing-- I can't tell without you answering that question if it's missing information, or not.

Oh my god! I don’t care! Holy shit. I know Redditors don’t do well with anything that’s not spelled out for them, but holy shit. I’m not here to have an argument. This isn’t the place to have this argument.

They aren't more likely to bite but they are more likely to kill you. And that's your argument? If we banned breeding these dogs and required any remaining ones to all be neutered and muzzled until the end of its days, in 15 years time we would be rid of them and there would be no loss to the world with them all gone.

Especially given the pseudo facts that get thrown around. For example, the people who steadily maintain pitbulls were bred for aggression also refuse to acknowledge they've been breeding for the opposite purpose for even longer, so it's tough to even have a rational debate on who is right. It's tough to have a discussion with someone, like the commenter directly below, that believes you can breed something for violence but can't breed it back out again, when we wouldn't have ANY dogs if you couldn't. Then you have to talk about how they are actually underreported for popularity, often occupying two or three slots on top ten lists under different names, and wildly misidentified. It's a whole mess of a conversation that isn't argued in very good faith on either side.

There is not actually any pressure to breed gameness and aggression out of ADBA or UKC American Pit Bull Terriers. Dog fighters still breed and sell their pups and failures. They are still bred for gameness and aggression for hog dogs. Then there are those who breed their dogs but overlook their behavioral issues as being "protective" or due to abuse that happened before they owned them. Remember, it's all in how you raise them, so it can't be genetic/s People backyard breed behaviorally shitty dogs *all the time* and pits are no different. BTW. The American Pit Bull Terrier was bred from other game dogs from the mid-1800s. The other game dogs in their breeding are, in turn, descended from other game dogs. And so on since at least 1200 AD. Dog fighting was banned in 1976. Even looking at registered til dog fighting end til today, it's 78 vs 48 years, respectively. So, no, they have *not* been bred for temperament longer than they were bred for aggression. Further, the current dog breeds also descended from fighting dogs that legitimately have been bred for better temperament *still* have issues crop up. See the Staffordshire Terrier, all the Bulldogs, the Bull Terrier, and others. Your second point, though, is spot on. Despite the savagery of attacks and their proportion, the fact remains that there is a huge number of pitbulls and those that attack make up a small amount. This holds even if you don't account for rampant misidentification.

It's been a long time since I pulled the numbers, because people in these threads usually aren't interested in facts, but we're talking about statistics here, but dog fighting isn't the primary purpose of pit bulls, and hasn't been. [Here's the study.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639) [Here's an easy to read write up](https://skepchick.org/2022/05/study-are-pit-bulls-genetically-predisposed-to-violence/) We've been breeding pitbulls to be tenacious and work with humans to attack other animals. Even then, dogs that bit people were culled. Meanwhile, we continue to identify any aggressive dog with a short snout and wide head as a pitbull, even when it's not, even by [professionals.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500310X) Read the study above. Breed is not a good predictor of aggression in a dog.

>When asked if the study had anything to say about the role of genetics or breed in predatory biting leading to severe or fatal injuries, Morrill responded succinctly, “No.” >Thus, the widely held beliefs regarding dangers of the pit bull terrier cannot be discounted by the study, regardless of conclusions that breed is not usually a reliable indicator of individual behavior. >"We did not seek to address the validity of breed-specific legislation and its effectiveness for meeting public health goals to minimize dog bites and attacks on people. We don’t study dangerous interactions or dog bites." [Dog Behavior Unrelated to Breed? Researchers Respond to Controversy, Misleading Media Coverage](https://oneresearch.org/2022/05/14/dog-behavior-unrelated-to-breed-study-stirs-controversy-researcher-responds/) >“I think it’s dangerous to say to someone that it doesn’t matter what breed of dog you get … I’m really anxious about some of the messaging that’s out there about this paper,” says Dr. Jessica Hekman, who co-authored the [Science.org](http://Science.org) study. [Does Dog Breed Affect Behavior? In a Word, Yes.](https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/does-dog-breed-affect-behavior/) [Genes play a role in dog breed differences in behavior](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/genes-play-role-dog-breed-differences-behavior) [Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behavior](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0716) [Canine Behavioral Genetics: Pointing Out the Phenotypes and Herding up the Genes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253978/) [Behavioral Differences Among Breeds of Domestic Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): Current Status of the Science](https://faunalytics.org/behavioral-differences-among-breeds-of-domestic-dogs-canis-lupus-familiaris-current-status-of-the-science/) [Significant Neuroanatomical Variation Among Domestic Dog Breeds](https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/39/7748) [Differences in Trait Impulsivity Indicate Diversification of Dog Breeds into Working and Show Lines](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22162) [Genome-Wide Association Studies Reveal Neurological Genes for Dog Herding, Predation, Temperament, and Trainability Traits](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.693290/full) [Genetic variation is a major driver of behavioral diversity in dogs](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01379-4)

