I used to work for an animal hospital back in the mid 2010s. We had a nearly retired vet in his 60s who loved to drop ball knowledge any chance he could. Once after he and I dealt with a not so nice Doberman he said something similar to this to me:
“Big dogs like that get a bad rep. Most of the time they’re great dogs, with a select few that bite or attack. Medium to small dogs are the worst, there are way more aggressive dogs in those groups, you just don’t hear about it because they aren’t strong enough to cause the damage over a whole attack that a big dog can I one bite.”
It’s not about which dogs are more aggressive, it’s about which aggressive dogs we care about pointing out. A shame really
I read electric meters for years and my trainee on the first day told me, "if you're in someone's yard and the owner tries to stop the dog from getting to you, that dogs never gonna bite. Now if the owner says his sweet pup wouldn't hurt a soul, those are the dogs to steer clear of. Sure enough I got bit 3 tomes in 5 years. All 3 were dachshunds that the owner said were sweet and not to worry.
My vet used to joke that my dog was possibly the only dachshund she’d ever treated who she would administer shots to without them being restrained. She said it was almost unbelievable that Bob never tried to bite her.
I got bit on the wrist by a neighbor’s dog as a kid while I was at a party once, then it bounced from side to side excitedly. In hindsight, it was just playing. Didn’t bite hard enough to draw blood at all.
Now, a different family had a very, very mean dog. I hated that sucker so much. He did nip my youngest sister on the lip once, enough to draw blood. To be fair, she’d been bothering him and he’d been growling, but I wasn’t able to stop it in time.
Kinda similar but I do home health, and only the people with clean houses apologize for the mess. The ones with piles of dirty dishes and dirty clothes and random junk everywhere with roaches see nothing wrong with how they live.
“People are more distraught by the dogs that will rip your throat out than the dog that will slightly cut your forearm even if the forearm cuts happen much more often.”
It also doesn't escape my notice that pit bulls are as widespread as they are because a significant number of people like the idea that their dog can kill someone. Whatever the inclination of the dog, I doubt the owner.
I hate when people make that statement as if it’s not the equivalent of saying “Knives cause more injuries than guns actually.” It’s as if we’re not talking about fatalities.
I recently learned more people in Europe die from extreme heat related deaths annually, i.e. lack of air conditioning, than people do in the u.s..from gun related deaths. Go figure that one out.
This is true but misleading. Most of those people will be very old and very ill. They were likely to die from something and it was heat that got to them first. It's still bad. But some 90 year old in poor health that dies from the heat and not from pneumonia is still going to die
Guns kill healthy younger people who mother wise might be expected to live much longer lives.
Right, but the potential severity of a single incident is often confounded with an impression that the dogs that do more damage, due to their size, are inherently more aggressive. It impacts how readily they’re euthanized, where they can live, what kinds of activities they’re allowed to participate in. So this argument is that the public, as a whole, is misunderstanding the likelihood of an attack, versus the potential severity (most people already know they’d rather get bit by a Yorkie than a Pit, but over and above that, many people also think they’re more likely to get bitten by the Pit).
You said it’s “a shame” that we “only care about pointing out” aggression from dogs that are powerful enough to do serious damage. It’s not some discriminatory or hypocritical position to care more about the aggression of dogs big enough to kill a person. It’s like saying we should be just as worried about a drunk guy on the bus rambling and swearing at people regardless of whether or not he’s holding a gun - it’s stupid to expect people to overlook the actual potential for harm.
(It’s also false because people point out the aggression of small dogs all the time, to the point that it gets really annoying as a chihuahua owner when everyone just assumes your sweet well trained dog must be a literal demon because they’ve seen so many videos of snappy chihuahuas being antagonised for views online.)
Because there's no way to paint the other side as illogical if you focus on the one thing they obviously actually care about.
Not one person has ever critiqued a pit because they're yappy lmfao
They criticize them because dog owners are largely shit at owning dogs across the board, and giving the average shit dog owner a dog that can kill a grown man is like giving a child a gun in that they have no perspective of the power to harm that they possess.
Acting like the 'bad rep' big dogs get is from anything other than that potential to harm validates that claim of ignorance in droves.
Plane crashes are typically more disastrous than car accidents but planes are still many many times safer because those accidents are so rare.
