Should pit bulls be regulated or banned?

[Aclion]

that's some dark fuckin mad libs right there.

Pun intended?

That's not punny.

[Heloin]

28. You're far more likely to buy a Rolls-Royce Phantom or get struck by lightning.

And pit bull ownership; or the legality thereof; does nothing to prevent lightning strike deaths.

To put it in perspective, you're arguing that in order to stop lightning strikes we need to ban the sky.

[Ifreann]

Found the ATF agent.

[Scomagia]

No. That's stupid. The amount of people injured by all dogs is seriously low. The amount of serious injuries and fatalities is even lower. You are more likely to die choking on a hot dog than you are to be killed by a dog. Drastically more likely. Ban hotdogs!

I don't know of any case wherein negligence around a hotdog lead to the hotdog breaking into someone else's home and mauling them, though that has happened with dogs, especially pit bulls, many times. There's a difference between the type of negligence where you're putting yourself in danger (climbing on an unstable ladder, never wearing eye or ear protection when handling heavy equipment, having sex with random strangers who might have STDs) and the type where you're putting others in danger (drunk driving, texting and driving, having an unsecured dangerous animal).

Pitbulls cannot kill bulls on their own. Jesus Christ. That's like calling hounds "cougar killers" or Catahoulas "boar killers". It's dumb. So very dumb.

Well this is false.
https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Bellefonte-farmers-speaking-out-after-dogs-attacked-cattle--512238501.html?fbclid=IwAR0UwL5pYd1aCEtn85ZCZCde-iaBEqqAz2PbwiWbZyA-GR5GvlOjdCV-JVw
They mostly kill calves but can also destroy the mouths of cows, preventing them from eating.

They can also kill horses among other large animals such as alpacas and donkeys, which can distinctly not be killed by wiener dogs.

It hasn't happened "many times". It's happened a few times. Don't lie about pitbulls breaking into homes like it happens on the regular.

Are any of those examples of a "pit bull" killing a bull, as per the original claim? My Texas Heeler could kill a fucking calf, my man. It's not hard. Ditto facial damage. I see the alpaca example is a multiple dog attack which does nothing to refute my point.

But yes, a 10 pound dog is less dangerous than a 50 pound dog. Obviously.

[Fahran]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

But even then, why not at least require someone to state what business they have owning a pit bull, and hold these owners to a higher level of scrutiny accordingly. That would fall under the "regulated" implied in the topic title.

You'd need a compelling reason to hold owners of American Pit Bull Terriers to a higher standard. The breed is not intrinsically more dangerous than Rottweilers, German Shepherds, or other dogs of a similar size and is more likely than average to pass temperament tests, with more than 86% of American Pit Bull Terriers passing compared to 83% of all dogs. I would require licenses, chipping, and similar measures for owners of any dog or cat to be honest, but the problem there is the gentrification of dog ownership and an inability to enforce such laws in rural areas in particular.

Then propose a methodology that would precisely correct for that. Otherwise all it looks like your side is doing is deliberately ignoring evidence that the breed is harmful.

My point is that "pit bull" isn't really a singular breed. It's a broad category that includes two or three breeds, two of which are less aggressive than average dogs and have a bite force weaker than German Shepherds, and a wide assortment of mutts that possess a vague similarity in appearance despite differing ancestry, mannerisms, physical features, and demeanor. It's like grouping all hounds together because they're hunting dogs with prominent snouts and droopy ears.

[What doth thou meaneth]

I am very clearly against this.
The government should NOT have a say on whether a dog lives or not just because other dogs of it's breed have done bad actions.
That's like saying that since there's an up rise of murders in the U.S. (for example), all Americans must be murderers, right?
It's like a stereotype, but it's a stereotype that can kill innocent dogs.
Also, the owners raise them to be aggressive and vicious, not the dogs themselves. We should be blaming the owners.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And pit bull ownership; or the legality thereof; does nothing to prevent lightning strike deaths.