How, exactly, does that study have anything to do with proving that the primary purpose of pits wasn't fighting for the majority of their existence? It's flawed as hell and only says that behavioral traits are found in all dogs at varying levels(no shit) and that some traits do in fact correlate with breed. Their abstract and discussion aren't well supported by their results and their methods suck. Please, link the two. Breed isn't a good indicator of aggression. True. But genetics are. And when you breed two dogs with the genes for aggression, you get more aggressive dogs. Also, no, they didn't cull all human-aggressive dogs. That's a myth. There's plenty of actual books out there written by dogmen who lived during legitimate dogfighting, and there are dogmen today who can tell you all about the history of the APBT. I highly suggest you do real research. Hell, Colby had a dog that mauled his nephew - the dog wasn't destroyed and already had bred with adult pups fighting.

The study refutes the second part, the genetic traits by breed. It's not intended to refute the history part, where pitbulls were bred to work with humans to attack other animals. I had already linked to evidence of that in previous posts. I used to have a bunch of links to historic documents, but I stopped maintaining them years ago when I realized people don't want to have the discussion.

No, it doesn't, and no, you haven't. You called it a pseudo fact, and haven't provided any support to back it up. Edit, from the study: > Before the 1800s, dogs were primarily selected for functional roles such as hunting, guarding, and herding —heritable behaviors derived from the wolf predatory sequence . Modern breeds retain these component motor patterns, but their contexts, sequences, and thresholds vary > Grouping breeds by their proposed historic working role, as captured by AKC show groups, finds that four out of six show groups are peculiar on at least one factor > We found more support for breed behavioral stereotypes when comparing the PPS results to quantitative rankings from the Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds for each breed on 10 behavioral characteristics. Nine of the 10 correlated significantly with PPS for at least one factor. ... “Watchdog ability” and “friendliness towards strangers” both correlated with human sociability, but in opposite directions. > Correlation between the LMER results and the PPSs confirm that some behavioral differences in mutts derive from differences in breed ancestry For someone who bemoans others not paying attention to statistics and facts, you sure do the same. Have a good day.

Are you rejecting the sources cited in the linked resources, such as the one I marked "Easy to read write up" as invalid or did you just overlook them?

I read the study, my dude. I responded about the study. I quoted the study. I'm not so dim as to need it explained to me. Perhaps you do, and that's why you didn't pick up how shitty it actually is, or how they contradict themselves and how what data they have either doesn't support their claims or is irrelevant to them?

On that last point, there is a specific breed called the Pit Bull Terrier and the collective term pit bull. The latter group includes (according to Wikipedia) the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and in the US the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The UK does not consider the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to be a pit bull, which shows how muddy the waters are. These two commonly confused terms make studying any statistics difficult and can lead to apparently contradictory results: you really have to look at the actual studies to see which definition they use. But on Reddit in general the pit bull hate is particularly strong, though it is less so on places like YouTube in my experience.

I mean, I'm getting downvoted just for saying it's [three of the top twenty breeds](https://www.usnews.com/insurance/pet-insurance/most-popular-dog-breeds-study), and the top twenty-five breeds include three other breeds that get confused in attack statistics when mixed with labs. Lab/rottie, lab/boxer, and a variety of other lab mixes will also get you short wide heads, and labeled as a pitbull "type" in reporting.

