Campaigners have welcomed the move to outlaw the breed they argue is "a clear and present threat to public health", but concerns have been raised it may not be practical and lead to other kinds of dogs being prohibited.
If you’re a dog owner and you’re paying attention, then your personal experience should include the following truth: any dog can go postal. If you then combine this with the knowledge that pitbulls are much more deadly than other dogs when being agressive, then you must reach the conclusion that this breed should be banned, even though that is admittedly a sad conclusion.
Pitbulls are the most deadly breed of dog, to humans. This is a solid concrete fact. There are reasons for this, and evidence to back it up. Your thing about bears is irrelevant, unless those dogs have been proven to be more dangerous to humans than pitbulls, which they haven’t.
Except it isn’t. Pitbulls were already banned weren’t they? This is literally the next breed and just another brand. It’s happening before your eyes and you still can’t see it.
It’s important to understand what people mean when they say things. These people aren’t saying that pit bulls are more physically capable of killing people than any other breed, they’re saying that they’re responsible for more deaths than any other breed.
It’s a bit like saying the flu is deadler than ebola. Ebola may have a higher mortality rate, but it’s so much less likely to infect people that it has a much smaller kill count.
Well surely it’s a spectrum that people are advocating an arbitrary line be placed on. Once this breed is gone, what about the next most aggressive breed? They then become the most aggressive breed and there’ll be calls to weed them out too. Dogs kill more humans than any other non-human vertebrate in the world by a very long shot - getting rid of one breed isn’t going to reduce that number to zero.
To clarify, I’m not against the move of banning the breed at all, I’m just acutely aware that it’s making an arbitrary distinction.
Pitbulls are deadlier than all other breeds combined. They are 10 times as deadly as the next most aggressive breed. You don’t need to pull out the slippery slope fallacy, when the line is very clearly at pitbulls.
Dogs kill more humans than any other non-human vertebrate in the world by a very long shot
I looked into this, based on some other comments. Turns out it’s snakes. Various sources list dogs at between 13,000 and 35,000 deaths per year, and snakes in a range of 75,000-100,000.
Edit: but if we’re talking one species, dogs might edge out the deadliest snake. Really hard to say, based on the data I was able to find.
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
Can this possibly be true?
If a dog switches to aggressive mode and stops listening to commands, trying to attack (another dog, a cat, a deer, a bird, a human) that’s what I mean by “going postal”. In most cases they are restrained on leash. The outcome, and the target (for the sake of this argument) are not important. It is not possible to predict accurately when they will do this.
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
If you’re a dog owner and you’re paying attention, then your personal experience should include the following truth: any dog can go postal. If you then combine this with the knowledge that pitbulls are much more deadly than other dogs when being agressive, then you must reach the conclusion that this breed should be banned, even though that is admittedly a sad conclusion.
Pitbulls are not the deadliest dog out there. Not by a long shot. They’re just the ones people like to make aggressive.
Except they are, though. They’re bred to be as deadly as possible. This is a verifiable fact.
There are dogs that are bred to help bring down bears. Some asshole breeding for noise and muscle does not make the most dangerous dog.
Pitbulls are the most deadly breed of dog, to humans. This is a solid concrete fact. There are reasons for this, and evidence to back it up. Your thing about bears is irrelevant, unless those dogs have been proven to be more dangerous to humans than pitbulls, which they haven’t.
Sure, just ignore all context. Big number bad. Keep playing whack a mole wondering why the problem never gets fixed.
Problem is pitbulls. Fix with ban. Simple. Context is evidence. Context is bloodthirsty breeding program. Understand?
Except it isn’t. Pitbulls were already banned weren’t they? This is literally the next breed and just another brand. It’s happening before your eyes and you still can’t see it.
What is happening please? Obviously am too simple to understand machinations of anti-killer-dog cabal.
It’s important to understand what people mean when they say things. These people aren’t saying that pit bulls are more physically capable of killing people than any other breed, they’re saying that they’re responsible for more deaths than any other breed.
It’s a bit like saying the flu is deadler than ebola. Ebola may have a higher mortality rate, but it’s so much less likely to infect people that it has a much smaller kill count.
Then they can say that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
by that logic you would ban every dog on the planet
Every dog on the planet is more aggressive than all other dogs on the planet?
Each more similar than the last!
Well surely it’s a spectrum that people are advocating an arbitrary line be placed on. Once this breed is gone, what about the next most aggressive breed? They then become the most aggressive breed and there’ll be calls to weed them out too. Dogs kill more humans than any other non-human vertebrate in the world by a very long shot - getting rid of one breed isn’t going to reduce that number to zero.
To clarify, I’m not against the move of banning the breed at all, I’m just acutely aware that it’s making an arbitrary distinction.
Pitbulls are deadlier than all other breeds combined. They are 10 times as deadly as the next most aggressive breed. You don’t need to pull out the slippery slope fallacy, when the line is very clearly at pitbulls.
I looked into this, based on some other comments. Turns out it’s snakes. Various sources list dogs at between 13,000 and 35,000 deaths per year, and snakes in a range of 75,000-100,000.
Edit: but if we’re talking one species, dogs might edge out the deadliest snake. Really hard to say, based on the data I was able to find.
That is not a good argument, it is dishonest and disingenuous.
You’re actually using the same logic people used to try and avoid gay marriage.
Removed by mod
Oh, so Pitbulls?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
I know a handful of pits who have bitten and severely injured people. For your positive anecdote there is a negative to match.
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
Technically it is disengenuous to say statistically and then make up a statistic
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
So 1 in every 1000 will attack a human? Is that actually a good argument for pit bulls?
Its like saying 95% of catholic priests have not molested a child, meaning 1 in 20 definitely have, lol.
i am a dog owner, and know many dog owners, and have personally known 2 neighbors who lost pets due to pits who went ‘postal’
anecdotes gunna anecdote
Can this possibly be true?
If a dog switches to aggressive mode and stops listening to commands, trying to attack (another dog, a cat, a deer, a bird, a human) that’s what I mean by “going postal”. In most cases they are restrained on leash. The outcome, and the target (for the sake of this argument) are not important. It is not possible to predict accurately when they will do this.
Literally all I’m saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren’t violent. I fucking said I’m in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.
I mean that’s fairly obvious from subtext. If you had, you would most likely be too traumatised to be defending them on an online forum.
If you did you wouldn’t have been alive to say so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States