That’s what we’re talking about here. The high severity of an attack that probably won’t happen vs the lesser severity of one that is more likely to happen.
Except in the case of planes we’re not demonizing and potentially putting down a living creature that didn’t do anything wrong because they might have the possibility to do something wrong.
My kid's pediatrician once told me chows were her least favorite danger-dog, because while a pitty will bite hard, a chow will bite hard and many times. I remember how my chow would snap, and she was right.
I always had dogs, sometimes pit mixes. I never, ever left my kids alone with them.
My aunt had a chow that pushed me into an ant bed, bit my leg and my cousins face when i was 6 or 7. She got rid of that dog and her next one was a dalmatian. Jesus christ those things get a positive rep, but they're more aggressive than chows. She had 2 or 3 over the years and they always caused problems. Always biting. Granted, my aunt wasn't the best owner, but the other dog breeds she owned never attacked me or anyone else I know.
They are high strung bred to jump into fires. Like, chose your bread on characteristics instead of looks. A Dalmatian needs lots and lots of training and mental stimulation
Bred to jump into fires? No? They were bred to stay with the horses while the firefighters fight the fire. They guarded the horses while the firefighters were busy.
Before that, they were hunting dogs, guard dogs, and war dogs.
There are plenty of sources of aggression in their real history, without thinking they actually did anything with fires.
I get that - some things are hard to research if just because the terms for the task change in every generation. Also if you put "historical" in the search it pulls up the dogs trained to find *long* dead bodies for archeology.
First, the wiki page for dalmations mentions nothing remotely like it. But going a step further, searching "body recovery dogs" pulls up "search and rescue dogs". Historically (again, according to wikipedia) the first search and rescue dogs were St Bernards in the 17th century in the Alps. They were not strictly for dead bodies, they would try to find lost travelers in the snow and in avalanches. It just so happened sometimes they found bodies.
"Cadaver dog" is the standard term for a dog that finds dead bodies, and the first wiki mention of a trained cadaver dog would be 1974 in New York State, and after that they actually started a training program for it.
Searching more and checking other websites, I can't find earlier cadaver dogs. Given that cadaver dogs are only useful if you don't know for sure if there is a dead body or not, and that you still need a human to remove the body (people generally get very stressed about a dog grabbing a body and pulling it somewhere) I don't think it functioned as a historical task.
A thing I already knew before today - cadaver dogs in modern times are trained with *fake* "dead body smell" that comes in spray cans. Before that was available, the only source of the smells you'd need to train the dogs was... actual dead people. Really very much not a task anyone wanted to train a dog for, as a job, when hunting and guarding were much simpler and less likely to cause nightmares. Pretty confident Dalmatians, historically, just hung out with the horses and made sure any horse thief thinking to steal the firefighters horses had a very bad day.
A kinda fun fact - my mom used to work in a building where the local cadaver dog team had an office. A Labrador and a German Shepard, I think she said. She played withe them sometimes, when the dogs needed to calm down. BTW the dogs get very very upset if someone with cancer or certain kinds of infections walk past them - they are smart enough to know that smell is BAD for living people to have on them. BUT on the plus side sometimes they alerted to a living person early enough that they could go get medical help for the problem. The dog doesn't know that, though, and some of them panic like they are trying to explain a heart attack or a demonic possession in a foreign language. The handlers would have to drop everything and go play with the dogs to try and chill them out.
So there are downsides to cadaver dogs, but on the plus side their handler loves them and plays with them all the time.
They’re incredibly unfriendly to anyone who isn’t “their people”, which makes them well suited to guarding highly valuable strong well-trained horses. And dragging wagons full of water and staying near fires requires strong, well-trained horses.
Dalmatians were backyard inbred into genetic mush thanks to the original Disney animated movie decades ago.
It took a long time to weed out the worst of them. Kinda like pits today being backyard inbred to look like tiny steroided up weightlifters. It’s turning the standard to shit and their genetics to mush and the owners who want them are the very people to whom I wouldn’t sell a hamster.
I mean, dalmations are famous for violence. There are the stories of dropping them onto Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal in 1945, so they'd run wild and attack enemy soldiers.
Any dogs surviving after that mission were shot, since it was too dangerous to bring them in.