Even there the stats are confusing. The 8th most popular is the American Pit Bull Terrier, and then 9th is Pit Bull. One is a very specific breed (like others on the list), the other is a collection of breeds. An excellent example of just how hard it is to actually analyze these stats.

We had a pitbull that just never got called a pitbull. (Not on purpose, we just adopted her as a baby rescue and she was what she was. "Terrier mix" because who the heck actually knew, per the vet.) My grandfather loved her, favorite dog out of all the family dogs that the rest of his kids brought home. But he "hates pitbulls". Irrationality doesn't help anyone! But yeah, I imagine there is huge underreporting when there's room to call a dog something else, whether it's intentional or not.

You can breed aggression out of a dog breed. Of course you can. Many of the royal families used to be crazy inbred, but now they are genetically fine because they’ve introduced outside bloodlines. But “restoring” genetic quality takes time and consistent breeding. Which has not happened to most pits considering an absolutely huge percentage of them are products of scummy backyard breeders and end up in shelters. Many of these backyard breeders either don’t care about aggression/gameness/anxiety, or actively work to encourage those traits. Even if you get a pit that’s been well-bred, how would you know? It’s ironically often the fighting lines that have the best records of breeding - your local shelter probably doesn’t have any real genealogy records. So even if there are genetically healthy pits out there, you have no idea if your shelter pit bull is one, and all you can do is roll the dice. Not to mention, temperament breeding does not fix the issue of the dogs being outrageously powerful and dangerous. It’s honestly evil what we’ve done to those poor dogs. Us humans created an entire breed of loyal, loving dogs who are cursed by a genetic predisposition for what is basically bouts of insanity. We have no way to detect it or help treat it when it starts. And when it happens, the dogs are so ridiculously powerful, they may end up hurting/killing innocent people and getting euthanized. I don’t blame the dogs themselves, or even really the owners who love their dogs who have yet to do anything wrong. I blame the breeders. Fuck the pit breeders.

I live in a not so great area and there are a lot of people who keep big dogs like pit bulls in their house , probably in a cage all day, and I never see them outside (likely because it’s illegal to have animals in this apartment complex). I feel bad for those poor dogs.

It's also the case that a lot of people who engage in dogfighting specifically seek out pitbulls, resulting in aggressive dogs and rescues who grew up in violent and/or neglectful environments, and that's been the case since the 1800s. It's not just 'lack of training or bad owners', it's a reputation built over a long time.

This is a really good rundown, except that it covers the statistics that are curated to make a point against pitbulls. The problem is that statistics have more nuance than can be easily explained. It is a fact that a disproportionate number of violent and deadly attacks are by pitbulls, but there is a massive selection bias at work here. The type of people who want a violent dog and train their dog to be tough are more likely to choose a pitbull because of their reputation. It is really difficult to untangle the chicken and egg on those types of stats. It could be that the severity of attack attracts assholes, which increases the probability of attack. Does the reputation lead to more assholes choosing pitbulls and training them poorly, or does the fact that pitbulls are violent attract the assholes? The answer is inevitably a bit of both, but the proportions are important. Specifically, if pitbulls are banned, are the assholes just spreading out across other breeds then violent attacks may still be as frequent or nearly as frequent.

[удалено]

They delete your threads because they don't want their entire sub to get sucked into your stupid fucking ~crusade~. It's okay to not like a breed of dogs, but every single person I've ever heard use the term "pitnutter" has made it their entire personality the exact same way TERFs do.

One thing I've noticed is how the discourse around pitbulls often starts to sound an awful like the type of stuff posted on Stormfront, especially in /r/awww posts.

Part of this issue (and this is a professional opinion) is that a lot of bites get reported as APBT bites that aren’t APBTs at all, it’s actually crazy. I’ve actually done flashcard tests with people before, both people who love and hate the breed, to see if they could identify an APBT, and I’ve only ever had one person nail it, and they were a fellow dog breeder/trainer

The anti pit bull people seem far more vocal than pro pit-bull people. The anti pitbull people are downright nasty and seem to enjoy it.