To put it in perspective, you're arguing that in order to stop lightning strikes we need to ban the sky.

No, I'm arguing that to reduce lightning strikes we need to stop selling dogs that have several kilometer tall aluminum rods surgically inserted through their bodies.

[Heloin]

To put it in perspective, you're arguing that in order to stop lightning strikes we need to ban the sky.

No, I'm arguing that to reduce lightning strikes we need to stop selling dogs that have several kilometer tall aluminum rods surgically inserted through their bodies.

You're argument is that since something happens extremely rarely does technically happen, thus we should completely ban one type of dog. If more people are killed by lightning then that dog then your conclusion should be that we ban the sky as well.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You'd need a compelling reason to hold owners of American Pit Bull Terriers to a higher standard. The breed is not intrinsically more dangerous than Rottweilers, German Shepherds, or other dogs of a similar size and is more likely than average to pass temperament tests, with more than 86% of American Pit Bull Terriers passing compared to 83% of all dogs.

What, like people aren't scared of Rottweilers too?

German Shepherds are adoracreepy, but they're cute enough that people notice the "adorable" part first.

I would require licenses, chipping, and similar measures for owners of any dog or cat to be honest, but the problem there is the gentrification of dog ownership and an inability to enforce such laws in rural areas in particular.

Nonsense. Small towns have cops too. "Inability to enforce such laws in rural areas" is the same argument used against gun control.

My point is that "pit bull" isn't really a singular breed. It's a broad category that includes two or three breeds, two of which are less aggressive than average dogs and have a bite force weaker than German Shepherds, and a wide assortment of mutts that possess a vague similarity in appearance despite differing ancestry, mannerisms, physical features, and demeanor. It's like grouping all hounds together because they're hunting dogs with prominent snouts and droopy ears.

Fair enough. So break it down by subcategory of pit bull, ban the worst subcategories of them, and wait and see the result.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

No, I'm arguing that to reduce lightning strikes we need to stop selling dogs that have several kilometer tall aluminum rods surgically inserted through their bodies.

You're argument is that since something happens extremely rarely does technically happen, thus we should completely ban one type of dog. If more people are killed by lightning then that dog then your conclusion should be that we ban the sky as well.

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

[The Emerald Legion]

You'd need a compelling reason to hold owners of American Pit Bull Terriers to a higher standard. The breed is not intrinsically more dangerous than Rottweilers, German Shepherds, or other dogs of a similar size and is more likely than average to pass temperament tests, with more than 86% of American Pit Bull Terriers passing compared to 83% of all dogs.

What, like people aren't scared of Rottweilers too?

German Shepherds are adoracreepy, but they're cute enough that people notice the "adorable" part first.

I would require licenses, chipping, and similar measures for owners of any dog or cat to be honest, but the problem there is the gentrification of dog ownership and an inability to enforce such laws in rural areas in particular.

Nonsense. Small towns have cops too. "Inability to enforce such laws in rural areas" is the same argument used against gun control.

My point is that "pit bull" isn't really a singular breed. It's a broad category that includes two or three breeds, two of which are less aggressive than average dogs and have a bite force weaker than German Shepherds, and a wide assortment of mutts that possess a vague similarity in appearance despite differing ancestry, mannerisms, physical features, and demeanor. It's like grouping all hounds together because they're hunting dogs with prominent snouts and droopy ears.

Fair enough. So break it down by subcategory of pit bull, ban the worst subcategories of them, and wait and see the result.

No, the argument against gun control is it's unconstitutional.

Also, a handful of attacks out of several million dogs is not evidence that the particular breed is Satan.

[Caracasus]

You could develop some sorta magic anti pitbull ray that removed every trace of pitbulls from the face of the earth and you'd still have puppy farms, idiots who want a dog to make them look hard, irresponsible or ignorant pet owners and illegal dogfighting.

