We all need that
We all need that
108 comments
-
Our Great Dane was like that. Always had to have his moose or lamb chop
-
A true badass has no qualms about carrying their woobie in public.
-
Show this dog a picture of Xi Jinping.
-
Pitbulls need a muzzle and a cage.
Edit: I don't know who's downvoting the truth because it's inconvenient, but I sure hope a Pitbull doesn't catch you with your head in the sand 🙄.
Edit 2: funny how you can easily compare the people who deny reality in the comments below with MAGA, seeing as both groups look at data and choose to ignore it.
Edit 3 because people don't believe a single source apparently:
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
"Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you'll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed's behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: "Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of "[s]everal interacting factors" that determine a dog's likelihood to attack. 21"
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
"As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs"
Here's one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
-
This "data" may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady...
DogsBite.org accuses several organizations of being "co-opted by the 'pit bull lobby', a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters."
"The site's founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as 'science removed,' which alone is enough to discredit her claims."
In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org's claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading.
When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.
-
You're not even on the right website, troll.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
-
The problem is the misuse of statistics. I want to see a chart that looks at number of child attacks based on if the dog was trained to attack people or defend a home. From there, look at breed.
People buy and train pitbulls for protection. It's called a confounding factor.
If you look at just the result but not the cause you miss the point. That's how people use statistics to lie. That's why you're getting shit.
-
Having grown up with a pitbull I am afraid you are full of it. They are great dogs, but no matter how well trained they are unpredictable. Until you have seen a pitbull latch onto something that is alive you will never understand what this bread is capable of.
I absolutely loved that dog and I would never recommend the bread for anyone. That is how unpredictable it is. I know of seven people with facial scars from pitbulls. There is no other bread like it.
-
-
I'm not going to engage with this poster specifically since they seem to be trolling, but if anyone else cares I did some research.
The image they posted is from a site called World Animal Foundation, and their information comes from only one source: dogsbite.org (incorrectly spelled Dog Bite org above).
dogsbite.org's primary concern is self-disclosed as being the gathering of data of fatal dog attacks in an effort to increase knowledge of what they consider to be dangerous breeds with what they say is the intention of advocating for victims.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php
This means the organization is not focused primarily on non-biased academic research. They're interested in proving a theory that they believe to be true, primarily, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
Their methodology involves primarily scanning a vast amount of media outlets for dog attacks with some supplemental coverage. Their identification methods seem to primarily be photos and social media. They do not mention DNA or professional veterinary verification.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatality-citations-data-collection.php
I would determine the organization's data is compromised by several forms of bias, including reporting bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, and observer bias. You can find a brief overview of biases in the link below.
https://casp-uk.net/news/different-types-of-research-bias/
Proper data collection should be handled by a third party and the research should also be reviewed by a third party.
An article published by JAVMA in 2000 investigates the issues of expensive DNA testing, and the importance of reliable identification.
Another article published in 2022 by the National Canine Research Council concluded that breed was not a good indicator for behavior.
**tldr; **
Maybe don't just blindly trust a single infographic from random strangers on the internet.
-
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
"Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you'll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed's behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: "Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of "[s]everal interacting factors" that determine a dog's likelihood to attack. 21"
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
"As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs"
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I've listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here's one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
-
-
-
Anecdotally speaking, I walk around town for exercise and I've crossed paths with a disproportionate number of Pit bulls/Pit mixes and the only dog to ever bite me while I was out was a goddamn Bichon Frisé.
-
I was attacked by a pitbull/boxer mix, in my own bed! Luckily I was able to subdue the creature, leaving it incapacitated.
-
Rub his belly! And chin. Immediately.
-
-
I don't know why you brought that discussion up when the dog in the picture is clearly an all-black mastiff...
-
That sort of misidentification is another reason that dog bite statistics are unreliable; they depend not on rigorous breed identification but on amateurs' identification based on physical traits shared by bull dogs, mastiffs and terriers. Artificially group dog bite reports involving a dozen unrelated breeds or mixes together under the misidentification "pit bull" and yeah, you make pit bulls sound scary.
Even when properly applied to pit bull type dogs, the term "pit bull" is imprecise because as wikiipedia states "pit bull is an umbrella term for several types of dog believed to have descended from bull and terriers. In the United States, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog, along with any crossbred dog that shares certain physical characteristics with these."
