Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.
I don’t write off a whole breed, but I will say that my niece got her face seriously ripped up by a pit bull, and I have a friend who raised a pit bull from a puppy, devoted thousands of dollars and professional hours into her training and socialization, and she still bit someone simply for entering her house. I am leery of the breed.
If you will not write off a whole breed of dogs, you have not spent enough time around dogs.
Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Fighters do not need to be taught to fight.
These are innate behaviors. You can't stop them.
There's a reason pit bulls account for such a large fraction a dog related injuries.
And don't let the pitbull defenders get to you with their "but it's a mutt" or "they're such sweet dogs" BS.
Of course they're going to be nice to their owner. People who train and breed dogs to kill each other for entertainment are going to have no problem immediately bringing the dog that pisses them off out back and shooting them.
Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve.
Shepherds have some herding instinct, but they don't magically understand herding.
You do, in fact, need to train a herding dog to herd if you want it to be any good at it.
Fighters do not need to be taught to fight.
This is where I recognize that you are making stuff up. You lost me here…
Everyone I know who has been bit by a dog it was either a pitbull, pit mix, or chihuahua. And I’m not exactly worried about the severity of a chihuahua bite.
I was bitten by an English bull terrier puppy. So now you know someone else.
Bull terrier
You mean the breed that pitbulls were made out of?
Also puppies are a lot less of a worry than grown dogs.
No English bull terriers are smaller, not the American kind.
Pitbulls were bred from bull terriers to be a bigger version. So it's not surprising a different breed of terrier is also prone to biting.
Lol sane. No warning. No reason. Actually bit me pretty badly too.
There's a reason to tolerate Chihuahua, cat, or other small animal bites. They cannot kill a child.
To be fair, cat bites can leave you with stitches.
Cat bites often become infected when not treated properly. But at least they are basically incapable of killing you immediately or causing lifelong disfigurement.
Same thing for paper cuts.
Life is dangerous. No one gets out of it alive.
Pit bulls are great for home defence though
So are machine guns and flame throwers and grenades.
That doesn't mean they're safe.
The less safe the better for home defense. Grenades are destructive to their surroundings, you'd put your home at risk using those.
A pit bull would stop a home invader with minimal damage to its surroundings though. Why would you want your home defence to be safe anyway?
Every pit bull home I've ever seen is shredded - I've never seen a frag grenade go off in real life, but I imagine the property damage is about the same.
Yes, I've seen pitbulls tear down drywall and studs, upset the foundation, and shatter every window within a 50ft radius…
I got bit by an English mastiff. That wasn't a fun experience at 6.
I was bitten by a golden retriever when I was 12. It looked friendly so I went to pet it, and it sunk a canine into my arm. I was just unlucky (and slightly stupid) though, and it didn't rip my face off, so I think I did ok overall.
A German shepherd also tried to bite me when passing it on a narrow path, but it just shredded my jacket pocket.
A Yorkshire terrier also had a go at me once, but didn't make it through denim jeans.
If I were to be attacked by a dog the last one I'd choose is a pitbull or any muscular mastiff. They're dangerous because they have the highest potential for damage.
What's there to be leery about? These dog breeds were bred for one thing and it sure wasn't to be the perfect family dog.
Well no, that's where you're wrong. Human aggression was a trait that was absolutely bred out of these dogs.
Please go read up on how the American fighting pitbull dog was created, managed, trained, etc. Before throwing out bs online.
Well I did and it literally states in the first paragraph of the history of Pit Bulls on Wikipedia:
The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting
So I feel, idk, that you got some reading to do…
Oh how cute, you read a paragraph on Wikipedia…
Well what fucking sources do you have lmao?
Well I'll just start with a top search result when looking for their history…
https://pitbulls.org/article/brief-history-american-pit-bull-terrier
I have owned and read about these dogs for decades, I don't have nor am I going to go find all of the sources I've read over that time. I can tell you that you are incorrect in your assumption about the breed, as are virtually every other person who hates these dogs.
People like you are historically not worth talking to, you will deny any sources or information that I provide because you have already made your mind up about the breed.