If you're that concerned about the danger posed by a very small minority of dogs, perhaps consider better education for prospective pet owners and more investment in enforcing already existing animal cruelty laws? That's gonna do a damn sight more than some dumb ban on a breed of dog.

[Scomagia]

You're argument is that since something happens extremely rarely does technically happen, thus we should completely ban one type of dog. If more people are killed by lightning then that dog then your conclusion should be that we ban the sky as well.

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

We've been objecting because the higher scrutiny is unneeded.

[Ors Might]

You're argument is that since something happens extremely rarely does technically happen, thus we should completely ban one type of dog. If more people are killed by lightning then that dog then your conclusion should be that we ban the sky as well.

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

No one needs any sort of pet, unless they require a seeing eye dog, I suppose.

You haven’t justified higher scrutiny, though. Thousands of pit bulls, thirty six attacks. How many of those attacks were committed by non-abused pit bulls?

[Heloin]

You're argument is that since something happens extremely rarely does technically happen, thus we should completely ban one type of dog. If more people are killed by lightning then that dog then your conclusion should be that we ban the sky as well.

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

Sunlight causes cancer and rain causes floods. Ban the sky.

You don't need the computer/phone you're typing on but you'd be right pissed if I banned you from having one.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

No one needs any sort of pet, unless they require a seeing eye dog, I suppose.

You haven’t justified higher scrutiny, though. Thousands of pit bulls, thirty six attacks. How many of those attacks were committed by non-abused pit bulls?

Let's investigate and find out.

In the meantime, let's not ignore data.

[Godular]

And pit bull ownership; or the legality thereof; does nothing to prevent lightning strike deaths.

To put it in perspective, you're arguing that in order to stop lightning strikes we need to ban the sky.

Stupid atmosphere containing oxygen. It's the reason why we have fires! GET RID OF IT! /reducingatmosphere4lyfe

[Ors Might]

No one needs any sort of pet, unless they require a seeing eye dog, I suppose.

You haven’t justified higher scrutiny, though. Thousands of pit bulls, thirty six attacks. How many of those attacks were committed by non-abused pit bulls?

Let's investigate and find out.

In the meantime, let's not ignore data.

The data is incomplete and does not suggest a need for banning pit bulls. You are asserting that it is.

[Scomagia]

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

No one needs any sort of pet, unless they require a seeing eye dog, I suppose.

You haven’t justified higher scrutiny, though. Thousands of pit bulls, thirty six attacks. How many of those attacks were committed by non-abused pit bulls?

And how many were dog fights inappropriately broken up by the human? The OP's sources don't even care to wonder because it would conflict with their sensationalism.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What, like people aren't scared of Rottweilers too?

German Shepherds are adoracreepy, but they're cute enough that people notice the "adorable" part first.



Nonsense. Small towns have cops too. "Inability to enforce such laws in rural areas" is the same argument used against gun control.



Fair enough. So break it down by subcategory of pit bull, ban the worst subcategories of them, and wait and see the result.

No, the argument against gun control is it's unconstitutional.

Also, a handful of attacks out of several million dogs is not evidence that the particular breed is Satan.

Not all gun nuts are Americans, you know.

Also, a lot of people entertain the possibility that the founders made a mistake when it comes to other Amendments. The Patriot Act wouldn't have gone through if there weren't enough people who thought the 4th Amendment was a mistake. Clearly what one thinks of the founders' reasoning is a factor here.

A breed doesn't have to be Satan to warrant restrictions in light of the data.

[Ifreann]

You're argument is that since something happens extremely rarely does technically happen, thus we should completely ban one type of dog. If more people are killed by lightning then that dog then your conclusion should be that we ban the sky as well.

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

There are lots of things that people have, things that could be dangerous, that they don't need. Cars. Beer. VR headsets.

Guns.

I don't know if this "You don't need it" argument holds up.

[Ors Might]

No one needs any sort of pet, unless they require a seeing eye dog, I suppose.