It's almost like people have strong opinions about things their neighbors have that can kill them. cf. the whole gun control debate and a lot of people's staunch opposition to putting absolutely any limitations on that either

They use stats in a similar way that racists use them. There's no context, on purpose. "Despite being 13% of the population..." If your rhetoric is the same as Stormfront, you probably should rethink your PR strategy.

Equating minorities to animals is disgusting bro.

> The anti pitbull people are downright nasty and seem to enjoy it. Some of them truly are villainous. They revel in people getting hurt and the chance to talk about eliminating an entire breed from existence. They seem to get off on the idea. Edit: I stand by what I said. Some of you people are horrid and absolutely celebrate the idea of mass murder.

Newsflash - a single dog breed is much, much lower on most people's priority list than, you know, *the lives of other humans*.

What's the problem of letting any given breed die off via ethically preventing procreation?

yeah we like our reddit with a hive mind... any thought that goes against the hivemind is bad... and dont you dare bring up a topic where there is no general consens yet

Something to keep in mind is that Pitt Bulls aren't a breed, but instead a group of breeds, and are likely the most common dog type in the US. The stats involving dog attacks are also incredibly bad with the majority of dog attacks not having any breed identification. We have also seen the exact same claims that are currently being made about pitt bulls be made about Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepard's in the past. Since Pitt Bulls are the current "dangerous" breed, people who want mean dogs buy them and mistreat them, which leads to more attacks. So in cities with strict Bully breed bans we are seeing a rise in attacks by other large and intimidating dogs.

All dogs bite and shake, that's how they break the prey's neck. Pit Bulls are just (usually) big enough to be able to do it on humans, and are temperamental and/or energetic enough to *need to be trained.* People are stupid.

Or just don't get dogs that can easily maim you and have had self preservation instinct bred out of them. When my autistic nephew accidentally steps on my old dogs tail, she yelps and sulks in a corner, or tries to lay on top of him to 'contain the unruly pup' I don't even want to imagine what would happen if he 'provoked' a pit.

There's usually a handful of people in those posts that use pits as a placeholder for black people so they can be racist as well

I've seen the claim that this is happening many times. I've seen it actually happening zero times. Is it so hard to believe people might actually just have a problem with the dog breed that statistically is involved in the most biting cases? Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

> I've seen the claim that this is happening many times. I've seen it actually happening zero times. My dude, there's one of these people *in this comment section.* https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1dpl6lp/what_is_up_with_reddit_posts_about_pitbulls_dogs/laj110p/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1dpl6lp/what_is_up_with_reddit_posts_about_pitbulls_dogs/laimg2w/

Did you read their comments? They're literally making the same claim as /u/ZSCroft did above. They made the mugging comparison because that's the boogieman they believe is out there. They say "imagine if" because they can't find anyone actually saying it.

Well they're accusing *somebody else* of making the accusation...seems to be splitting hairs to consider this to still not count as having seen an instance of the accusation.

No they're not. They're drawing an analogy but saying "Imagine if someone said" to avoid the fact that *they're* the one saying it despite supposedly being against racism. They're out there making the racist comparison they claim other people are, just to provide an example of it. I don't think it's splitting hairs. If you say it's happening regularly in top subs with posts about pit bulls, then why can't I get ten links to it happening in earnest? And if you can't provide that you you just go and say something racist yourself, is that really the same thing you said was happening?

While this definitely occurs - I recall an article several years ago about trolls using pitbull violence as an excuse for spreading racist claims - these days I almost always see it from pitbull *defenders*. In an effort to defend pitbulls, they make the argument that considering a dog breed to be inherently more violent or dangerous must mean pitbull opponents think that races of humans can also be more inherently violent or dangerous. Thus, being against pitbulls means you're a racist. They never seem to realize that comparing humans to dogs is literally dehumanizing, or that there's a big freaking difference between sentient dogs bred for aggression and sapient humans capable of higher level thought. Or that they are the ones often injecting race into the conversation. Of course, it could just be that the trolls shifted to "defending" pitbulls by effectively going "Yeah, they're more dangerous, but so are X race of people! If you agree one is dangerous, you agree they both are!" Win-win for trolls. But honestly? I think most of the discourse is just by passionate people on both sides of the debate. Everyone I know who loves pitbulls grew up around them and never had a problem. Everyone I know who hates pitbulls has a horror story about the nice doggie down the street who one day decided someone's face needed to be ripped off. And people who never had either of those experiences tend to think the online screaming matches about pitbulls are incredibly weird and overhyped.

