Suella Braverman pushes for ban of 'lethal danger' XL Bully dogs
uk.yahoo.com
The home secretary is seeking "urgent advice" about banning American XL Bully dogs as footage shows one of the animals attacking an 11-year-old girl and a man in Birmingham. Suella Braverman has said the animals are a "clear and lethal" danger after the video of the attack in Bordesley Green emerged on the social media platform TikTok. West Midlands Police are investigating after two men, who were bitten and left with injuries to their shoulders and arms, were taken to hospital to be treated for their injuries after the incident on Saturday.

Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      264·
      10 months ago

      This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.

      • Audbol@lemmy.world
        1215·
        10 months ago

        And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          223·
          10 months ago

          The National Rifle Association will offer a very well cited claim that strict gun laws increase violent crime. The Violence Policy Center will offer a very well cited claim that the opposite is true. Reality is likely more nuanced.

          The hole in dog breed bite statistics is usually accurate identification of the breed.

          • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            1·
            10 months ago

            I'd like a good citation on that claim in your second paragraph. I've seen that claimed a lot yet I've seen nothing to support it.

          • Audbol@lemmy.world
            88·
            10 months ago

            Maybe I’m missing something, what does this advocacy group stand to benefit from banning pitbulls? The NRA is backed by weapons manufacturers. This seems to be people who actually see a problem and are taking actions to help protect people.

            • Zak@lemmy.world
              134·
              10 months ago

              People often hold strong beliefs that are not related to personal gain nor particularly rational. I don’t think their intent is nefarious, but I think it’s likely mistaken.

              • Audbol@lemmy.world
                37·
                10 months ago

                If research is determining otherwise then what would it take to convince you to accept this?

                • Zak@lemmy.world
                  81·
                  10 months ago

                  For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I'd probably need three things:

                  1. Statistics about serious injuries to people supported by reliable breed identification. Asking a victim or police officer what breed of dog caused the injury is insufficient.
                  2. At least some some supporting evidence that the breed is inherently more dangerous than other breeds of the same size instead of simply being popular with people who train their dogs to be aggressive.
                  3. Legislation focused on breeding bans, neutering mandates, and a mix of fence/muzzle requirements and temperament testing rather than confiscation or euthanasia individual dogs that have not shown signs of aggression.
            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
              35·
              10 months ago

              They are pushing arguments in favor of eugenics and genocide and have coopted dog-related injuries to push lies about history and genetic science.

              Just go on their site and wherever they mention pitbulls, replace it with "Jews" and you really start to get the flavor of their bullshit.

        • TheSambassador@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          10 months ago

          The problem is that an advisory group trying to push legislation is much more likely to cherry pick and misrepresent their citations.

          • Audbol@lemmy.world
            11·
            10 months ago

            Okay but what is the motive for them to do this. You are claiming malice but you aren't providing a motive for said malice