Current Events > C/D: Pitbulls are aggressive dogs and shouldn't be be pets

(+) Yeah! (+)

KillerKhan420 posted...

Confirm, they are pre disposed to violence. They were bred to fight.

Owners of the breed should have background checks on them and have mandatory training programs they have to attend.

This.
---

GregShmedley posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

I got you butthurt, so it wasn't for nothing ;)

lol wut?

Now you're just coming off slightly desperate for an e-win.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Yeah, you not caring to think any of this through is TOTALLY his fault. Shut the hell up, bonehead.

Keep "lol"ing at yourself.

El. Oh. El.

Shuto-uke posted...

He actually gave me more material. I forgot that one of the typical reactions of pro-pitbull people is "lmao you made your argument and I am going like LALALALALA can't hear you" as well.

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

Imagine typing all that for nothing LOLOLOL XD LOLOLOLOLOLLLLIL XDDD LOLOLOLLLLLL LMFAOLMFAO
---

D

There's no real correlation between dog breeds and aggresiveness. However there are breeds that are very dangerous if they are aggressive, pitbulls are one of those breeds
---

Major C. A deadly animals license should be required to own pits and other seriously dangerous dogs, if not an outright ban
---

PIITB415 posted...

Except there is a ton of data that pitbulls are too aggressive and literally the face of dog attacks. Source: do your own research

It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better compared to only 77% of the general dog population.

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers.

Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test. The achievement of Pit Bulls in this study disproves that they are inherently aggressive to people. (Please visit ATTS.org)

I did my research and posted facts, unlike basically ever anti pit bull person in this topic.

This study examined the association between ownership of high-risk (vicious) dogs and the presence of deviant behaviors in the owners as indicated by court convictions. We also explored whether two characteristics of dog ownership (abiding licensing laws and choice of breed) could be useful areas of inquiry when assessing risk status in settings where children are present. Our matched sample consisted of 355 owners of either licensed or cited dogs that represented high or low-risk breeds. Categories of criminal convictions examined were aggressive crimes, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, crimes involving children, firearm convictions, and major and minor traffic citations. Owners of cited high-risk (vicious) dogs had significantly more criminal convictions than owners of licensed low-risk dogs. Findings suggest that the ownership of a high-risk (vicious) dog can be a significant marker for general deviance and should be an element considered when assessing risk for child endangerment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065657

Each year, 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs. Of those bitten each year, 386,000 are seriously injured and some killed. Consequently, many insurance companies refuse to issue homeowners insurance to owners of specific breeds of dogs considered "vicious" or high risk of causing injury. This study examined whether vicious dog owners were different on antisocial behaviors and personality dimensions. A total of 869 college students completed an anonymous online questionnaire assessing type of dog owned, criminal behaviors, attitudes towards animal abuse, psychopathy, and personality. The sample was divided into four groups: vicious dog owners, large dog owners, small dog owners, and controls. Findings revealed vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners. Vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy. Study results suggest that vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302402

A total of 166 owners of high risk dogs were compared with 189 owners of low risk dogs. The high risk dog owners had nearly 10 times more criminal convictions than other dog owners. Breaking the data down by categories of criminal behavior they found that high risk dog owners were 6.8 times more likely to be convicted of an aggressive crime, 2.8 times more likely to have carried out a crime involving children, 2.4 times more likely to have perpetrated domestic violence, and 5.4 times more likely to have an alcohol related conviction when compared to low risk dog owners.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/200903/psychological-characteristics-owners-aggressivedog-breeds

It's no secret that if a pitbull wants to kill something it is better at it then any other dog. But Pit bull owners are 10x more likely to be criminals for reasons i already mentioned.
---

Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726

So until one of you anti-pit people is able to post counter facts, I am perfectly happy dismissing every one of you because of your ignorance and failure to make an actual argument. Every single anti-pit person in this topic has only posted anecdotes, no facts whatsoever.

On the other hand if you make an actual argument that isn't "Nuh ah!" and is based on statistics or facts, I will gladly have a discussion.
---

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

Shuto-uke posted...

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

How about every single fact I posted just before your most recent post?

Two of which from separate sources say pitsbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

How about every single fact I posted just before your most recent post?

Two of which from separate sources say pitsbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.

So you can't give me a single point. Got it.

Shuto-uke posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

How about every single fact I posted just before your most recent post?

Two of which from separate sources say pitsbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.

So you can't give me a single point. Got it.

Oh so you are that kinda of person. When presented with facts you cannot refute you simply ignore the information that goes against whatever you are trying to prove. Good to know that nothing you say is of any value and it's better to simply ignore you.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

How about every single fact I posted just before your most recent post?

Two of which from separate sources say pitsbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.