I'll leave you with this: this breed was created by humans, is in a constant state of misery because of humans, and is persecuted by humans because of human behavior.
These dogs are not at fault. But ignorance is rife with folks like yourself. I hope you actually put effort into learning their history but I know you won't.
So no sources, nothing, what a pointless discussion.
I don’t write off a whole breed,
I can. They are a non-natural breed created by people for cruel purposes and should be eradicated.
Yeah. They were literally bred to be as vicious as possible.
We can write them off. I don't blame the dogs, I blame the people who made them this way.
What's a natural breed of dogs? And how do you measure intention?
Ok fair enough. I just don't want to be mean to anyone.
And my wife's hairdresser has a vizla that bit her daughter's face and caused her to get 100+ stitches and she'll be scarred forever. Dogs can bite without warning regardless of the breed.
I've spent a decent amount of time around about a dozen pit bulls and never saw/heard of any issues with any of them. All but 1 were very sweet dogs and even he wasn't being aggressive beyond making it clear that I was not to enter the property (growling and barking same as many other dogs would do) when we first met. After his owner showed up and we got acquainted with each other he was fine too. On the other hand I've been bitten by half the dachshunds I've met.
On the flip side of the argument, I have a pit mix and she's the sweetest thing in the world. Never has bitten anything other than a toy, and she doesn't even bark unless she gets the zoomies while playing. She's been great with my 2 year old nephew, too. Got her from the shelter when she was about a year and a half old. She's 50% pit, so I feel like if it was genetic she'd be way more aggressive.
Obligatory dog pic:
Yet.
She has not bitten anyone yet. She might never. Or she might suddenly lose it and kill a child. That's not something that ever happens in breeds like labs.
She's sweet to you because people who breed and train dogs to kill for entertainment have no trouble killing any dog that pisses them off.
I think you should follow that last sentence with a description of why that matters. I know by inference, but some may miss your point that by "killing any dog that pisses them off" they were selectively breeding for obedience to the alpha to the exclusion of all else. And then maybe extrapolate on how that trait translates into fierce loyalt to one individual which makes everything else a potential target for attack.
You're correct. Thanks for the clarification.
Uh that absolutely does happen with labs. It can happen with any breed. I've volunteered in rescue for years, and when I was working at a shelter, I interacted with hundreds of dogs, and the only time I was ever truly scared was with one particular lab. I don't hold it against the breed as a whole, because it was his issue, but people need to be aware that any dog can bite and take proper precautions.
The lab should have been put down as well.
I think he may have been - he didn't bite me, but when multiple volunteers refused to take him out because his body language read imminent attack, they pulled him for further behavioral evaluation. I don't know what happened, but he wasn't cleared in the time I was there. I'm not even sure why he was on the adoption floor to start with.
deleted by creator
That's a dangerous way to think. There was a story about a golden retriever killing a baby in its carrier a few years back. The family said the dog had always been sweet and friendly, and the infant was too small to have done something like pull a tail or poke an eye.
I love dogs, I can't imagine living without at least one and working with others, but way too many people assume that having a "safe" breed means nothing will happen. The vast majority of the time, everything is ok, but every now and then, a friendly dog bites someone in the face.
The amount of lack of self awareness in this post…
My gun never misfires. Don't ban guns from kindergartens.
posted on an article where a kid accidentally gets shot
Big difference: mix
It'll rip your face off, while looking cute!
In the US, Pit Bulls caused 65% of dog bite deaths between 2005 and 2016.
About 15 years ago I volunteered with a pitbull rescue, then did a bunch of research on pitbull attacks in grad school. The problem then was that most statistics like this were unreliable once you saw what they labeled a pitbull. In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull. I don’t know if things have changed, never really looked into it since then, but I’m still a bit wary of stats like this without knowing their data is accurate.
My little dog doesn’t have an ounce of pitbull in her. Her mom was a border collie/lab mix, and the Father was the Neighbor’s boston terrier/english pointer mix. The only thing remotely pitbull like about her is her underbite. That said, I’ve lost count of the times somebody at the dog park, usually someone with a little ankle biter dog of the teacup persuasion, has gotten uppity about me having a “pitbull” off leash. People are dumb.
