source:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pitbull+attack
Edit:
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019...
69% of fatalities due to dog bites were caused by the same breed.
"A huge fraction of the pit bulls which are currently in shelters are not compatible with most homes who want to adopt dogs"
Pit bulls, whether or not they are inherently aggressive (and let's be honest, you get more aggressive pit bulls than Golden Retrievers), can do a HUGE amount of damage when they are.
Adopting a dog which can't be trusted around kids, much less other dogs (which is REALLY common for pets which end up in shelters), is simply a non-starter for many families, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect otherwise.
Many of those videos show strong adults, sometimes multiple of them, and they can't overtake a single angry pitbull even when using blunt objects to hit it. Multiple children get mauled and killed by pitbulls every single month in the US alone. From the reported data, pitbulls are statistically more dangerous than any other breed.
An angry small dog can only do so much harm before getting a single kick, vs a pitbull. That's why the UK banned them.
I had a bluetick / border collie hound that had the same oblivious reaction to pain; she got tangled in an electric fence once and chewed the wire through before i realized what was happening. Then went on to catch her rabbit.
Says Pit Bulls are responsible for 69% of the fatalities (not just of all attacks).
If I don't provide a source (because apparently qualified PhD expert interviews on national TV aren't a "source"), you mock me for not having provided one.
When I provide a written one which has citations from government agencies and hospitals, you just say "That source can say anything it wants".
Why don't you get a pit bull yourself, preferably one that has been in a half dozen homes and gotten back to the shelter because it killed several pets and injured young children, and then tell me how it feels like, if you don't end up on a YouTube video yourself first, that is.
https://adbadog.com/truth-behind-dogsbite-org/
Personally I prefer the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Dog Breeders Association to a single biased source that is basically the qanon of breed specific legislation.
The only reason that I have slightly more respect for dogsbite is at least dogs actually have teeth whereas the pizza place in fact did not have a basement.
There are plenty of pit bull lobbies. Most of them come from no-kill background because pitbulls are the most common dogs in shelters.
There is no national register for dog bites. You can see how coronavirus tracking goes to show how much of a feat that would be. All you can do is track evidence in newspapers and in online media. Interview ER docs, plastic surgeons, etc.
The biggest part I don't like is how people are being pushed towards shelters to adopt dogs and pitbulls of unknown origin are the highest percentage of dogs available in those shelters. Whether it's their bred in nature or their nurture. I think a combination of both, but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"
Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)
Objective—To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite–related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies.
Design—Prospective case series.
Sample—256 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
Procedures—DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis.
Results—Major co-occurrence factors for the 256 DBRFs included
Absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%])
Incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%])
Owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%])
Compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%])
Dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%])
Owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%])
Owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%])
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Most dog bite–related fatalities were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
The source is the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association which is more reliable than one whack job living out her fantasy of being paid real money to pursue an anti pit bull crusade which began with a lie.
She was herself the victim of a dog bite which she has related several times giving different stories each time adding theatrics over time. Eventually the dog walker which had the dog on a leash lost control of her dangerous animal which dragged her, shook her, and tried to rip her throat out. The circumstances, aftermath, injuries, and other party, and even her original statement contradict this.
What actually happened is that while jogging she ran up behind the dog walker on a very narrow walk alongside a wall without giving any verbal indication of her intentions.
When she tried to go around the dog and walker she would have passed within inches of the dog startling it. The dog which had no history of aggression bit the woman on the arm twice bite and release not bite and shake, not drag through the grass, no attempted bite to the neck.
She sustained soft tissue damage to the arm fell and broke her arm in the fall.
She sued the owners home insurance collecting a substantial settlement for her own incompetence and insisting on the prompt killing of the family pet.
She then went on to make a career out of being a professional victim and duping people like yourself. She is a terrible human being and it would be great if you stopped spreading canine qanon around here and elsewhere.
What YOU want to do is take this decision out of their hands based on dog attack videos on youtube and debunked information from a person you now seem to agree is a lunatic.
I'm going to need to see an actual source for your claims.
1. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764790714/what-happened-to-th...
To revisit the prior statement you made
>but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"
If the article is intended to support that never defended position it does not do so. In order to evaluate that a journalist or interested party would need to investigate the adoption procedure and figure out if adopting families were properly informed.
Furthermore to be clear 3.2 million dogs are adopted from shelters. I was unable to ascertain how many dogs are rescued from dog fighting rings annually but surmise it is probably measured at most in the hundreds. This is to say that something on the over of 1 dog in 10,000 is a refugee from dog fighting. The fate of a tiny number of ex fighting dogs is of almost no relevance to the overall pitbull question.
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/neighborhood-politics-...
