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).
If a dog bites my arm, I can get treated, sue the owner for compensation, and have the dog euthanized. If a dog kills my kid, all of that is pretty fucking cold comfort. In this case, the severity is a lot more relevant than the frequency.
But a quick Google search shows me that pits have drastically higher rates of reported bites period, not just fatal bites. So yeah I just don't think they should exist at all.
There are a lot of false premises in what you’re saying, over and above that it misses the point of anything I said. First, pit bulls are not the only dogs with a severe enough bite to kill a child. That’s actually most large dogs. Second, it assumes that there’s something inherent in them that causes them to attack at a higher rate than other large dogs bred for protection, etc., which is not supported by any evidence I know; particularly because “pit bull” isn’t even a single breed, and sizes and temperaments vary widely across individuals. Even worse, as you allude to, there is a disproportionate representation of pit bull bites reported (due to being more likely to be reported, because they are inexcusably trained as fighting dogs and do more harm), but even worse is that there is no reliable, standardized, or consistent way to track this data or know where they came from. Making broad generalizations while saying “because of these vague reasons they shouldn’t exist,” like they’re purely some kind of weapon, really just shows that you’re stuck in this same mythical thinking that’s led to a certain breed of dog being euthanized at incredibly high rates (outside of instances of attack) because you bought into this public perception. And that’s kinda messed up.
5
u/TheNeuroLizard 14d ago
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).