Anyone who argues that breed is a reliable indicator of violent behavior and refuses to acknowledging the lack of reliability of eye witness breed identification on the basis of appearance is arguing in bad faith.
-
-
First off, the infographic you posted doesn't even spell the name of the propaganda site it cites properly (dogsbite[dot]org). Just because it's a .org doesn't grant it instant legitimacy. It's one woman (Colleen Lynn) with a vendetta. (You don't still believe the disproven and later retracted "study" about vaccines causing autism now, do you?)
Second, engage in some critical thinking. (I know, you weren't bred to do so - but it isn't your fault!). Do many people keep these several dog breeds for home and family protection, and do they similarly neglect and fail to train their dogs? To use your own irresponsible analogy where several breeds of dogs = guns, yes, many people own guns and don't follow proper safety practices with them. And we've also decided as a society that even with many undereducated people doing stupid things with guns that education is part of a larger solution. Please educate yourself further, unless you're just here to stir up trouble.
-
Oof" my sister thinks .org means trustworthy. I can't convince her otherwise :[
-
Wrong website, troll. Educate yourself further.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
-
-
Hm, Berlin has statistics for dog bites and the Pitbull hasn't bitten the most people. Link: https://www.berlin.de/sen/verbraucherschutz/aufgaben/hundehaltung/hundebiss-statistik-1485418.php
Edit: Also found the Austrian statistics. The Pitbull is still not the dog with the most bites. Link (there is a csv download on the site): https://www.data.gv.at/katalog/dataset/bissstatistik#resources
-
The data is for the US. Your anecdotal evidence for other places with less pitbulls thanks to them having regulations is just an attempt at trolling.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
-
-
Oh God fucking dammit, you people are here too?!
-
What a bad attempt at bait.
-
-
That's not a pitbull, it's a Cane corso or another type of mastiff. That people so frequently misidentify various breeds as "pit bulls" is one of the factors that makes the statistics you cite unreliable. Even "pit bull" isn't a specific breed designation. Any breed or mix with a boxy head and deep chest is likely to be mistaken for a pit bull.
-
If the police shoot it and it doesnt look like a Rottweiler or Doberman, its a pit bull.
-
-
I'm not sure what to believe, but i heard that "pitbull" isn't really a breed of dog, and rather a label applied to any dog that was trained to fight. So fighting dogs fight. No surprise there. But this certainly makes it sound like it's not the dogs to blame for the injuries, but the POS humans who trained them to fight.
-
The American pitbull is a breed, though there are others.
The dogs are notorious for their violence and literally were bred to fight. If you think a Labrador retriever is naturally a good retriever because it's been bred for those traits it's not exactly hard to see how a dog bred for generations to literally kill for sport might be problematic.
-
First of all, pitbulls are a breed of dog. Don't be ignorant and look it up.
Second of all, ofc we don't blame the dogs, non-sapient beings who don't even know what blame is 🙄🙄🙄.
But the same way you don't blame a gun and still leave it out of reach of children, you need to muzzle and cage dangerous dogs who were bred for fighting. Simple as.
Edit: I hope the children of people who downvoted me have plenty of access to guns and pitbulls, since clearly I'm wrong in your eyes 😊.
Edit 2: Oh and if you disagree and report me for violence, you're a hypocrite. Since those are the things I'm saying to keep away from anyone to begin with.
-
-
pit bull is literally holding his pooh bear he could not be more muzzled than that
-
don't buy a pitbull then
-
Oh I won't.
-
-
Interesting. I expected huskies to be higher, granted, maybe they are for straight dog bites. Pitts, huskies, Malinois are the ones I’ve seen the most. Followed by the occasional Shepard.
-
Last I saw Golden Retrievers were the highest number of dog bites in the U.S. May be different now. I assume it's mostly because there are so many Golden's, and most people are embarrassed to report they got but by a Chihuahua.
-
-
Pitbull is not a breed. It's just another term for mutt used to describe mixed breeds of dogs that were once used for animal fighting. So a Pitbull/Boxer mix could be 87.5% boxer and 1/8 English Bulldog for all anyone knows.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) is a dog breed recognized by the United Kennel Club (UKC)[1] and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA),[2] but not the American Kennel Club (AKC).[3]
-
-
Gtfo.
-
Same to you, troll.
-
-
108 comments