Poll of the Day > Why do people with two at once pitbulls seem like they can't control them?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't see it quite as often because this summer is so hot, but a lot of people with a double pitbull leash seem like they dogs are yanking them all over the place. Especially at the vet or public hiking areas.

Because they can't and mostly poorly trained.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/9/0/AACE4xAADM1O.jpg

Its a single life form that camouflages itself as a human and two pit bulls, stay away from it and calmly look for help

Pitbulls are a great dog when properly trained, and they're an unstable, extremely violent dog when not.

A lot of really garbage people want an unhinged violent dog.

faramir77 posted...

Pitbulls are a great dog when properly trained, and they're an unstable, extremely violent dog when not.

A lot of really garbage people want an unhinged violent dog.

Yeah this.
Also I highly advise anyone NOT to rescue a pitbull, as you have no idea what it's been through, and what things might trigger it to attack.

pitbull attacked me while the stupid lazy bitch stood there and watched....

luckily I realized there was something off with the dogs behaviour, and was already starting to slowly back away.
only got scrapped skin on leg and arm (kept shoving my shoe in its face while backing away while it tried getting my leg).

also had a neighbor with a really big pitbull when I was a kid, the only way he would hurt you was by wagging his tail.

it's mostly the owners fault

Krazy_Kirby posted...

pitbull attacked me while the stupid lazy bitch stood there and watched....

luckily I realized there was something off with the dogs behaviour, and was already starting to slowly back away.
only got scrapped skin on leg and arm (kept shoving my shoe in its face while backing away while it tried getting my leg).

also had a neighbor with a really big pitbull when I was a kid, the only way he would hurt you was by wagging his tail.

it's mostly the owners fault

Yeah on a hike a lady with two pitbulls broke their leash and tried to attack my Dachshund. She was fined by the ranger.

It just seems like two pitbulls on a leash......is harder to control.

BigOlePappy posted...

Why do people with two at once pitbulls seem like they can't control them?

For the same reason why most people can't control two dogs at once period. Because they don't bother to train them and aren't good at keeping them disciplined.

You just notice it more with larger dogs, because they're stronger and can pull against leashes harder. And because larger, stronger dogs can do more damage when they're being assholes than, say, a poodle can (and poodles can be nasty fucking dogs). And because you can punt a poodle or a Pomeranian halfway across the room if one tries to attack you.



faramir77 posted...

Pitbulls are a great dog when properly trained, and they're an unstable, extremely violent dog when not.

Blatantly untrue.

Pitbulls are quite well-adjusted, loving, and relatively well-behaved even when untrained. They also rank pretty highly on the scale of intelligence by breed. Their main drawback is that they're larger, muscular (and often don't know their own strength), and overly energetic. The point of training is mostly to teach them to calm down and be obedient so you can keep them from hurting people without meaning to.

They're really only unstable and violent when they are trained to be. Either through deliberate training (by people who want them to be viscous for guard dog purposes) or casual abuse (by assholes). It's why you get the usual stereotype of the drug dealer who gets a pitbull and beats the shit out of it to make it hostile so it'll attack people. You have to make them that way. But you can make most dogs (or people) violent if you abuse them enough.

Like with most things, the actual problem is that people are shit.

Pitbulls are basically a breed that requires the owner to be both responsible and intelligent. Unfortunately, most pet owners (or people in general) are neither of those things these days. Which is part of why cats have become so popular as pets lately - because even the shittiest of people can own them and generally not screw them up through lack of effort. Cats exist. Dogs require work.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/5/AAbsMXAADkWx.jpg

Yellow posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/5/AAbsMXAADkWx.jpg

LMAO

Very few people are strong enough to hold back two pit bulls at once, given that each can pull somewhere in the range of 150 pounds, so the reason they seem like they can't control them is because they can't. That's why training is so important, since proper training minimizes the risk of being in a situation where you have to physically restrain them.

Lil69Leo posted...

Because they can't and mostly poorly trained.

Sums it up.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And because you can punt a poodle or a Pomeranian halfway across the room if one tries to attack you.

poodles are slightly smaller than a German shepherd

you aren't punting that

toy poodle, sure

but not a full poodle

Why does it seem like smaller women like to have two pitbulls on a chain at once. This isn't scientific of course. But it just seems that way to most people.

BigOlePappy posted...

Why does it seem like smaller women like to have two pitbulls on a chain at once. This isn't scientific of course. But it just seems that way to most people.

Because You Just Know

2/3 of human fatalities from dog attacks are the result of pitbulls and they kill countless numbers of other people's pets. Maybe it's the breed, maybe it's that the breed has a weird propensity to attract huge numbers of shit owners, maybe it's some combination of the two. I don't give a fuck. There are plenty of awesome breeds out there that don't tend to murder people even if they're trained poorly. Adopt some of those and ban pitbulls.

