In retaliation to the Pit bull haters,

I am convinced this is a troll.
Retaliation to haters posted in a wholesome sub.
Pit Bulls being the most hated breed of dog out there (and for good reason).
OP calling everyone a "Dog Racist"
Each year 60% to 80% of dog attacks are caused by a single breed, fuck these animals. A Chihuahua may be more aggressive, but a person can easily fight those things off, a pit will lock onto anything and won't release till they're dead.
Retrievers retrieve, Pointers point & Pit Bulls are made to fight, its in their nature.
Edit: go ahead and down vote OP. Watch as that doesn't change my opinion.
- fuck these animals
  Eh the animals did nothing wrong. They didn't ask to be born as the artificially selected abominations we've made them into. Fuck people who continue to breed these animals and don't spay/neuter their pits.
- Yeah, I wouldn't say I'm a hater. I just have a healthy skepticism driven by statistics and a distaste for the way the breed is marketed/treated by people.
- This is bullshit. In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that's the end of your line of reasoning. You simply don't know and cannot say their "nature."
  They were bred for hunting. Some people used some of them for fighting dogs years after they were first bred and used for decades as hunting dogs. Of the few that were used in fighting, dogs that bit humans were not allowed to fight and so were euthanized
  Edit: abject know-nothings and science deniers downvoting me.
  
  They were bred explicitly for fighting. First fighting bulls in pits, hence Pitbull. That was outlawed. It was deemed unfair to pit different animals against each other in a fight. So pitbulls were then bred to fight other dogs.
  Pitbulls were killed when they wouldn't fight, or were beat by another dog. The breeders didn't care about them bitting humans. They wouldn't keep them as pets as they were for fighting.
  
  In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that's the end of your line of reasoning.
  Are you able to provide a link or a study stating this, or are you just providing your opinion here? Happy to have this discussion. But you seem to just be angrily dismissing my comment out of disagreement rather than facts.
  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. It was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog. To produce a lighter, faster, more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
  They were made primary for dog fighting, and fighting is ingrained into their nature, in the same way that retrievers were made to retrieve. I have also provided information in another comment here that breaks down the fatalities caused by dog breeds each year and pit bulls kill more than all other breeds combined.
  Even if they were bred for something else entirely a singular breed of dogs causing the majority of fatalities each year is clearly dangerous. So dangerous that something should be done to ensure the public's safety.
- I did not call everyone a dog rasict, I called the person say it was good that pitbull were being put down in the UK a dog rasict. But by your logic, we should have killed all Germans in WW2 because Germany was the home on the Nazi party and killed millions of people, but that's wrong because not every Germany killed a person. And to say that we should kill something because it's "in there nature" is harmful to all life because it sets an unrealistic expectation of what it is like. I'm not gonna deny that pitbulls attack people, but a dog rarely attacks people for nothing, and often the reason is out of fear or abuse.
  
  Dude if you have to bring up Nazi Germany to defend your stance then you have already lost.
  There are over 300 recognised dog breeds, and one of them is responsible for more than half of all attacks.
  
  Dogs aren't people. We kill it eliminate troublesome breeds/species all the time. Ex: Japanese hornet
- breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2% and German Shepherds were the third most dangerous breed, involved in 17.8% of bite incidents.
  where the fuck do you get 60-80%???
  also, 100% of dog fights use pit bulls…
  abused dogs lead to bites….
  aka, it’s the owner’s fault.
- I'd love a study on what kind of masters the bloodthirsty dogs have. I'm willing to bet those dogs had masters that encouraged the behavior or got them because the breed is macho and never intended to be responsible about it.
  
  Plenty of breeds of dogs are bought by bad owners with the intention of being used as attack dogs. But there is no way you can write off such an overwhelming percentage of pit bull attacks to this reasoning.
  Every time a pit bull attacks anything you will always see this argument brought up to defend the breed. If this was truly the case other breeds of dogs would be high up on the list too (Rottweilers and German Shepards come to mind). But they aren't even close to the percentage of Pit attacks.
  Some attacks can be attributed to this fact, but because pit bulls alone make a majority of attacks across all breeds indicates that this cannot be the case.
  Additionally out of all breeds of dog, I couldn't think of a worse breed biting me. All dogs attack, but many bite and release, pits don't.
- OP must be an American. Can’t convince me otherwise.
- Just a head's up but not a single police department in the nation DNA tests or even has a spot on their reports to label which specific breed of dog caused the attack, there is also roughly a dozen different breeds on the list of dogs commonly mistaken for pits.
  Anybody telling you pits are responsible for any percentage of dog attacks is lying by giving a number not scientifically achieved.
  
  In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/
  In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/
  In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.
  https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx
  
  there is also roughly a dozen different breeds on the list of dogs commonly mistaken for pits.
  Do you have any evidence to support this statement? It would need to be pretty substantial to offset the large proportion of Pit Bull breeds.
  I dont say this to be dismissive, I would actually be pretty interested in reading what you have.
  
  Uhm….what about 99% of videos ever posted about someone being attacked by a dog. And nobody is surprised when it’s a pitbull.