People are dumb
That about sums it up
Every breed you listed besides lab are nippers but are not notorious maulers. Sorry your little nipper is getting lumped in with the murder muffins.
It doesn’t help that a lot of strays/rescues have a good chunk of pit bull blood in them.
Both of my dogs are rescues from programs in the southern US. One of them certainly seems to have some pit in him…beautiful brindle coat, block head, incredibly strong jaw, stocky-muscular build. He’s dumb as a bag of rocks but incredibly loyal and affectionate. Because of the stigma around pits, though, I’m afraid to get him DNA tested.
Actually it's more likely a pitt is labeled incorrectly like a lab etc to get them adopted to people too ignorant to know better. So that's gonna invalidate that statement.
In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull.
Seems like an issue specific to wherever you went to school.
Most rational people would immediately draw clear separations between mutts and pitbulls or pitbull mixes.
I don't think this comment is indicative of the problem at all.
Curious where you went to school though, lol. Might want to get a refund for that degree.
Most rational people would, but it was an indicator that people who report dog bites did not know the difference.
And I'm not sure what my school had to do with it. At that time I was sourcing data from external sources, using data reported on police reports or by other organizations. Someone else commenting referenced the breed specific legislation advocacy group that was a source for some of that data.
My comment might not have been clear, I was criticising the data I was finding.
The studies I've seen that people cite to say "you can't identify a breed by looking at it" usually are playing a semantic game - and what often is not emphasized is that the same research shows that when people identify a dog as a "pit bull," that those people are quite accurate in identifying–by morphology alone–the presence of genetics from one of the several aggressive breeds people call "pit bulls." And that the morphology is positively correlated with higher aggression.
I remember when climate change deniers were not sure about the science either…
Being skeptical of data and their sources is a fundamental part of science.
were?
And it’s probably worse if you do rate by breed.
But I suspect that it’s mostly due to a combination of breed and neglect/non-training. The kind of people who want a pit bull in particular, and the kind of people who just chain up their dog outside and never train or socialize it, probably have significant overlap.
Wrong. You're misrepresenting the stats. You're leaving out the fact that in over half of all dog bites the breed is unknown.
Also, in studies where vet personnel are asked to visually identify the breed of dog, they are wrong two out of three times. So if vet personnel can't even do it, dog bite victims, police reports, and hospital reports, from where these statistics on dog bites are obtained, are definitely not getting right.
The truth is that we have absolutely zero legitimate idea what dogs are causing injuries. Even if the numbers on pitbulls were accurate, the breed is unreported in more than half of cases, which statistically speaking means there could be another breed of dog that you've never even heard of that's responsible for more than half of all bites.
The other issue for me is the inherent racism by those who advocate for these policies. In every conversation, it eventually devolves to the proponent of breed bans doing one of two things: admitting that they are targeting certain types of people, not breeds, and arguments that rely on false assertions of history, genetic and behavioral science, that are identical to those put forth by eugenicists. The easy example is the false assertions that pitbulls were "bred for fighting."
They were bred for hunting and loyalty to their families and children. The guy to originally bred them wrote several books which you can read on Google Books and discusses at length their loyalty to people and kids as a primary characteristics, moreso than any violence. It was their strength and determination that made them useful for hunting, not aggression.
They were used only for dog fighting decades after the big game hunting they were bred to do was banned, and even then, dogs that showed aggression to humans were banned from the "sport" if not outright euthanized.
The studies that you would cite to support your "you can't tell a breed by its look" also tend to show that people are quite accurate at identifying that one of the many breeds that are called pit bulls are present in a particular dog. in other words, they can't accurately say "this is a pure bred Staffordshire Terrier" but they can say, "this is a pit bull" and they're correct, unless you're playing stupid semantic games.
I don't see where the study says that.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500310X
That study seems to state a conclusion precisely the opposite of what the experimental results were. Based on a small sample set, there’s a high degree of match, far more accurate than random chance, between the observations and the genetic findings.