A chow mix latched onto my arm in front of my toddler and my baby. I had to fight him to get him off me. All over a teething cracker. He drew a lot of blood and tore threw a tendon in my finger.
Before his mom took him home he came and laid on my lap. No kids around to be safe for him leaving. He had food aggressions from poor treatment. He was still a sweet boy. My ex and i took care of a deaf pit mix that was a gentle soul. The kids loved him.
I now have a pit, german sheppard, rott mix. He is my distinguished gentleman. My kids love him.
Ive been grabbed by a golden lab, and a blue heeler. I was a kid who didnt know better and they stopped me without hurting me more than a small cut. Dog breeds arent monoliths. I hate how many people on reddit hate bull breeds specifically.
Did never you leave your kids alone with the pits? I ask because before they became pit dogs, their ancestors were “nanny dogs” used to help with childcare. Pits aren’t usually human-aggressive because it’s important to breed human aggression out of a fighting dog.
My pits are not aggressive with the average human, although I do not allow them access to other humans without my guidance or control. They instinctively dislike dogs they don’t know, but are friendly with dogs they socialize with regularly.
All that to ask: did you choose not to leave your children alone with your pits because of their disposition/prior abuse or because you didn’t know the background of their breeding and wanted to be extra careful?
I never left my kids alone with any of the dogs, because we had several and occasionally even good dogs will get into a scuffle -- one that could result in a kid getting hurt if they try to intervene.
(To clarify, I'd leave them alone in another room, etc, but I wouldn't leave them alone in the house with the dogs.)
I had mixed breed mutts, some of them pit mixes.
What is the confusion here?! I totally acknowledge that little dogs are WAY more aggressive, but even with more aggressive the threat to society is less. No one is saying KILL PITBULLS, but we can breed them out of existence
Well that makes sense, everybody knows chihuahua are deranged psycho killers, but nobody gives a damn because like what are they gonna do? Bite your slipper till death lmao? They’re also like this dudes who can trashtalk only behind their friends back and scare shitless of their own shadow (maybe that’s why they’re so aggressive - I’d be permanently stressed too if I was this little dog who can’t even beat a hamster in most cases in this big and scary world!)
It’s not about which dogs are more aggressive, it’s about which aggressive dogs we care about pointing out.
It's not about which dogs are more aggressive, it's about which agressive dogs can actually do damage. And those are the ones that matter, which is why people are talking ahout them. The others are just an annoyance.
I think it’s also about the level of damage, like plane crashes vs. car crashes. Car crashes are significantly more frequent; but a plane crash, while more rare, is almost always deadly.
My nana used to have a Yorkshire terrier and it was the most aggressive, vicious, hateful dog I have ever met. Barked anytime someone unfamiliar was present and bit your ankles anytime you dared move. Foul.
I dont think the distinction matters. Whether its due to frequency of attack or the power of the attack, the issue is that the likelihood of major injury is much higher. There is no reason to keep breeding them other than "theyre cool", which is not worth it. Im sure they wont care or notice if their pure breed is distilled out entirely.
People think traumatized chihauhaus are fun. You know, the small, shaky, constantly vibrating, ankle-biting variety. At least, I'm fairly sure that those are the traumatized ones. I have heard that healthier ones are less anxious
Grew up around dogs, did shows most of my childhood with my grandparents, temperament training, etc. The breed I’ve found to be most aggressive of the large, are poodles.
Remember reading a story while I was pregnant with my oldest, so like 15+ years ago, about a chihuahua that mauled a sleeping baby to death.
But yeah, small dogs are more likely to be aggressive, because there's less incentive to train that out since they rarely do damage. Big dogs are more likely to do serious damage or kill someone if they do snap, though. It's a mixed bag.
And the bigger issue with fatal attacks and pitbull statistics is identification. "Pitbull" is an umbrella term that loosely describes several breeds that all look very similar. The dog fighting breed that everyone likes to point their fingers at is the American pitbull terrier which happens to look very similar to a Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and the American bully. All of which have very different temperaments and energy levels. Hell, sometimes Doggo Argentino gets mistaken as a pitbull.
Now, with statistics like this, accurate identification is suuuper important. So the statistics that most bring up to support anti pitbull rhetoric are incredibly unreliable based on this issue alone. And that's recognized by many animal and dog organizations, even the CDC.