In essence you were literally in the comment where you say they were caught lying the only one caught lying.
https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2018-08/g...
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...
You are bringing a SINGLE case of a "professional victim" and ignoring literally the over one hundred cases in my link with videos and photos of children, elderly and adults who got KILLED by pit bulls. Are all of those hundreds of dead bodies professional victims too?
It is also true that many people who want a tough looking “pitbull” are terrible owners who want their dog to attack and to be aggressive as a form of personal and home defense and raise them accordingly.
I didn't really know much about pits or have any opinion until one of my buddies adopted one and it killed his two cats with him trying to pry its mouth open. I started to look into the issue after that.
I have heard a good measure for physical strength required is that you should be able to carry any fully grown dog you own. If you can’t pick them up and carry them a short distance you probably do not have the physical stength to handle them.
Pets are like your children, you're responsible for keeping an eye on them always and to be accountable for what harm they cause to others, unless its truly a one-off case, which it almost never is in all the horrifying cases of dog to human attacks.
Speaking of overpowering, I used to walk a German Shepherd at a shelter many years ago. He wasn't well trained and in the beginning he used to tug at the leash with all his might. He was rather strong and not being dragged along was a good challenge for any adult human. This was despite the fact that he had only one hindleg. Eventually I taught him to walk without a leash. However, I will never forget him because he demonstrated to me how strong dogs are. It is not hard to exert control over them but if it has to be via physical means, it is not easy.
However, I should clarify, the point regarding being able to lift a dog that you own is not so that you can physically control the dog in a dominating fashion (I am of the opinion you should not try to dominate a dog as with a large or powerful dog it could end badly). It is more so that if you are walking the dog and it suddenly pulls towards a squirrel or something you are not instantly pulled off balance. Also, if the dog were to be injured that you could get the dog to your vehicle to drive to the vet.
Your point, however, is well taken. Police K-9s may only weigh 50 lbs but easily take full grown men weighing 200 lbs to the ground. No one should try to dominate a dog. That teaches them that that is how you interact with people and they will eventually do it to someone else if not you.
Some dogs do have a very high prey drive and may see small animals / children instinctively as prey. Typically this can be socialized out at puppyhood, but for some dogs it may require constant reinforcement. If it is not addressed at puppyhood it may always be an issue and the dog just won’t be suitable to have around babies and small pets.
I have some friends that have pit bulls. They never attacked a person, but they did attempt to kill a goat. I can't think of another type of dog that would maul livestock unprovoked with no history of aggression. They are just naturally aggressive, and anyone that says otherwise is a shill or ignorant.
What do you do with them? Further, if it's illegal for anyone to buy them, what do you do with them?
The UK had the same problem when they banned pit bulls. Not a single dog was killed. They just disallowed people from getting new dogs, and the ones that already existed just died out of old age in their existing homes. If new dogs are found they just go to an animal shelter where they get neutered and that's it.
In some cases, like the US, unwanted (but legal) dogs go to Canada where they get new homes. Checkout YouTube for that, they all look like happy puppies.
Not a single breed-specific-legislation in the world resulted in any dogs getting killed.
What we're talking about here, is dog breed which single handedly are responsible for over 90% of fatalities and serious injuries should be neutered and not allowed to be sold to the general public. They can be in shelters, as guard dogs or used by the police or military, just not regular family homes with elderly and children who can't defend themselves.
Where did you get that gruesome idea of killing dogs from?! No one anywhere in the world has done that or even talked about it.
They have immensely powerful jaws, but are no more likely to use them than any other breed. There is an unfortunate increase in damage per instance but this again is no fault of the breed.
Can a poodle kill you? In some edge cases maybe. Can a pit bull do it? For sure.
This is correlated with lower rates of spay / neuter as well. So you have an animal that is naturally MUCH more dangerous, and then you have that correlated with folks who LIKE that they are so dangerous and the bad outcomes multiply.
Want a poodle? Here you go. Want a pit bull? You should have to prove you are going to be able to train, care, etc for them and will keep them on leash in situations where they could kill others (ie, children's playground - yes - people bring off leash pitbulls occasionally - NOT a good situation).
BTW - same rule should apply to guns. Want a .50 cal automatic machine gun? You should need some kind of extra license given the danger you now pose.
IDK where you are, but automatic guns are very hard to buy in the U.S. You may be able to buy a pre-1986 model, but the bureaucracy is exactly as onerous as you wish it to be, as is the price tag.
Or are you confusing automatic and semi-automatic guns?
Dude! Sign me up! Where is this amazing place doling them out? And yes, I’ll jump through those hoops.
I don't think 'fault' is really the point -- the question is whether they are more dangerous. The 'unfortunate increase in damage per instance' is a euphemistic way of saying that yes, they are.