Of the 25 dogs identified as pit bull-type dogs by breed signature, 12 were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of admission to the shelter (prior to the study visit), including five labeled American Staffordshire terrier mix, four pit bull mix, two pit bull, and one American Staffordshire terrier. During the study, 20/25 dogs were identified by at least one of the four staff assessors as pit bull-type dogs, and five were not identified as pit bull-type dogs by any of the assessors. …
Of the 95 dogs (79%) that lacked breed signatures for pit bull heritage breeds, six (6%) were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of shelter admission, and 36 (38%) were identified as pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff assessor at the time of the study visit
So, at intake, 18 dogs were identified as pit bulls but only 2/3rds were at least 12% pit bull.
During the study, 56 dogs were identified as being pit bulls, but only about 1/3rd were in fact at least 12% pit bull.
This is the classic 'base rate fallacy'. The false positive rate isn't that high, and the false negative rate isn't that high either. But because the true positive rate is pretty low, the ratio of true positives to false positives is much worse than you'd intuitively think.
Tests for rare diseases and attempts to behaviorally profile terrorists at airports runs into the same problem. Sometimes, a 99.9% accurate test just moves you from searching for a needle on a farm to a needle in only a single haystack.
And yet still wrong two thirds of the time.
Source?
This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.
And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is that an advisory group trying to push legislation is much more likely to cherry pick and misrepresent their citations.
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
Not exactly. Studies on this are hard to accurately. In breif, people suck at id breeds, and mort studoes only ask the peraon what breed bit you
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7F4OfDSvPU&pp=ygUYcmViZWNjYSB3YXRzb24gZG9nIGJyZWVk
Thanks for telling me the same thing people have been parroting for an eternity. Check out Occam's razor
What wrong with the counter studies
It's not well cited because in over half of dog injuries the breed is unknown.
Also, two thirds of dogs identified as pitbulls by veterinarian staff have zero pitbull DNA.
Yeah that study probably relied on faulty data. Most dog bite data just the person what the breed was.
Did tou know putbull is not 1 breed but 3 different ones.
Most people cant reliably tell an american pitbul from other breeds in a line up.
Actually, "pitbulls" are now well over a dozen different breeds people just randomly consider "pitbulls"
If it's a stocky mutt with short hair . It's a pitbull!
Did you know that all of the breeds that are identified by the name "pit bull" rate high in aggression? And that the same studies that pitbull afficianados cite for "you can't tell a breed by appearance" also support the idea that when people call a dog a "pit bull" based on morphology alone, that the dog stands a very high chance of having decended from one of the several breeds identified as a pit bull?
Not in the study i reaf. They lined pure American pitbull and some pitbull mutts and dogs with no pitbull. They only to reliably guees who was the pitbull, even counting the mutt as pb, was if the dog was showing teeth.
Pitbull isn't a breed, it's a colloquialism that is used as a catch-all for any breed with a certain look. They're either American bullys, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs, or a mix of these breeds. If you aren't collecting separate data for each of these breeds individually, then the best we can do is divide the total number of bites between those breeds by 5.
Dog breeds are defined separately for a reason, you can't just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes who buy dogs only to isolate and ignore and/or mistreat them, will just choose the next most aggressive breed, then treat them the same. Statistically, that will mean that German shepherds will be the next banned breed, as they routinely come up as the second most deadly specific breed of dog. Say goodbye to your GS.
you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes … will just choose the next most aggressive breed
This is the same problem behind attempts to "solve" firearm violence through arbitrary bans and has strong parallels in ongoing knee-jerk reactions and other clout-chasing behavior in response to any events.
At the end of the day, we aren't going to see any improvement in either until we assess the assholes part of the equation.
Lmao, it's hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.
Like, firearm bans do objectively work at reducing gun violence, and banning pitbulls would reduce the average severity and rate of dog bites.
They're not root cause solutions but if your root cause solution is to just not have any more irresponsible assholes in the world then you might want to rethink your problem space.
I think his point is that keeping guns broadly but e.g. banning "assault" weapons doesn't keep people safe.
In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can't have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.
Compare that to the much broader restrictions in Australian or British gun laws, and it's no surprise why you still have many, many more mass shootings in NY.
Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.
It really is.
You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues while sliding by the callouts of lack of data/fact behind your assertion even aside from the poor reasoning itself, all while trying to mount your own high horse.
It's peak clown behavior.
You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues
I recognize that you're the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause when the root cause is infeasible to address (like people occasionally becoming unhinged).
Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don't need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.
Man you nailed it, in today's world. But there definitely was an American pitbull breed and there still is but all these designer and backyard breeders fucked it all up. It's been a while since I've looked into this but either the AKC or UKC would list them officially.
Every owner thinks their dog is a “good one” until it’s too late. They should be required to be neutered and not allowed to breed.
And the dogs too?
Ahhh, the ol lemmy switch-a-roo!
Hold my collar, I'm going in!
Especially the dogs.
Really illustrates the point here that these anti pitbull types are just whipping up future genocidists.
Dogs are not people. Dogs are domesticated wolves that were selectively bred to have particular characteristics. Some of those characteristics that humans chose are problematic in modern society. Stop trying to act like humans doing one of the oldest human activities (breeding/culling domesticated animals) is akin to genocide and eugenics. False fucking equivalence.
I didn't say they were equilavent. The toxic logic is what's identical.
What toxic logic? I think you’ve possibly read far more into it than the humour that was intended.
The toxic logic that comes when you start saying behaviors are genetic, and how to eliminate such behaviors.
I can see an argument for the proposition that maybe we don't need dogs that are big and powerful enough to injure or kill people.
But, I take claims about how a breed "is gentle" with an entire ocean of salt- individual dogs might be calm and well-trained or socialized, it's the ones churned out of puppy mills to be sold at top dollar to shitty people who want a tough, scary dog that seem to be sketchy.
I've been around lots of well-adjusted big dogs that are just big hunks of love and slobbery affection, but really I hate seeing stories about how some dog that "is a good boy" mauled a child and if I had my druthers, dog owners would be required to carry liability insurance proportionate to the dog's size or bite force or some factor correlating to its breed, and to the dog owner's income or wealth. Oh, that would make big, dangerous dogs too expensive to own? Maybe they should be.
IMO, the issue is purely down to their strength and ability to kill a person.
I don’t doubt their temperament is fine, but when an animal has that much power they’re a serious danger in the rare situation that they’re out of control.
I like Jack Russells, I’ve got two, if they were strong dogs and someone said they’re being banned because of it then I wouldn’t mind. Just don’t let them breed any more.
A dog’s a dog. While I have a preference, ultimately I don’t really care what breed I have.
Pugs should be banned as well. A dog’s a dog, not a fashion accessory.
I don’t doubt their temperament is fine
Pits have an incredibly strong prey drive, and once they decide to attack something they almost never stop. So no, they don;t have the best temperament.
Pugs should be banned as well
There’s at least a retro-pug movement now that is working to breed the overly shortened snout out of pugs, and make them a healthier breed.
It's so frustrating people don't seem to understand that pit bulls are just terriers. If you've ever seen videos of small terriers working in fields and doing what they're bred to do, you absolutely see the same behaviours in bully breeds, just magnified ten-fold.
The problem is now you've bred a 30lb+ dog that is pure muscle, has been specially bred from breeds with already high prey drive to be more aggressive/protective and are trying to treat it like a family dog.
I love pitties, I think they're cute and sweet (I've also never met a "mean" one), but they have long passed being an "average" household breed at this rate. Years of bad/selective breeding need to be undone before they should be reevaluated and gl with that.
They were bred as family dogs first, then as hunting dogs. And decades later some people used them for fightingz and even then ones that attacked handlers were banned from fighting and often euthanized.
Read the book by the guy that originally bred them. It's in Google Books though the name escapes me at the moment.
Pugs Bulldogs they should be banned for their health reasons.
The problem with “don’t ban them but don’t let them breed more” and allow people that have one to just carry on is you just create a potentially lucrative black market for these dogs (in fact you doing that might make them more sought after), which doesn’t actually fix any problems.