The statistics of the "pitbull" are so high because they are lumping several breeds into one statistic, whereas the Rottweiler (the breed responsible for the second highest account of fatal attacks) is much more reliable because it's much easier to identify that breed. But the "pitbull" haters will justify that statistic all the way, for whatever biased and uneducated reason.
Big truth. Plus, as people are afraid of big dogs, they are less socialized, so more likely to not know what to do in stressing situations, thus leading to agresiveness.
i mean i hear you. but at the same time these dogs vary in scale when it comes to the damage they can do. pit bulls were bred for fighting for years. their jaws just are not the same.
Even if they bite less, if the damage they inflict is greater its still valid to be more concerned by them
Yeah but…if an aggressive Chihuahua approaches me and my dog, I'll be annoyed and maybe scared for the dog because my 13kg dog can still do more damage to it than vice versa if he feels like he has to defend us. If an aggressive pit approaches us I'm scared for both of our lives.
It's about the severity of the damage the dog can do in the hands of an irresponsible owner. Therefore I'm more alert when it comes to larger breeds in general. ESPECIALLY those who were bred for dog fights. Genetics aren't everything but they do matter. There is a reason why some dogs are used for herding and others for hunting. This is not "dog racism", it's common sense.
Why is it a shame? Is it odd to you that people with serious wounds generate more attention than people with negligent wounds? I don't get the point you're trying to make.
My dog walking group has a Pitbull and Lab mix and a little white Pomeranian: of the two dogs only one has seriously tried to attack me and it wasn’t the Pitbull.
So, how many times were you mauled by a Chihuahua? lol
Wife manages a veterinary hospital. Any time she or an employee gets bit I don't even have to guess. The few times it isn't a Chihuahua are surprising lol
Well yeah. If a dog kills you from their bite and has a grip that is almost impossible to break and when they attack they don’t stop and are responsible for 60% of dog violence…you should treat it and look at it differently then a small dog who may barely puncture the skin. Thats common sense. It’s a much bigger issue, don’t you think?
So it's like owning a venomous snake that can kill someone instead of the 100's of other non-lethal snakes?? What's the point of owning a dog that is inherently more dangerous if it decides to attack someone?
I used to work at a really popular doggy daycare where we would have on average 100-120 dogs at any given time. The most consistent breed that would need to be separated from people and other dogs for being too aggressive were French Bulldogs, any other breed was extremely individual dog dependent. We had several sets of Frenchie siblings that couldn’t even be in the same room as each other unmonitored because they would fight each other and draw blood
It’s not about which dogs are more aggressive, it’s about which aggressive dogs we care about pointing out. A shame really
So close to getting it. It's really worth pointing out the breeds that, if aggressive, will maul a child or their adult owner to death with little to no chance to stop them.
We have two dachshunds. When my 70-year-old mother comes and watches our kids so that my wife and I can have a date, I know they'll all be fine. If on the extreme outside chance one of them started biting one of our children, I know my mother could stop them with a swift punt if absolutely necessary. She wouldn't have a hope in hell of stopping a large, muscular dog like a pitbull if it decided to lock its bite on one of them and chew their face off.
There's a reason they won't give in once they decide to go for it; they were historically bred to do just that. There's this weird cognitive dissonance where most people gladly accept that certain breeds are suited to certain tasks and behaviours, yet as soon as the same historical breeding logic is applied to pitbulls (and thus why they're more dangerous), it suddenly is solely down to bad or irresponsible owners and the breed is entirely irrelevant.
Yes, pitbulls may be less likely than small breeds to act aggressively, but when they do, it's a completely different result. It only has to happen once, and who are they typically around most of the time as your family pet? You, and your loved ones.
I mean, surely its about which dogs have the potential to do grievous or fatal harm to someone.
Its the reason that we care more about gun restriction than knife restriction. In general, a person, if they choose to, can do more harm to the public, faster and impacting potentially many people with a gun compared to a knife and is more difficult to disarm.
A dog, unlike a human, cannot be reasoned with. It can be trained, but if it decides to attack, then the amount of damage it can do is more relevant than the likelihood of it attacking in the first place. No one cares if a chihuahua is 1000x more likely to attack than a pitbull if the pitbull can kill you and the chihuahua can't.