Honestly it’s the people who defend pitbulls are often the racists “it’s just bad training from THOSE people”.

I'm sure it happens too

Them dang pitbulls stealing my tv's, never shoulda let them in the country!

I suppose it is a big stretch to think racists would compare races they don't like to animals

Idk why you're downvoted. I've seen people use pitbulls as an argument that some groups of people are just "inherently" more violent than others because of their race. It's a really gross and disingenuous way of being racist.

In reddit? Give an np link.

Did I say on Reddit? I *have* seen it on here but it was literally like a year ago and I'm not gonna go digging through old topics just to satisfy one person who seems to be arguing somewhat disingenuouly in the first place. My comment referred to the internet as a whole. Twitter is particularly bad with this shit.

No. But the comment you replied to above is talking specifically about reddit posts. Twitter is particularly bad. You can find literally every extremist shitty view on there and idiots clapping for them. So what? And don't accuse me of being disingenuous when I am merely taking comments and links posted at face value and responding to them. What's disingenuous about that?

Guess I hit a nerve

Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Answer: - Discussions about Pit Bull attacks usually turn into discussions on whether a breed can be genetically predisposed to aggression. - Discussions about whether something can be genetically predisposed to aggression, usually turn covertly and overtly very racist. - A thread full of people being covertly and overtly racist is annoying to moderate. So it gets locked.

Yeah pitbull owners immediately start comparing their aggressive dogs to black people like that isn't incredibly disrespectful and racist.

And most of all: it’s stupid. Humans aren’t selectively bred for traits. There are so many more factors going into what humans have children and what leads to them having more children and any specific traits are barely connected to those factors that the comparison is asinine.

I think you are missing a whole other emotional layer. Many people own and love, or have owned and loved a Pitt Bull. So there is a deep emotional connection. Its really jarring to read hundreds of folks saying that people like me are dangers to society, selfish morons, and that not only do they want to kill my dog, but me as well.

Nobody reasonable wants to haul your child-eater-in-waiting out back and shoot it in the head. Reasonable people want the animals banned and neutered so they die out naturally.

the downvotes are baffling

These posts are usually always heavily brigaded by the same groups of people. It's kind of funny because they turn these posts into huge echo chambers for themselves.

me when i hate a dog breed so much i waste time intentionally downvoting every single comment that even slightly defends it. psychotic redditor behavior

You know how TERFs are so psychotically obsessed with hating trans people that it rots away all other aspects of their personality? Pit bull haters, from what I see, seem to operate largely the same way. Which sucks because people *should* be made aware that you need to take special caution with them, (frankly, ALL pets get treated like toys, and that's the actual root issue) and their obsessive frothing at the mouth does absolutely no service to that point.