In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/
In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/
In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.
https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

Retaliation isn't very wholesome.
- Especially when some power fantasy tripping mod already removed the comments in question, so there isnt even anything to retaliate in response to.
  If it needs a CW(Content Warning) tag then it shouldnt be in a "wholesome" community. And yes obviously it needs that because countless people are traumatised by these kinds of dogs.

- "If". Pfft
  
  Might wanna check the comments again.

I had two roommates who both had pitbulls. Both very loving owners. These dogs were treated right. But they could not coexist.
After one fight too many, one of the owners got mauled by his own dog after trying to break the dogs up. He almost lost his hand.
Ban pitbulls.
- "BuT mY WiTtLe pRiNcEsS WoUlD NeVeR HuRt a FlY!"

So glad the UK outlawed these bully xl things. Not a day goes by it doesn't maul one child or another
- Fuckin dog racist.

What a shitty post.

They look so happy and fuzzy and cuddly

Every single pitbull I've met has been nothing but loving and kind. I understand the context about people who don't like them as they've probably seen things in the media about how pitbulls act, or something in a similar nature. I would believe that the media is just trying to get you scared, as I remember one time with a different story about a city I live nearby to, and how I said I was scared to go into the city due to the gun violence, when one of the people who live in the city said that they live in the hood, and have no trouble getting to where they need to go, which personally made me feel a lot better. That's what I currently believe this situation is like. I do understand that this may not change some opinions with some people, just think about it, please.
- You're dismissing the people who have made their opinion from the overwhelming scientific data on this subject.
  
  I consider that "media"

Just wondering? How hard is it for some of you to say "aww cute, doggy"or something like that?
- Holy shit this was an aggressive response.

I just want to scritch their cute memoryfoam heads.

Very cute dogs

I like pitbulls and don't know if this is bait (perhaps you didn't realize the obvious response you'd get?) but this post should be removed either way.
Worst comment section I've ever seen in this community
- There's two types of people: those who hate pitbulls, and those who's pitbull hasn't mauled someone yet.

I just want to say op, you have two great looking pups! I can guarantee Teddy is the best cuddler.
- They really are fucking adorable. 10/10 would give them snuggles and scratches.
  Then again, I also like 100% of animals, so 🤷‍♀️

Those aren't actually OPs dogs. This is a bait.
- Your right. One of them is my friends. I never claimed both were mine.

https://youtu.be/ccaNQ7etlNw?feature=shared
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  https://piped.video/ccaNQ7etlNw?feature=shared
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
- Its so odd how people defend the continued existence of these creatures.
  What kind of twisted brain do you need to have, to defend something that regularly attacks and injures, sometimes even kills completely innocent people.
  
  What kind of twisted brain do you need to have, to defend something that regularly attacks and injures, sometimes even kills completely innocent people.
  You also just described a human.
  
  Do you know what a snake is?

Wow, lots of people with strong feelings whose version of "I did my research!" is remembering what stories the newspapers wrote because they knew it would spark outrage and attract eyeballs, and hearsay on friend-of-a-friend stories.
So called "bully breeds" are the best dogs I've ever met. I fucking love cuddling with those meatheads. Cane Corsos, Dobermans, and Rottweilers are amazing, loyal, and loving, too.
I've been bitten and needed stitches from both a Chihuahua and a Poodle. My daughter was bit by a absolute shit of a Bichon, and my ex was bit by a Husky when she was a kid. Fuck those dogs we should outlaw and euthanize them all, right breed-banners? Or maybe it does indeed have to do a LOT with nurture, and very little with nature? (or in the case of my ex (according to her Mom) because she wouldn't stop harassing the dog).
However, I've met some nice poodles and chihuahuas and huskies too (not bichons though, little assholes), but I'm not so fucking dumb and shallow as to say we need to outlaw them all, just that owners should absolutely be responsible and liable for their pets' behaviour.
PS - OP your dogs are cute as hell. Look at those smiles!
- Chihuahuas are demonic little shits, and if they were the same size as a pitbull, they'd be banned everywhere. The only reason they're tolerated is because they're too small to do any major damage.
- Thank you, and yes, your absolutely right. Any dog is capable of violence, but I think the reason pitbulls have this reputation is because many people want them as an attack/defense dog and don't actually know how to care for them in a way that keeps them calm.
  
  This is the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.
  Sufficiently powerful projectile weapons require a license, training, etc. Dogs should be no different.
  
  Same could be said for Rotties, Dobermans, Shepherds, and so on. It's not the dogs that are shitty; it's the people that own them. Address that problem and leave the dogs alone FFS.
- I mean, it is a little bit about nature as the different dog breeds were bred for very specific purposes. That just puts responsibility on the owner to know about this and act accordingly (i possible, not every dog is a pure blood breed). And most importantly to know your dog and act accordingly.

Statistics by definition is presenting empirical data and that's what most people think of when they hear statistics. Most scientists studying statistics actually spend much more of their time developing and studying methods of data collection rather than crunching numbers. The reason for this is you cannot have meaning statistics if the data set is not accurate. And I love you all and your experiences matter but they bear no scientific weight.
4 out of 5 dentists agree that every time you see a static it's complete and total bullshit. Flawed data collection leads to flawed results which leads to flawed conclusions. But people sure do get excited when numbers validate their biases.

This is by far the worst thread I've seen on this site. Go back to Reddit, y'all.
- We're all very disappointed with your attitude.