Not necessarily advocating killing animals because they’re inconvenient but ultimately if they’re going to be a problem (and it certainly seems like that’s the case) then the sooner they’re banned the less harm is inflicted overall.
Black market for dogs that shouldn't exist anymore after 10 years? What would you do with a dog you couldn't take out of the house? Where's the demand? I can't imagine pitbull junkies selling everything they own just to get one more pup either
Well the black market doesn't exist because it's not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can't take outside?
My point is if you ban breeding but you don't ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.
You only allow people who already own a banned dog to keep it. After a few years it will become obvious that anybody who owns a young illegal dog must have purchased it after the ban.
I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).
So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.
I don't think there is a proper short term solution to this problem. At least dogs don't live forever. A gun bought now can still be used to shoot somebody in a hundred years, a pitbull, on the other hand, has an average life expectancy of 12-14 years.
I mean. The short term solution is to ban them.
A dog’s a dog, not a fashion accessory.
Some people will get legitimately mad that you bring up this reality.
They want to be praised for spending thousands of dollars on a purebred that is going to have way more health problems than a mixed breed.
That's part of the issue. The other part is that pits are seen as an aggressive breed, so assholes who want an aggressive dog get a pit, treat it like shit, and wind up with an aggressive dog. Then, being the shit owners they are, they're typically the ones who let their dogs run loose on the street, or dump them wherever when they become an inconvenience, so you wind up with animal shelters full of aggressive, untrained, unsocialized pits who only further the stereotype.
deleted by creator
The issue with pugs is not that they're evil or bad creatures, it's that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that's lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That's unfair on the animal.
It's like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down's syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody's saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it's that we don't think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.
Now for dogs it's a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn't very fair on those animals, but if we can't find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.
Maybe you should be reincarnated as an abomination that has hip problems and cannot breathe.
deleted by creator
Thank God they’re focusing on the worst hardships that are being inflicted on the British people.
if governments weren’t capable of doing more than one thing at a time, all of global civilization would collapse.
Well they’re not doing much about the climate and it feels like global civilization is collapsing, so…
The British government isn't capable of doing any things any of the time. Not to add that while hundreds of refugees are dying trying to cross the channel, Suella bravermen (our home secretary) instead of rescuing, supporting and letting them in she's complaining about dogs?? The point is that she of all people has bigger things she should be worrying about.
As Home Secretary this issues is EXACTLY part of her job! She has the power and finances to do both. Lets not assume she should give up on her other duties because of the boats, dont be conned.
What obligation does the UK have to rescue and take in people trying to illegally enter the country? Seems like a risk people have assumed for themselves and that helping them will only encourage more to try.
But it's not illegal??? It's international law that you have to take in any refugees seeking asylum and that applies to the uk as well. The uk is breaking international law and that had been certified multiple times by bodies like the echr and UN.
You’re right. I didn’t realize that the international law of aiding people in distress at sea includes those who intentionally create the risk for themselves in order to provoke rescue. But it does.
The o ly reason they have to create intentional risk is because they aren't let past at the border like they should be.
Where are they disembarking from? France? EDIT: The right to cherry-pick the country one seeks asylum in is not clearly established in international law.
British govt seems to have stagnated for the last 70 or so years.
That is not as strong an argument as it used to be in 2023
Neither is “but what about this?”
Its called "Whataboutism" now aint it?
When the UK has had such a massive increase in KSI rates they have to act. As Gregorum said they can deal with more than one issue, even feckless fucks like ours.
On no, my sweet velvet hippo wouldn’t hurt a fly! Says the pitbull owner as it eats what is left of grandma.
Edit: different terminology… but bullyism is a thing so I’m gonna leave it up.
Bullies are a genetic anomaly that aren’t just pitbulls. For example, Wendy is a somewhat famous bully whippet:
Most responsible breeders don’t allow for pairings that would create it. Mostly because if they get too excited they have heart attacks- their heart can’t keep up.
It should be banned, but not because it makes dogs more violent than they otherwise would be.
Basically it comes from over breeding for muscle mass. It crops up in racing breeds mostly- whippets and greyhounds. But also, apparently, in beef cattle:
More info on Wendy and bully whippet mutation for those curious
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/strongest-dog-in-the-world/
Hippos are extremely dangerous and viscious.