So you can't give me a single point. Got it.

Oh so you are that kinda of person. When presented with facts you cannot refute you simply ignore the information that goes against whatever you are trying to prove. Good to know that nothing you say is of any value and it's better to simply ignore you.

give me ONE fact. I'm waiting

D.

Facts dont care about your feelings. Pitts arent violent.

Shuto-uke posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

How about every single fact I posted just before your most recent post?

Two of which from separate sources say pitsbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.

So you can't give me a single point. Got it.

Oh so you are that kinda of person. When presented with facts you cannot refute you simply ignore the information that goes against whatever you are trying to prove. Good to know that nothing you say is of any value and it's better to simply ignore you.

give me ONE fact. I'm waiting

See post 156 and 157, all facts and statistics vs your "nothing" argument.
---

D
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

GregShmedley posted...

You had a terrible argument. It was even close to one. But it isn't the first time I've seen you make a cringey post so

yeah because your pitbull bingo bullshit points are good, lmao.

Give me ONE good point, come on. Whatever you can come up with I can dismantle.

How about every single fact I posted just before your most recent post?

Two of which from separate sources say pitsbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.

So you can't give me a single point. Got it.

Oh so you are that kinda of person. When presented with facts you cannot refute you simply ignore the information that goes against whatever you are trying to prove. Good to know that nothing you say is of any value and it's better to simply ignore you.

give me ONE fact. I'm waiting

See post 156 and 157, all facts and statistics vs your "nothing" argument.

still can't do it. Ok.

Ok, you are marked as "ignores facts, troll" engaging you any further is pointless. Thank you for making that clear have a wonderful day :D
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Ok, you are marked as "ignores facts, troll" engaging you any further is pointless. Thank you for making that clear have a wonderful day :D

you could not make ONE argument. Damn. I gave you so many chances.

Though breeders, realizing the pit bull was an attractive dog when it wasn't scrapping, bred a less feisty versionthe American Staffordshire terrier ("Pete" of the old Our Gang comedy series is a well-known representative)the pit-bull terrier is first and last a fighting dog. Its breeding history separates it from other tough dogs like Doberman pinschers and rottweilers, which have been bred to guard their masters and their property. Pit bulls are genetically wired to kill other dogs.

The pit bull's unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist's science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothinghoses, violent blows or kickscan easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: "The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave," The Economist suggests.

Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are"so they don't have to fight," ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals whoin a bizarre but emotionally charged confusionequates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of "racist propaganda," the pit bull is a breed apart.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/scared-pit-bulls-you%E2%80%99d-better-be-11995.html

I had my dog attacked by Staffordshire before, without any reason, or single bark, running up to her at full speed, throwing her on the ground, and literally going for the throat. If not dogs owner, my dog could be dead, cause i couldn't do anything to stop it. I also had an experience with 'bad pit bull owners', who would train their dogs on cats or homeless people, cause otherwise 'dog is bored and depressed if he have nothing to fight'. And while this kind of owners exist, pit bull type dogs should be licensed as deadly weapon.
People can go as much they want about 'bad owners' and 'good pit bulls', but you can't argue that IF pit bull type dogs would attack, they are the most deadliest. Discussions about every dog can bite is pointless, cause not every dog bite to kill.

vocedelmorte posted...

https://www.city-journal.org/html/scared-pit-bulls-you%E2%80%99d-better-be-11995.html

I had my dog attacked by Staffordshire before, without any reason, or single bark, running up to her at full speed, throwing her on the ground, and literally going for the throat. If not dogs owner, my dog could be dead, cause i couldn't do anything to stop it. I also had an experience with 'bad pit bull owners', who would train their dogs on cats or homeless people, cause otherwise 'dog is bored and depressed if he have nothing to fight'. And while this kind of owners exist, pit bull type dogs should be licensed as deadly weapon.
People can go as much they want about 'bad owners' and 'good pit bulls', but you can't argue that IF pit bull type dogs would attack, they are the most deadliest. Discussions about every dog can bite is pointless, cause not every dog bite to kill.

The article you posted doesn't cite ANY sources whatsoever. It might as well be a blog post.

I do agree, that if a pitbull intends to kill it is most definitely one of the most efficient dogs at doing so.

However the article you posted (with no cited facts or statistics) does NOT change the following:

Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better compared to only 77% of the general dog population.

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers.

Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test. The achievement of Pit Bulls in this study disproves that they are inherently aggressive to people.(Please visit ATTS.org)
---

Oh look, even more articles refuting the claim that pitbulls are more aggressive than other dogs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250172893_Are_Pit_Bulls_Different_An_Analysis_of_the_Pit_Bull_Terrier_Controversy

I have yet to see single article or statistics proving pitbulls are "more aggressive" than other dogs. Everytime the phrase "pitbulls are more aggessive" is used, it's promptly followed by an anecdote and no facts or statistics.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Oh look, even more articles refuting the claim that pitbulls are more aggressive than other dogs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250172893_Are_Pit_Bulls_Different_An_Analysis_of_the_Pit_Bull_Terrier_Controversy

I have yet to see single article or statistics proving pitbulls are "more aggressive" than other dogs. Everytime the phrase "pitbulls are more aggessive" is used, it's promptly followed by an anecdote and no facts.

you refused to engage me on debating even ONE of your "facts", you couldn't bring up ONE "fact", you don't get to come back with random strawmen now to keep this going

GregShmedley posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

ARe you able to refute any of the facts or statistics I posted in #157, #157, or #172?

Easy killer. He's on our side.

xD my bad... I apologize to Gladius, I read that completely opposite of what it was actually stating and deleted my post. For some reason I read anti-pitbull as pitbull owners.

Upon re-reading his post, I agree with what he is stating entirely.

You know the crazy thing is, I don't even own a pitbull or a dog at all for that matter.
I just don't like how obtuse and ignorant anti-pitbull people tend to be.
---

GregShmedley posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

ARe you able to refute any of the facts or statistics I posted in #157, #157, or #172?

Easy killer. He's on our side.

lmao dustin, i rest my case

Ok, now, for a more serious conversation, some people think that pitbulls should be banned and they should not be sold to people.

I disagree. How's that for a surprise?

The problem is they've been bred for dog fighting, and that obviously means aggression.

All you have to do is license both, breeders and owners. Breeders must be licensed and commit to breed out the aggression gene (only breed the nicer pitbulls), and all dogs they sell must be sterilized before selling. Owners need to be licensed to on how to handle a potentially dangerous dog, and must commit to not use them for stuff that's more aggressive in nature, even if legal, such as guard dogs, protection, etc.

Within 3 or 4 generations, if the breeders did breed the nice ones only, the breed will be harmless like a labrador.

Based on the fact that statistically pitbulls are no more aggressive then any other dog, means nothing needs to be done about the dog itself.

If you want to get a pit bull or other "dangerous dog breeds" you should need a background check just like getting a gun requires. Anything related to dangerous crimes, prior animal welfare issues, etc. would remove you from being able to acquire a pitbull.

You will still run in to "illegal pitbull owners," but it would do wonders for changing the mistaken public view that "pitbulls are more aggressive than other dogs"

It would also help to hopefully lower that fact that convicted criminals are 10x more likely to own pitbulls and hopefully reduce the problem of "bad owners" owning a dog that can be very dangerous depending on how it's raised.
---

I'm okay with better standards for breeders. I'm also for dog owner education, perhaps provided by shelters.

But the suggestion to "breed out the aggression gene" is a bit more sketchy. Firstly, that sort of selective breeding isn't necessarily that easy because breeding for aggression isn't as simple as looking for an "aggressive trait." Dogs become aggressive for various reasons, and not all reasons are necessarily created equal. Pitbulls may be desired as guard dogs, after all.

Secondly, there's a question as to how aggressive the breed really is. The thing about pitbulls is that they're powerful. It may not be the case that they are on the whole the most aggressive dog breed, but that they can do more damage faster when they are. And since dog fighters use various non-breeding methods to encourage aggression, it's not all that easy to determine the nature to nurture ratio.

Not to say that breeders can't try to focus on the nicer pitbulls of the litter. Hell, I'm sure some already do just that. But I don't think that's where efforts should be prioritized.

so much arguing when the simple fact is that if you have a functioning brain, the reports about pitbulls attacking kids and killing other dogs add up more than other breeds.

i guess you could argue that pitbull attacks could be reported more often, but again, there are no precious facts and statistics to back that up, when all you need to do is google pit bull attack

viewmaster_pi posted...

so much arguing when the simple fact is that if you have a functioning brain, the reports about pitbulls attacking kids and killing other dogs add up more than other breeds.

i guess you could argue that pitbull attacks could be reported more often, but again, there are no precious facts and statistics to back that up, when all you need to do is google pit bull attack

People with functioning brains look at all the facts, not some of the facts.

Dragonblade01 posted...

People with functioning brains look at all the facts, not some of the facts.

yes, and they can still come to different conclusions than you

viewmaster_pi posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

People with functioning brains look at all the facts, not some of the facts.

yes, and they can still come to different conclusions than you

Only if they aren't intelligent enough to parse the facts/statistics that already exist.

