• crapwittyname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pitbulls are not the deadliest dog out there. Not by a long shot. They’re just the ones people like to make aggressive.

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except they are, though. They’re bred to be as deadly as possible. This is a verifiable fact.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, just ignore all context. Big number bad. Keep playing whack a mole wondering why the problem never gets fixed.

              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Problem is pitbulls. Fix with ban. Simple. Context is evidence. Context is bloodthirsty breeding program. Understand?

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    What is happening please? Obviously am too simple to understand machinations of anti-killer-dog cabal.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every dog on the planet is more aggressive than all other dogs on the planet?

        • Instigate@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Carlo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

          • themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know a handful of pits who have bitten and severely injured people. For your positive anecdote there is a negative to match.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Assuming an average lifespan of roughly 10 years, there’s a roughly 1 in 1,000 chance that a given pit bull will ever attack a human or animal.

                So 1 in every 1000 will attack a human? Is that actually a good argument for pit bulls?

                • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Its like saying 95% of catholic priests have not molested a child, meaning 1 in 20 definitely have, lol.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.