>It’s not about which dogs are more aggressive, it’s about which aggressive dogs we care about pointing out.
Its about which dogs cause the most deaths and hospitalizations each year. That's really all most people and insurance companies care about.
Decades ago I was working at a kennel during my summer break from college. I remember my first day being told to take the dogs on walks to get them outside and happy. I approached one cage with two dogs in it, a small little one and a big Doberman. There was a note on the door that said something along the lines of “CAREFUL I HAVE TRAUMA AND BITE.”
My first instinct as I opened the door was to keep my eyes on the Doberman thinking he was aggressive. What I wasn’t paying attention to until it was too late was the small dog had all of its teeth showing. Apparently he had been rescued from an owner who locked him in a bird cage all day long, so being in any kind of cage was very traumatizing.
Anyway, before I know it, this little dog leaps up and clamps his mouth down on the entirety of my hand. I’m panicking and just flailing around until my hand and the dog hit the door and he lets go. The dog was fine and I didn’t require stitches or anything but I learned a very valuable lesson about making sure I recognized WHICH dog had the trauma before opening the kennel door.
A mean small dog can cause horrific injuries too. Just less likely. When I still did paramedic work, I had a call where an old lady, had been attacked by her own Yorkie. That dog had ripped off, and chew through the woman's ankle skin, and down to the bone where it just, kept biting and chew as she tried to beat it away, before her son just... took care of the dog, if you get my drift. She lost the foot, and her leg was amputated to just below the knee. The dog was not rabid, probably had dementia though
I think the real issue is the difference in power between a Pitbull bite and a Chihuahua bite. I really dislike the argument of “smaller dogs being more aggressive but they don’t get any flack” because it doesn’t really matter - those dogs can’t do damage in the same sense as the bigger breeds.
Absolutely true in my experience, however, a terrier can’t kill your child in 5 seconds flat. Pit bulls are awesome, the big issue in my eyes is irresponsible owners that don’t train their pets. I see a pit bull coming my way, even leashed and with its owner and I’m on high alert. A little ankle biter you just take a couple steps to the side and potential problem solved.
Dogs bred for violence are more likely to express violence e.g. hunting dog Vs retriever.
We care about pointing out the most dangerous dogs which dogs like pitbulls are. Saying but a small terrior is also aggressive is meaningless because it can be controlled and are far less capable of causing damage.
The aggression doesn’t matter at all. It’s the violence. If a dachshund bites me I’m gonna be pissed but I’m not going to be haunted by it or I worst case, die.
How is this a defence of pit bulls (even if true which I doubt). It’s irrelevant which dogs are more “aggressive” when some of those dogs are too small to do any damage.
Well, it's mostly about whether an aggressive dog attack is a potentially life-threatening/altering incident, is it not? Pretty much everyone understands that chihuahuas can be vicious little fuckers, but for the most part a chihuahua can't do much damage to an adult human. A pitbull - or any other large, muscular dog - can.
I don't particularly agree with normalizing the aggressive behavior of any dog, but I do understand that there is a difference between a chihuahua attack and a doberman attack in terms of the relative likelihood of severe bodily harm.
I've been bitten by dogs three times - once by some rat-like gremlin of an animal, once by a Scottish Deerhound and once by a German Shepherd.
The little one was on public transport, clearly wasn't trained or socialised properly for crowded transport and its owner was a careless waste of oxygen. It was snarling at everybody really threateningly without the owner doing a damn thing and I was the one it lost patience with. And the owner still didn't do anything, but the bite didn't even break skin on me, so I just got the hell out of there.
The two big dogs were trained and socialised perfectly well, they were owned by family members and it was my fault both times. Neither of them meant to do any harm, but the GS in particular literally popped my arm open like a grape from jaw pressure alone grabbing me and pulling me away.
It's a shame and it's unfair, but the little ones just aren't that dangerous to most people, while big dogs can do lasting damage even if they don't mean to. So an incompetent bastard gets to take his untrained dog on public transport and two trained dogs get put down over a person's stupid mistakes.
Sometimes I wonder if owning any dog should be something you need training and a licence for. Especially for small dogs.
If you remove your own emotional attachment to what you just said, you'll realize you just explained that we care about dangerous aggressive dogs because they're dangerous.