The bottom line is statistically, pitbulls are no more aggressive then other dogs.
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726
https://atts.org/

They are also statistically nearly 10x more likely to be owned by criminals (bad owners)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/200903/psychological-characteristics-owners-aggressivedog-breeds

Statistically most dog bite fatalities have preventable factors and breed is NOT one of them.
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726

They also are one of the most lethal dogs if not properly raised because of the muscle structure and the fact that they are very determined in anything they do. So if they DO attack, they are must more likely to succeed at their goal then other dog breeds.

Your opinion is absolutely your own, that much is true.
But statistics are against you, unless you look at ONLY one factor.
---

viewmaster_pi posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

People with functioning brains look at all the facts, not some of the facts.

yes, and they can still come to different conclusions than you

Sure, anyone can come to any conclusion. That doesn't mean all conclusions are equally justified.

D

All animals should be legal to own that includes large cats (lions/tigers/jaguars/etc), bears, birds of prey (eagles/falcons), any animal from Africa, any animal from Asia, any animal from South America, etc. As long as you can keep it in your own property.

darkstar4221 posted...

D

All animals should be legal to own that includes large cats (lions/tigers/jaguars/etc), birds of prey (eagles/falcons), any animal from Africa, any animal from Asia, any animal from South America, etc. As long as you can keep it in your own property.

Yeah, I don't think so.
---

darkstar4221 posted...

D

All animals should be legal to own that includes large cats (lions/tigers/jaguars/etc), birds of prey (eagles/falcons), any animal from Africa, any animal from Asia, any animal from South America, etc. As long as you can keep it in your own property.

Terrible idea...
---

D. It depends on how their owners treat them.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

darkstar4221 posted...

D

All animals should be legal to own that includes large cats (lions/tigers/jaguars/etc), birds of prey (eagles/falcons), any animal from Africa, any animal from Asia, any animal from South America, etc. As long as you can keep it in your own property.

Terrible idea...

Especially with the arrogant and nonchalant mindset most owners of "exotic" pets have. Unless you are rich with a fortitude of barricades around your home, only the worst of people would think taking a lion or a 20 foot anaconda from the wild and caging it in an area 99% smaller than their natural habitat would think they could contain it.
---

thanosibe posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

darkstar4221 posted...

D

All animals should be legal to own that includes large cats (lions/tigers/jaguars/etc), birds of prey (eagles/falcons), any animal from Africa, any animal from Asia, any animal from South America, etc. As long as you can keep it in your own property.

Terrible idea...

Especially with the arrogant and nonchalant mindset most owners of "exotic" pets have. Unless you are rich with a fortitude of barricades around your home, only the worst of people would think taking a lion or a 20 foot anaconda from the wild and caging it in an area 99% smaller than their natural habitat would think they could contain it.

Mike Tyson would disagree
---

thanosibe posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

darkstar4221 posted...

D

All animals should be legal to own that includes large cats (lions/tigers/jaguars/etc), birds of prey (eagles/falcons), any animal from Africa, any animal from Asia, any animal from South America, etc. As long as you can keep it in your own property.

Terrible idea...

Especially with the arrogant and nonchalant mindset most owners of "exotic" pets have. Unless you are rich with a fortitude of barricades around your home, only the worst of people would think taking a lion or a 20 foot anaconda from the wild and caging it in an area 99% smaller than their natural habitat would think they could contain it.

Many people have successful raised lions and anacondas. At the same time there are people who were killed by their pet lion, it really depends on the owner. But just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it should be illegal to own. There is millions of examples of so called "wild animals" behaving no different than a domestic dog or cat and very happy living with their owner. For example the government makes it illegal to own wolves, but it's been proven that wolves are sometimes even tamer than your typical domestic dog.

I believe owning what type of pet you want in your own property is a fundamental right. It's a shame in the 21st century that the government has convinced everyone that wild animals cannot be "pets" even though evidence suggest otherwise.

I'm glad the majority of CE agrees that pitbulls should not be pets.
---

PIITB415 posted...

I'm glad the majority of CE agrees that pitbulls should not be pets.

The majority of CE doesn't know what one actually looks like.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

PIITB415 posted...

I'm glad the majority of CE agrees that pitbulls should not be pets.

The majority of CE doesn't know what one actually looks like.

What does that even mean? That's like suggesting the majority of CE doesn't know what a Ford F150 looks like.
---

PIITB415 posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

PIITB415 posted...

I'm glad the majority of CE agrees that pitbulls should not be pets.

The majority of CE doesn't know what one actually looks like.

What does that even mean? That's like suggesting the majority of CE doesn't know what a Ford F150 looks like.

Just what I said, most people don't know what an actual Pit Bull looks like. A lot of people think that any muscular, short haired dog is a Pit Bull or Pit mix of sort.

I remember posting a pic of different breeds on this board with one American Pit Bull Terrier and no one got it right.
---