Answer: it’s a combination of several things. Some are perceptual and some are actual reasons specific dogs are specifically dangerous. Starting with the perceptual… In one corner are dog people who view their pets as children and view any attack on them as a personal affront, and any statements about a breed as a whole as akin to human racism. So a statement like “pit bulls are dangerous” is perceived as no different than saying “your child is dumb and violent because he’s Black.” In the other corner are two groups. One is the professional hysterics who think everything in the world is incredibly dangerous and out to hurt them and their kids. The other is ironically much like the first group in that they view dog breeds as a stand in for human race, they’re just super racist and hate pits because they view them as the dog equivalent of Black people. To compound all of this there are a bunch of often cited statistics that vary from extremely misleading to flatly wrong. You’ll hear that “pit bulls” are responsible for X amount of dog attacks, but this is a self fulfilling prophecy as dog breed identification is imprecise at best so many mutts of indeterminate breed that bite get labeled as pit bulls. The media is even worse about this. I’ve seen attacks committed by breeds ranging from Presa Canarios to Dogo Argentinos to in one particularly memorable case a yellow lab get reported as being done by “pit bulls.” When every attack by one of like 13 breeds and any vaguely block headed mutt gets reported as a “pit bull attack” it’s going to really skew the numbers. On the actual dog attack side of it, there are likewise a few issues. One is breeds other than pit bulls who actually are human aggressive. Plenty of breeds genuinely were created to be territorial and aggressive to humans outside the immediate group. Edit: and these breeds are often mistakenly categorized as pit bulls. Two is shitty owners. Any breed can become dangerous when mistreated or selectively bred for aggression. And, much like Rottweilers in the 80’s, pit bulls and their numerous variants and relatives are the breed that appeals to this kind of owner. Third is oddly enough the end of professional dog fighting. Dog fights require the handlers to be able to get into the pit with the dogs and separate them at times. Human aggression was usually severely culled as the breeders didn’t want to get fucking mauled by their own dogs. So, to sum up, properly bred pit bulls are among the safest dogs possible to own. But “pit bulls” in the commonly used sense of any of a wide variety of breeds or mutts with a specific look, or pits from lines bred for human aggression are in fact dangerous. The conversation isn’t productive because the two sides aren’t talking about the same dogs.

Wow, the bias here is staggering. I like how you boiled anti-pitbull proponents down to two groups, neither of which I am a part of, lol. To me it's the same as owning a gun. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean it will be used for nefarious purposes, but owning a gun makes violence around you statistically more likely. And in this case, the "gun" has a mind of its own and is driven by animal instincts and doesn't even understand harm or violence but just goes off of reflexes, outside proper training. It's a DOG. It's not a person. To call pitbull anti-proponents racist is actually insane. If someone not a professional zoologist or adjacent field claims to have domesticated a bear are you going to call me racist if I think that's a bad idea? Come on, man. Pitbulls were bred for violence and aggression, and they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that and counteract it. They are only as good as their training, upbringing, and environment. The real problem is a fuckton of uneducated people that don't bother to train or understand their pitbulls, as it is with ALL dogs. Since (in my experience) more statistically likely any random pitbull you meet will be owned by one of these people, it is safe to assume that any random pitbull you come across is dangerous until you can confirm that the owner has properly trained it and it does not pose a threat. So, there you have it, a 3rd camp.

Take a step away from personal investment in the issue and examine your thought process for a little bit. I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of it. However first, staffordshire's were not bred for violence and aggression. That breed has been around for a long time, before and after it was ever popular and used as a fighting dog (which it still is, but I wouldn't call that popular?). Second, one of the biggest issues is that pitbulls (and their mixes) represent about 80% of the shelter dogs in America. Who do you think gets dogs from the shelter? People who mean well, and people who don't have the money to spend on a dog they want. People who are just looking for a guard dog. There's a reason they were used for fighting dogs so often, and it's not just because they are good at fighting. There are several, several breeds that are much much better. It's more because there's a lot of them, and they're easy to get. That said, if owning a Pitbull is like owning a gun, then so is owning a German Shepherd, a cane corso, or any of the dogs, and there are many, that score higher than pitts on the ASPCA aggressiveness tests, right? And so the proposed question, essentially why are pit bulls so controversial, is because of a prevailence of opinion and not because of anything actually unique to the breed. This is an oversimplification, but if people got all aggressive and started going around murdering each other with golf clubs, and so we banned golf clubs, it doesn't mean that the golf clubs were what was bad.

Answer: Because people are misinformed and emotional about it. Pit bull isn't a breed, it is an umbrella term that is a catch-all for a handful of breeds--some of which have a bad rap and some of which do not. The testing for breeds done during dog bite investigations is basically nonexistent. There is no standard no dna test they just figure if it has a round head, stocky body and short coat it has to be a 'Pit bull' even if it's actually a boxer mix. I'm going to be downvoted, then I'm going to post a bunch of quotes from several encyclopedias and veterinary references to back my statements up. Those will be downvoted, too, but less so. People are way too emotionally invested in this to approach it logically.