"For some reason"... there is no mystery here: trashy people are drawn to the premise of dog fighting.
I can share some outcomes of their mauling on little children and the elderly if you would like.
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...
DNA tests exist for dogs now, same like humans, and can unambiguously find if a dog is a pitbull mix.
Over a 30+ year span, pit bulls were responsible for 3,397 attacks where the breed was able to be identified, nearly 7 times as many as the next most aggressive breed: https://maxlawsc.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Edited for clarity
Hell, I wouldn't even bet on a human against a properly motivated 15 pound house cat.
You better have 16+ CON!
Whether or not they're statistically more aggressive than other dogs of the same size and socialization, that's a debate that'll get me a ton of downvotes here regardless of how I answer, so I'll pass on that one.
From experience, I can spend a solid hour writing arguments and I'll get downvoted anyway by all the SJWs here who refuse to accept anything differing from they believe in.
Even if one person decides to watch any of those videos and changes their mind about getting a pitbull I'll be happy for saving a life and I don't give a damn about downvotes.
the margin for error is probably higher with a lab or golden retriever, but it's irresponsible to own any large dog without committing to proper training and socialization. any large dog can maim or kill a human if provoked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation
Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present.
God bless, have a great holiday.
a youtube search query for a socially charged topic isn't evidence.
There are volumes of youtube search results for free energy, moon-landing hoax explanations, remote viewing, voodoo, whatever. The list goes on forever.
Right now -- this very second -- one can find videos of labradors mauling people, basset hounds mauling people, schnauzers , scottish terriers, again, the list goes on forever.
The difference? The public hasn't been shown countless scare-pieces on basset hounds & schnauzers, so it's not a topic of interest in the public mind.
Any poorly trained dog is a foot-gun.
> In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community".
> In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety".
> In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective.
In any case, I'm not sure that having a legislation can be used as a proof of anything. In some countries same-sex sexual activity is illegal and penalized. What does this prove?
The "American Bar Association" is not a valid source about dog behavior. They're lawyers being paid to push whatever agenda gives them the most money. Not gonna comment on that one since its missing any other scientific evidence.
The 2014 American Veterinary Medical Association "literature review" is being picked and chosen from in the Wikipedia article. Quotes from the very same report that were conveniently missing from the Wikipedia article:
"While small dogs may be more aggressive their size means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals"
"Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers)"
"...cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified..."
The 2013 Canadian study isn't being cited in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the citation is a link to an opinion piece that mentions the said study without giving any references to it (no links or even author or institution name). As far as I am concerned, that Canadian study is made up, unless you can find it and we discuss it. I never saw any respected author mention a scientific study and then fail to completely give any references to it, not even freshmen in university would do that.
On the other hand, this is an actual cited quote from that opinion piece that's directly linked in place of the Canadian study:
"Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders."
The Dutch ban on dangerous dogs which was lifted on 2008, was more or less re-instated in 2017. Wikipedia conveniently forgot to mention that:
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerou...
Using one law that in your opinion isn't sound, as an argument against laws in general having no merit doesn't make a lot of sense either.
A law isn't a scientific proof, but at a minimum it tells a lot that a problem in society has become so prevalent to justify passing said law.
If the number of victims and complaints were so negligible, the law wouldn't have had enough momentum to pass the all of the bureaucratic barriers, including the European animal rights groups, who are far more fierce than the US ones.
Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted.
Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay!
Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here.
Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too.
Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI)
Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull.
I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...).
What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption?
Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult.
Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.
Largely, responding to cultural trends among humans, and taking easy, symbolic legislative outs without supporting science.
Which proves nothing about innate traits. That pit bulls have a reputation that makes them prized with people that want to train dogs for aggressiveness (a culturalnrole in which they displaced doberman pinschers in a fairly sudden phase transition despite no change in the underlying innate traits of either breed) is not controversial.
For that matter, do you drive a car? I could show you a number of videos that demonstrate the danger of cars.
And so on. Maybe folks are down voting you because a collection of videos isn’t a good argument. Maybe they have a pitbull in their life that they love. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a closed-minded SJW. If you are open-minded yourself, you must accept that maybe they disagree with you because they don’t find your argument compelling.
I get why you are passionate about this. I understand you want to keep people safe. I am sure if we could discuss this over a beer, we could find common ground.
If you insist, there are DNA tests that exist and can "define" the aggressive genes very precisely.
https://adbadog.com/truth-behind-dogsbite-org/
Personally I prefer the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Dog Breeders Association to a single biased source that is basically the qanon of breed specific legislation.
The only reason that I have slightly more respect for dogsbite is at least dogs actually have teeth whereas the pizza place in fact did not have a basement.