Ugh, please go back to Reddit with that attitude
“Go back to Reddit” is the cringiest thing you can say on Lemmy.
On a public forum? You can kiss my ass.
deleted by creator
The attitude of a joke?
I’m just curious, when the UK banned pit bulls, did the government just go around and round up everyone’s suddenly illegal dogs and put them all down?
Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.
I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.
Wait, like if a neighbor had a problem with you or something they could just report you have a pit bull and the government would then come and take your pet and kill it?!!?
I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.
No, not like that. A workmate had a staffy with longer than usual legs. For some reason the neighbours thought it was a pitbull so reported her. Police came, checked the garden was secure, gave some recommendations (like muzzle the animal in public - which she complied with) and left it at that.
It wasnt illegal to own them, it was illegal to buy them after the cutoff date, or to breed new dogs. The police got new powers but couldnt just take the dog without finding actual problems (to protect dog owners and give some fairness).
How many breeds does the UK propose to ban?
I mean it sounds like just the one, American XL bully. Seems perfectly reasonable to me given how ridiculously powerful these dogs are makes them extremely dangerous when they’re being aggressive.
People are more dangerous than any dog. Can we ban them on looks too, please?
Oh wait. The US already does this. It’s called “racism.”
Dogs have highly adaptive genetics, and have been selectively bred for millennia. Comparing dogs to humans shows how fucking ignorant you are.
Username checks out
I tell you what, if we specifically genetically engineer people to be aggressive and powerful and they start eating toddlers faces then I’m cool with banning them too.
“Dog racism”, fuck off.
It's a bad faith argument people make to use people's morality against them. Pitt owners tend to be conservative nazi types and they think they're clever trying to use "woke"language
In the sense that humans are responsible for these natural abuses existing, sure. Humans can stop being dangerous in this sense by not breeding these unnatural predators.
Fucking hell. Remind me to stay the hell away from the UK.
We’re better off without you, no fucking worries there mate.
Indeed you are.
These should remind you to stay away from many countries/states:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#Canada
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#United_States
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#Central_and_South_America
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#Republic_of_Ireland
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#Other_European_countries
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#Asia
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation#Oceania
deleted by creator
Depends how many children they kill.
That’s not fair at all.
Sometimes they just maul the children’s faces until they’re permanently disfigured.
Unless it’s the right kind of children. Then the UK would demand everyone get that breed. If only there was a dog specifically associated with massive profits from the slave trade and horrible racism.
I mean fuck the empire but if you’re gonna throw that shit down it feels only fair to mention the part where they also stopped the slave trade using force.
Well, that’s certainly the part they like to talk about constantly isn’t it?
I mean, in the 19th century London was the biggest city in the world, and like most cities was very progressive. If you look back now and judge from our current lens then it looks really conservative but people in the streets campaigned to end slavery, and the British government outlawed slavery across the whole empire and used their very large and impressive navy to enforce these laws. Just because some private individuals made vast profits off of selling slaves to the US doesn’t mean it was legal or even a popular thing.
That certainly is the part they like to talk about constantly isn’t it?
You brought it up. How is slavery in England’s history even relevant to dangerous dog legislation in the UK now? Which I assume isn’t the country you live in.
So they shouldn’t ban dog breeds because racists exist? Weird take.
I pulled a muscle trying to pretzel my brain around that, too.
Ban the breeding of all dogs.
What are the tories doing that they want to distract us from today then?
It's always something, but we do need more governance for dangerous breeds and cruelty breeds (pugs, Scottish fold cats etc.)
Cultural question to Brits as this happened in UK. Do people care if their dog attacks someone or is highly agressive to humans in UK?
By what I've heard from my friends, dog owners often put the blame on attacked/harassed passers-by, they don't feel accountable for their wrongdoings (i.e. not using leash and not paying attention to where their dog is and what is it doing).