Because they can't control them, and they like it that way. People will walk around a person with two uncontrolled pitbulls, and this gives the pitbull person a false sense of superiority. This person thinks "I own this sidewalk/park, I am superior", when in fact people look down on them and their antisocial child endangering behaviour.

A couple of years ago me, my wife and our newborn were attacked in a park closeby by a pitbull owner and two pitbulls (they were not on a leash). Luckily my wife knows to keep really calm when fighting dogs are involved (she was bitten two times as a child) and called the police, after which they went away. It was mostly the owner who was aggressive, the dogs were more confused than aggressive.

Yellow posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/5/AAbsMXAADkWx.jpg

Lool

jiffdiff posted...

2/3 of human fatalities from dog attacks are the result of pitbulls and they kill countless numbers of other people's pets. Maybe it's the breed, maybe it's that the breed has a weird propensity to attract huge numbers of shit owners, maybe it's some combination of the two. I don't give a fuck. There are plenty of awesome breeds out there that don't tend to murder people even if they're trained poorly. Adopt some of those and ban pitbulls.

You're roughly 3-4 times more likely to be murdered by a randomly selected human than killed by a randomly selected pit bull. Just saiyan.

adjl posted...

You're roughly 3-4 times more likely to be murdered by a randomly selected human than killed by a randomly selected pit bull. Just saiyan.

But they kill other people's pets...

Also, you don't have to be killed to be life-alteringly maimed

adjl posted...

You're roughly 3-4 times more likely to be murdered by a randomly selected human than killed by a randomly selected pit bull. Just saiyan.

This sounds totally made up

69% of internet statistics are made up on the spot

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=StewolppbGA

FatalAccident posted...

This sounds totally made up

Saying 3-4 times is a rough estimate on my part that that wasn't based on having the numbers in front of me, but I actually gathered the stats and did the math myself for an old topic on the matter. That was in the context of arguing whether banning dog breeds was comparable to racism and a number of people (I replied specifically to Jen, in this instance) expressed some concern about the notion of comparing violent animals to minorities. I took that a step further and compared violent animals to people of all races:

Jen0125 posted...
And you believe it appropriate to compare the movement to try to ban violent dogs to.. Minorities? Okay. Lol surprising but okay.

adjl posted...
More accurately, to compare a movement to try to ban certain dog breeds to a hypothetical movement to try to ban certain minorities. That does not rely on comparing minorities to violent dogs, only on comparing the rationale behind it.

However, since you seem to want to make the comparison between dogs and people, let's try it on for size:

Pit bulls in the US - ~4.5 million
Deaths by pit bulls in the US - ~27 per year (65% of 40 overall dog deaths)
Deaths per million pit bulls per year - 6.0 (I'm unreasonably happy this ended up being an integer >.>)

White people in the US - ~234.3 million (in 2017)
Murders by white people in US - 3011 (in 2018)
Murders per million white people in 2018 - 12.9

Black people in the US - 40.6 million (in 2017)
Murders by black people in the US - 3177 (in 2018)
Murders per million black people in 2018 - 775.3

People of other races in the US - 35.9 million
Murders by Other - 207
Murders per million Other in 2018 - 5.8

It would appear that, if we accept the premise that there should be a ban on breeding pit bulls because of how dangerous they are, it would be logically consistent to also have ban on breeding white and black humans, as any given member of either race is significantly more likely to kill somebody than any given pit bull. The "Other" category could stand to be broken down further, but given that its average is so close to that of the pit bulls', I expect this logic would also support banning several of them.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures

I didn't calculate an overall figure, but it's easy enough to do that now and arrive at 6395/310.8M=20.6 murders per million humans in the US. 20.6/6.0 is 3.43, conveniently in the middle of the range that I stated. While it was at least partially made up, it seems I got lucky and my rough recollection of the actual numbers was good enough for my estimate to be accurate. Go me, I guess.

BigOlePappy posted...

But they kill other people's pets...

Also, you don't have to be killed to be life-alteringly maimed

I have indeed not done the same analysis for injuries or pet deaths. Just to vaguely intuit it instead of collecting real data, I expect human injuries would work out pretty similarly, operating under the assumption that roughly as many dog attacks end up being fatal as assaults end up turning into murder. Pet deaths are probably higher, though.

Personally, I just think the owner of any given pet (as well as whoever's supposed to be in control of them at the time) should be held liable for any crimes committed by their pet. Your dog kills someone? You're up for murder 2 (first-degree would be almost impossible to prove). Your dog injures someone? Assault causing bodily harm. Your dog kills someone's pet? Also murder 2. Some degree of exception would need to be made for trained rescuers who did their due diligence to prevent those outcomes and it just wasn't enough, but passing those charges on to whoever trained the dog to misbehave like that in the first place might be reasonable. That would at least act as a deterrent against training aggression into dogs and against people who don't know what they're doing trying to adopt a rescue that has the potential to turn dangerous if mishandled, without needing to go so far as to outright ban them.