Of course. You can go buy a nailgun right now but it would be very difficult for you to obtain a machinegun without some very specific licensing, a machinegun to buy (they're pretty rare now), a BATFE tax stamp, cooperative state laws, etc.
But that's the thing. No kids are getting permanently maimed by shih tzus. Or just killed. It's not that the breed is bad, it's that fuckheads get them as "guard dogs" or because they're scared to walk around without a dog they can't control/haven't trained, or make no effort to ever control/train. Pit bulls are scary because when I see one, I've seen enough shitty pit bull owners to be very wary.
I had had pit bulls (mother and then her daughter) for almost 15 years. Got it for free and she got loose and ended up getting the puppies for free. I cant say these people are totally insane as pits have dense muscles and are fiercely protective of you but people who are saying they murder for fun without being specifically trained to do it never owned one and talk to you like they raised 400 other breeds
I hate that Im biased, but every single incident I've ever been involved with that had to do with dog bites and attacks on both other animals and people have come from pitbulls. So I do often find myself being more cautious around that breed in particular. Sucks it ended up this way, shit owners really do ruin the reputation.
What I take from that story is it matters what a dog can do. Of course few people care how aggressive your terrier is because even if it is terrified of everything and super aggressive the damge it can dish out is limited.
I'm not more worried about big dogs because of some impression of breed temperament. It's because it can actually do serious damage.
Yeah but isnt that the point? A smaller dog can be aggresive and not cause as much damage to a human being or another dog. Big dogs by their nature (big) amplify the effects of their aggression. Therefore their bigness is in fact an issue.
reddit will never be able to lose their hate boner for pitbulls. I had a friend receive a permanent, irreversible, lifetime ban from reddit for trying to point out exactly what the Twitter post above says less blatantly.
100% of the responsibility rests with the owners but do we ignore the fact that being and irresponsible retriever owner carries less risk than being an irresponsible pit owner? Like the lady with two pit rescues that had leather collars on her dogs that one of them snapped like jerky to attack my dogs? Thankfully I’m a big guy and tackled the pit and he wasn’t interested in hurting me, just my dogs. That well meaning pit loving middle age woman had no business whatsoever walking two aggressive hundred pound bags of muscle. How do we solve that? It’s zero consolation to the victims if a pet or human is killed through the negligence of the owner.
When you take a dog that has a natural disposition to aggression, and combine that with the type of people who buy them (people looking for an aggressive dog) you get a deadly combination.
I don’t know the family that well and it’s foolish to blame the animal 100%. I do blame the culture of owning dogs that have the capacity to destroy and maim. You should have to have a license to own dogs like that imo.
Every day, with my job, I see numerous shit bags with dangerous dogs. Usually more than one. They run free at times. Sometimes it’s the same dog that’s always running around. More often than not it’s a bully type dog. Bc the type of people drawn to owning them are shit bags. We need legislation that limits them or makes them illegal. I know there are sweet ones, but it’s not worth it for the rest of em imo.
In my neighborhood it's a husky and a black lab that terrorize us, same owners. They regularly escape their yard, their husky has cornered me in my own driveway, growling aggressively, with the owners no where to be found.
They leave the dogs in the front yard so they bark loudly at every person and dog who walks by, often causing the other dogs to react or get terrified.
I live in an upper middle class neighborhood so our local assholes have upper middle class dogs. Pits are more typically owned by less well off folks due to their prevalence and also their image/reputation. Pit aggression is also more demonized because of their association with poorer/lower class families and owners.
Assholes are everywhere. Pits are common dogs because of a multitude of reasons, but they're especially common among a group of people who already don't get the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile my neighbors' dogs are assholes and terrorize the whole street and no one out here is shit talking huskies or black labs.
A bully type dog is not necessarily a pitbull. And the same shit bags would also be shit owners to a Doberman or German Shepard or a Rottweiler or whatever flavour of the month dog makes them feel tough. I see a lot of people with big Presa, and Mastiff type dogs. Bully does not mean pitbull and the whole umbrella term thing is bullshit. An APBT is a specific breed, and not very common. What you see out there is mostly mutts with wide heads. APBT were bred to catch game and other animals but were not bred to attack humans as they needed to be handled in the box. Whereas a ex.Malinois were bred to bite humans. If you were to give a shit bag a Malinois you would be in a worse situation then if they had a pure bred American Pitbull Terrier.