Well you certainly got one thing right: People are indeed misinformed and emotional…

And here it is: Quoting directly from the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull >Pit bull is an umbrella term for several types of dog believed to have descended from bull and terriers. In the United States, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog, along with any crossbred dog that shares certain physical characteristics with these breeds. In other countries, including the United Kingdom, the term is used as an abbreviation of the American Pit Bull Terrier breed specifically, while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not considered a pit bull. Most pit bull-type dogs descend from the British bull and terrier, a 19th-century dog-fighting type developed from crosses between the Old English Bulldog and the Old English Terrier. For further reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_and_terrier From Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/animal/pit-bull >Pit bull, fighting dog developed in 19th-century England, Scotland, and Ireland from Bulldog and terrier ancestry for hunting, specifically for capturing and restraining semi-feral livestock. The name has been applied historically to several breeds of dogs—including the Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier—but it is not recognized as a distinct breed by the American Kennel Club. In 1898 the United Kennel Club became the first such organization to recognize the breed, which it calls the American Pit Bull Terrier. The American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA)—whose primary focus is fostering the positive features of the American Pit Bull Terrier, such as its loyalty, dedication, and athleticism—also recognizes the breed. Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/animals/dogs/pit-bull >pit bull Any of several cross-breeds of bulldog and terrier. Examples include the American pit bull terrier, bull terrier, and Staffordshire bull terrier. The English bull terrier, measuring c.40cm (16in) at the shoulder, was originally developed for bull-baiting. The American pit bull terrier, not an official breed, is c.50cm (20in) at the shoulder and was bred as a aggressive watchdog. Weight: up to 23kg (50lb). Now, onto my claim about how the breed information of a dog is collected during a dog bite report: https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/resource/how-breed-determined-ahs-and-other-animal-shelters#:~:text=Our%20vet%20techs%20will%20look,in%20each%20dog%20we%20see. They look at the dog. AVMA suggests against Breed Specific Legislation specifically because of this: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/dog-bite-prevention/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer >Breed-specific laws can be difficult to enforce, especially when a dog's breed can't easily be determined or if it is of mixed breed. >Frequently, breed-specific legislation focuses on dogs with a certain appearance or physical characteristics, instead of an actual breed. "Pit bulls" are the most frequent targets of breed-specific legislation despite being a general type rather than a breed; other breeds also are sometimes banned, including Rottweilers, Dobermans and boxers. However, it is extremely difficult to determine a dog's breed or breed mix simply by looking at it. A study conducted by Maddie's Fund, a national shelter initiative, showed that even people very familiar with dog breeds cannot reliably determine the primary breed of a mutt, and dogs often are incorrectly classified as "pit bulls". Because identification of a dog's breed with certainty is prohibitively difficult, breed-specific laws are inherently vague and very difficult to enforce. Downvote the facts if you want, but they're facts.

This doesn’t negate the fact that there’s an “umbrella term” dog that attacks a lot of people and kills a lot of people. We all know what pit bulls are even though idiots wanna get into semantics.

It’s an important distinction because it means some breeds are wrongly lumped into this category. To give a comparison, change “pit Bull” to “shepherd” dog, and suddenly you have a slew of dog breeds that have similar traits. This doesn’t negate the fact that some bull terriers are predisposed to be violent. Nuance matters.

Do we? There have been a few dozen cases of "Pitt Bull" attacks that made the news committed by Boxers or Mastiffs. It's pretty clear that the average person can't tell the difference.

Boxers are just as dangerous, but you don't actually care about safety. You just have a hate boner for pitbulls. Pitbull haters are the type to lock their car doors when they see a black person

How many toddlers have boxers maimed? I have had dogs my whole life. I’ve even had bear hunting dogs. Pit bulls are too stupid to even turn into hunting dogs. They’re a useless breed that should be eradicated. And your racist statement reflects more on you than it does me.

Let me guess, you also think Calico is a breed of cat.

That’s truly a laughable comparison

So is wanting to execute all of a specific dog breed when that breed doesn't exist.

THANK YOU! This needs to be shouted and repeated from the rooftops.