You haven’t justified higher scrutiny, though. Thousands of pit bulls, thirty six attacks. How many of those attacks were committed by non-abused pit bulls?

And how many were dog fights inappropriately broken up by the human? The OP's sources don't even care to wonder because it would conflict with their sensationalism.

If an abused and traumatized creature attacks you, then clearly it’s the breeding that’s at fault.

[Crockerland]

I don't know of any case wherein negligence around a hotdog lead to the hotdog breaking into someone else's home and mauling them, though that has happened with dogs, especially pit bulls, many times. There's a difference between the type of negligence where you're putting yourself in danger (climbing on an unstable ladder, never wearing eye or ear protection when handling heavy equipment, having sex with random strangers who might have STDs) and the type where you're putting others in danger (drunk driving, texting and driving, having an unsecured dangerous animal).

Well this is false.
https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Bellefonte-farmers-speaking-out-after-dogs-attacked-cattle--512238501.html?fbclid=IwAR0UwL5pYd1aCEtn85ZCZCde-iaBEqqAz2PbwiWbZyA-GR5GvlOjdCV-JVw
They mostly kill calves but can also destroy the mouths of cows, preventing them from eating.

They can also kill horses among other large animals such as alpacas and donkeys, which can distinctly not be killed by wiener dogs.

It hasn't happened "many times". It's happened a few times. Don't lie about pitbulls breaking into homes like it happens on the regular.

In 2017 it happened
One
Two
Three
Four
Five

Five times!
I would say, compared to every and any other breed of dog on Earth breaking into people's houses, that is a lot.

[Fahran]

What, like people aren't scared of Rottweilers too?

German Shepherds are adoracreepy, but they're cute enough that people notice the "adorable" part first.

People are afraid of Rottweilers. That was a conscious breeding decision going back to medieval times since a large scary herding dog would discourage cattle-rustlers and bandits from carrying off portions of your herd. That said, these dogs are often less likely to bite than smaller breeds and the reason they're reported as more aggressive is because they're larger and can inflict more damage. Well socialized dogs aren't likely to attack without provocation.

Nonsense. Small towns have cops too. "Inability to enforce such laws in rural areas" is the same argument used against gun control.

Enforcement of gun regulations has been a recurring problem in the United States. A lot of the recent high-profile mass shootings have been carried out with firearms that were not registered to the perpetrators and that, in some cases, the perpetrator could not have legally owned. Beyond that, police officers hopping fences to scan for chips or ask for licenses creates a dangerous situation for the officer, for the dog, and for the dog's owner, especially if the dog has been bred and socialized as a guard dog. It likely violates constitutional protections as well.

Fair enough. So break it down by subcategory of pit bull, ban the worst subcategories of them, and wait and see the result.

It's a bit presumptuous to believe we'd come out with a singular breed given that many pit bulls are mixed-breeds or mutts. Beyond that, we still have the problem of determining whether the breed is implicitly dangerous (statistics suggest that this isn't so) or bad owners simply tend to prefer the breed. In that case, the issue is the owners, not the breed.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We need the sky for sunlight and rain.

No one needs a pit bull.

(Some have better reasons for pitbulls than others, but a lot of people have been objecting to even so much as higher scrutiny of their ownership.)

There are lots of things that people have, things that could be dangerous, that they don't need. Cars. Beer. VR headsets.

Guns.

I don't know if this "You don't need it" argument holds up.

Cars; you try lugging all your groceries on the subway. Also, people in small towns need them even more than people in big cities. That said, a carbon tax might force a shift in the latter toward public transit.

Beer; lower concentration of alcohol than distilled spirits, with the tradeoff being that transporting it is worse for the environment. We all know what happened when society tried to enforce bans on beer and distilled spirits at the same time.

VR headsets; a unique experience for which there is no direct alternative. Other breeds are alternatives to pit bulls.

Guns; in case you hadn't noticed, I'm against guns as well. Why would you expect anything different?