They are no more dangerous than any other dog of similar size. You don’t see this kind of hate for German Shepherds for example. It is very well documented this specific thing is about racism. Or you could, you know, watch the video?
This is the same as whipping out racist crime stats and being proud of it. Pitbulls cause a lot of injuries because they are more commonly trained to do so, and because they are more commonly reported on as doing so. They are more commonly trained to and reported on because of many reasons including racism.
Don’t fall into the trap of ignoring all of the context around where statistics come from or why they are being reported on in the first place. Stats are only one piece of a puzzle. The more interesting question is “why is the stat higher for pitbulls than other similarly sized dogs” and there are so many obvious answers to that question beyond “its inherent to the breed(s)”.
Now a much more interesting argument is should anyone be allowed to own large potentially dangerous animals without proper training and licensure but nobody is ready for that discussion yet. Especially not when folks are just pulling out intentionally misleading stats.
There’s also the problem of dogs being labeled as pit bulls when they aren’t actual pit bulls. Everything from actual Pit Bull Terriers to English Bulldogs to Mastiffs get labeled as pit bulls, further inflating dog bite statistics.
Before the comment, I want to lay down that I personally am unsure if pitbulls are inherently more aggressive than other dog breeds. Probably not. My opinion is that the outcome of their attacks have more severe outcomes than other breeds. I think the last point you made really drives it home though:
Now a much more interesting argument is should anyone be allowed to own large potentially dangerous animals without proper training and licensure but nobody is ready for that discussion yet. Especially not when folks are just pulling out intentionally misleading stats.
To me, this is the crux of the problem. I think people spend too much time bickering over the pit bull discussion, when honestly the pit bull discussion is completely inconsequential. Because as you said, the discussion on how to handle tricky / dangerous dog breeds, be it legislation or whatever, is far more important to society. Ultimately, I assume, we both want a world where fewer humans get killed by dogs.
The reason the pit bull stuff is a hot button for me is because I see a lot of advocates for pit bulls completely washing over the fact that, yes, pit bulls are often little sweetheart puppies, but if someone does get attacked by their pit bull, they are way more likely to be severely maimed or killed, than other breeds.
But the pitbull discussion is consequential, because if you want to talk about dog bites, it’s critically important that you get the facts straight first, and that includes historical context both about dogs and about people. By trotting out misleading stats about the dangers of pitbulls you’re starting the discussion from a place of racial bias and inaccuracy that makes the rest of the discussion impossible.
So really that’s all I’m asking is before using a statistic like this, try to understand where it comes from and why. Reading through the thread it’s clear you and others are not doing that, you’re taking the stat at face value instead of investigating it.
They are no more dangerous than any other dog of similar size. You don’t see this kind of hate for German Shepherds for example. It is very well documented this specific thing is about racism. Or you could, you know, watch the video?
Would you kindly tell me which type of dog is responsible for the vast majority of human fucking fatalities in the USA for the last 20ish years?
Did you watch the video? That is addressed in the video because there is literally zero scientific data on that.
The video has extremely weak evidence and includes some rather low-hanging fruit “dunks”
This is the same as whipping out racist crime stats and being proud of it. Pitbulls cause a lot of injuries because they are more commonly trained to do so, and because they are more commonly reported on as doing so. They are more commonly trained to and reported on because of many reasons including racism.
Don’t fall into the trap of ignoring all of the context around where statistics come from or why they are being reported on in the first place. Stats are only one piece of a puzzle. The more interesting question is “why is the stat higher for pitbulls than other similarly sized dogs” and there are so many obvious answers to that question beyond “its inherent to the breed(s)”.
Now a much more interesting argument is should anyone be allowed to own large potentially dangerous animals without proper training and licensure but nobody is ready for that discussion yet. Especially not when folks are just pulling out intentionally misleading stats.
There’s also the problem of dogs being labeled as pit bulls when they aren’t actual pit bulls. Everything from actual Pit Bull Terriers to English Bulldogs to Mastiffs get labeled as pit bulls, further inflating dog bite statistics.
It’s pure racism driving the conversation.
Before the comment, I want to lay down that I personally am unsure if pitbulls are inherently more aggressive than other dog breeds. Probably not. My opinion is that the outcome of their attacks have more severe outcomes than other breeds. I think the last point you made really drives it home though:
To me, this is the crux of the problem. I think people spend too much time bickering over the pit bull discussion, when honestly the pit bull discussion is completely inconsequential. Because as you said, the discussion on how to handle tricky / dangerous dog breeds, be it legislation or whatever, is far more important to society. Ultimately, I assume, we both want a world where fewer humans get killed by dogs.
The reason the pit bull stuff is a hot button for me is because I see a lot of advocates for pit bulls completely washing over the fact that, yes, pit bulls are often little sweetheart puppies, but if someone does get attacked by their pit bull, they are way more likely to be severely maimed or killed, than other breeds.
But the pitbull discussion is consequential, because if you want to talk about dog bites, it’s critically important that you get the facts straight first, and that includes historical context both about dogs and about people. By trotting out misleading stats about the dangers of pitbulls you’re starting the discussion from a place of racial bias and inaccuracy that makes the rest of the discussion impossible.
So really that’s all I’m asking is before using a statistic like this, try to understand where it comes from and why. Reading through the thread it’s clear you and others are not doing that, you’re taking the stat at face value instead of investigating it.