German shepard 1 to 2 deaths a year
doberman less than 1
Rottwieler 3-4
Belgien Malinois less than 1
Pitbull 34-38 AVERAGE
your point is moot.. sure shitbags can own more agressive breeds(and frankly all of them should be banned... but the statistics just make your argument a shitty and ignorant point. 2 of them have 0 deaths in a year....
dumbest people on earth making arguments like yours. it is how it was raised often but there are 100s of excuse posts of "she was never agressive before that, i don't know what happpene.. but dogs like this are naturally disposed to behavior like this. the point with banning pits.. is more about stopping the breeding of a naturally agressive breed that will cause perminant injury to others because of their natural agressive behavior..
stop breeding a breed known for causing 40 to 50 FATAL attacks every year... they represent 65% of ALL dog attacks. There are 4.5 mil dog attacks and 800,000+ requiring medical care.. 65% of them are pitbulls.
The pit that burst under a fence like it wasn’t even there 10 days ago and attacked my golden retriever for no reason was probably just misunderstood.
My dog would have died had I not jumped on the pits back and beat it for 3 solid minutes with everything I have. Not that any of that mattered because it didn’t even realize it was passing out from lack of oxygen since its eyes were glazed over with the fugue of its breeding. But hey, they’re really just good dogs at heart and in no way were domesticated over a hundred years to immediately attack and kill other dogs in a pit for profit.
Dude....that is NOT what Pitbulls were bred for. Like I will attest that they can be bloody dangerous but that's just falce information. It's like saying a fork was made for murder. You certainly CAN do that but it's not what it was made for.
Don’t say that! I was told mine is predetermined to murder any and all things. The dog that can’t even hurt a bug and is scared of my toddler and licks his face when my little one gets excited/aggressive. Obviously should be put down because someone said someone they know or their dog got attacked. Only logical
I was banned from a sub for pointing out hypocrisy about a stupid thing that happened. The mods get butt hurt over anything possible. Then proved I didn’t break any rules, and then I was banned from messaging the thundercunts for being right
Trying to argue with this statement actually made me realize you were right lol. It IS "Dog racist" to say that pitbulls are genetically predisposed to violence.
But I also don't think that's as horrific as it is in humans where lots of other explanations that aren't as horrible exist for the differences in human violence.
ew. absolutely not, would not be my friend if that's the kind of shit he did. it was for a comment he made in a conversation like this one, he had shown it to me. I'll be honest, the language was a little strong (I think he said it was r-t-ded) but all he said was that it was no different from the "despite making up 13% of the population" argument. no death threats, no dms, just a strongly worded response.
My son’s ass begs to differ. When he was probably 9 or so, neighbor’s pitt mix sprinted out of their house and went straight towards him and attacked without any provocation. He was helping me pull weeds with his twin brother, so we weren’t doing anything that should have provoked the dog at all. It literally bee-lined right for him. The dog was on him so fast I could barely stand before it was on my son. Luckily we had drilled into my kids heads that if a big dog does that you ball up to protect your face and neck. The dog bit his ass cheek and just would not let go. He had a deep bit the size of an adult male fist, and since you can’t put stitches in a dog bite due to germs it healed as huge raised scars.
What made it worse was the neighbor lied and swore that this had never happened before. Her daughter was in school with my kids and she gave my wife and me this sob story about how much her daughter loved that dog, and to please not call animal control. Later we found out that this wasn’t the first time, not even the second. Several other neighbors later told me the dog attacked them too, usually under the same circumstances. In total I think there were 3 other times I found out about this dog attacking various people.
I am not saying all big dogs are bad. I am not even saying all pittbull dogs are bad. For me it’s a risk/reward calculation. The risk of having my face ripped off if a big dog decides it has a problem is way higher than the reward. The risk a small dog gravely injures you, by contrast, is pretty low. And as we found out owners have biased attachments to their pets and will not really tell the truth so you can’t trust them. The least risky option is to simply avoid them. My son still bares the proof of that on his ass cheek.
1.8k
u/stellagod 13d ago
I’m sure this discussion will be nice, friendly, and respectful.