At the risk of pissing off the UK anti-dog chuds; it seriously makes me wonder how people in the UK are treating their dogs that’d cause them to act like this. I’ve known several people with pitbulls throughout my life. My dad had one as a child. None of those pitbulls ever hurt someone, but then again, none of them were beaten, abused (afaik), or trained as attack/home defense dogs. While I know pitbulls are different from an “American Bully XL” (damn, I love dog breeds that sound like marketing company named them), they’re pretty similar. If anything, a pitbull is more aggressive than a bully, so it would have been more likely for any of the pitbulls to suddenly “”“snap”“” and start attacking people for no reason.
They never did.
In fact, despite pitbulls being legal in the US, I’ve never personally heard of someone being attacked by one. I know it happens, I’ve heard about it in the news, but no one I’ve talked to has ever had an issue with a pitbull or known someone who has.
The only conclusion I’ve come to is that either the UK has a culture which encourages beating or abusing your dog to discipline them (causing them to eventually lash out), or (the more likely of the two) is that the dogs are being trained as attack dogs. That means it really shouldn’t be surprising to anyone when an attack dog, well, fucking attacks a human.
YOU TRAINED THEM TO FUCKING DO THAT YOU DUMBASS HUMAN SHITHEAD AND THEN YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO ACT SURPRISED WHEN THEY DO WHAT YOU TRAINED THEM TO DO.
Don’t blame the dog, blame the asshole who trained them. If your dog attacks another person and maims or kills them, you should be the one held accountable. You should be taken to court and tried as if you shot or stabbed someone. Maybe the UK already does that, but if not, I wonder how many people would still train dogs to attack an intruder or (aggressively) defend their home if they knew they could be locked away for 1st degree murder or treated like a mass shooter if their attack dog goes on a rampage.
Advocating to ban a dog breed because humans are pieces of shit is like saying we should ban climate activism because some climate activists engage in eco-terrorism.
The dogs were bred to be incredibly violent and dangerous. Pointers point, herders herd, and pits and bullies fucking kill.
Bullies actually weren’t. They were bred to be strong, but another goal was to for the breed to have a lowered prey drive.
The reason why they’re so dangerous is because if one does become aggressive, then it is more than capable of completely ripping you apart. There are, however, breeds of dogs designed to defend livestock and homes (attacking intruders like animals or humans), but most of those are very rarely banned because they’re typically trained by a professional instead of a random chav who wants a dog to boost his ego because he can’t own a gun. Some examples are: Komondors, Great Pyrenees, Tibetan Mastiffs, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and yes, Pitbulls (but not bullies).
Any dog can be trained to be aggressive (except maybe golden retrievers). Any dog can be mishandled, abused, beaten, or otherwise conditioned to lash out at someone. Stop blaming the dog and instead blame the human. The dog does what it’s been trained to do and if it’s been improperly trained, then it will appear to act erratically and lash out at random people, regardless of whether they’re a threat.
citation needed
It's in the name numbnut, Pit bull, it's a pit fighter dog.
Advocating to ban a dog breed because humans are pieces of shit is like saying we should ban climate activism because some climate activists engage in eco-terrorism.
I’d love for you to try to explain that simile.
I was trying to come up with a simile that people would be upset about. If I said, “it’s like saying we should ban Republicans because of the white supremacists” then people would be saying, “yeah, we should ban Republicans”. If I said, “it’s like banning Russians because of the war in Ukraine” there are a lot of people who’d unironically agree with that.
I know it’s not a perfect simile; there’s likely a growing number of people who believe that eco-terrorism is quickly becoming a necessity if we hope to have a chance of surviving the next 20yrs. However, there are a still a lot of people who’d tell you that blowing up an oil rig or assassinating the CEO of BP is too extreme.
American Bully XL
Dog breed or energy drink?
McDonald's order. "I'll have the American Bully XL, please, with a diet soda as I'm watching my figure."
Same goes for EVERYTHING. The civilised world banned guns for less. USA still have cock fighting and bullriding. Like wtf. Of course responsible owners can handle a dog of that breed. Problem is those fanged weapons attract shitty people.
Cockfighting is illegal in every state in the USA.
Goddamn homophobes smh
En garde! 8==D
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
