Are Pit Bulls more dangerous than other breeds?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I still think Pitbulls (as well as other large and powerful breeds) should be regulated more than smaller/weaker dogs.

Simply put, a Pitbull is not a Golden Retriever, in the same way a full-size passenger bus is not a Ford Focus. Much of the skills are the same, but you wouldn't let a freshly licensed teenager drive the bus. Because there's a lot more that can go wrong, with more disastrous consequences. A bite from a Golden Retriever, while painful, is usually not the end of the world—but a Pitbull bite very well could be, because of their bite force and tendency to hold on. I firmly think Pitbulls should be reserved for experienced owners (at least 10 years owning other dogs), at least in populated areas. On a farm in the middle of nowhere, let them own whatever they want.

Regulation on who gets to raise a pitbull could actually benefit the breed. It would reduce surrenders to shelters, abusive breeding, animal abuse, subjection to fighting rings, and outright abandonment of pitbulls.

[US-SSR]

There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners. We take our hound mixes to the local dog park at least once a day, where they and we meet any number of pitties and pittie mixes with no incident. If you raise a dog to be vicious, or if you don't put in the time and effort to socialize a dog properly, you will have a vicious dog regardless of breed or combination. The only dog I've owned or met that has drawn my blood was a vicious little Szitpoo.

[Estado Novo Portugues]

Regulation on who gets to raise a pitbull could actually benefit the breed. It would reduce surrenders to shelters, abusive breeding, animal abuse, subjection to fighting rings, and outright abandonment of pitbulls.

Yeah, I'd regulate them more than "normal dogs", but less than exotic animals. Also require owners to have mandatory insurance if they're going to take their Pitbulls in public without a muzzle or cage.

[Katganistan]

Chihuahuas would be the most dangerous dog breed if they weren't so small

Because their owners don't socialize/discipline them.

[Katganistan]

and lots of pit bull owners do unfairly characterize their dogs as teddy bears who would never hurt a fly

That would be because a well-trained and well-socialised pit bull, like any other dog, is a teddy bear who would never hurt a fly. It's not unfair, it's the truth. As for pit bull owners doing it more than other breeds, owners of other breeds aren't called upon to defend their choice of animal or, indeed, their pets' right to exist as often as other breeds are. It's like big, scary-looking dudes having to characterise themselves as gentle giants more often than short dudes because they've been treated as ticking timebombs their entire lives.

Same stuff different breed....

Used to be that Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepherds were the devil personified and should be BANNED! before they KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!

Meanwhile, the ubiquitous golden retriever everyone loves is THE most likely dog to bite your kids/family.

[Heloin]

Regulation on who gets to raise a pitbull could actually benefit the breed. It would reduce surrenders to shelters, abusive breeding, animal abuse, subjection to fighting rings, and outright abandonment of pitbulls.

Yeah, I'd regulate them more than "normal dogs", but less than exotic animals. Also require owners to have mandatory insurance if they're going to take their Pitbulls in public without a muzzle or cage.

That’s an awful idea.

[US-SSR]

That would be because a well-trained and well-socialised pit bull, like any other dog, is a teddy bear who would never hurt a fly. It's not unfair, it's the truth. As for pit bull owners doing it more than other breeds, owners of other breeds aren't called upon to defend their choice of animal or, indeed, their pets' right to exist as often as other breeds are. It's like big, scary-looking dudes having to characterise themselves as gentle giants more often than short dudes because they've been treated as ticking timebombs their entire lives.

Same stuff different breed....

Used to be that Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepherds were the devil personified and should be BANNED! before they KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!

Meanwhile, the ubiquitous golden retriever everyone loves is THE most likely dog to bite your kids/family.

To be fair, there are more golden retrievers, ergo there are more golden retriever bites. In percentage terms I'd lay odds goldens aren't more likely to bite than any other breed or mix. Socialize your dog properly and you won't have a problem, golden, chihuahua, pittie or whatever.

[Diopolis]

That would be because a well-trained and well-socialised pit bull, like any other dog, is a teddy bear who would never hurt a fly. It's not unfair, it's the truth. As for pit bull owners doing it more than other breeds, owners of other breeds aren't called upon to defend their choice of animal or, indeed, their pets' right to exist as often as other breeds are. It's like big, scary-looking dudes having to characterise themselves as gentle giants more often than short dudes because they've been treated as ticking timebombs their entire lives.

Same stuff different breed....

Used to be that Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepherds were the devil personified and should be BANNED! before they KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!

Meanwhile, the ubiquitous golden retriever everyone loves is THE most likely dog to bite your kids/family.

The most likely dog is some sort of little yapper, I thought.
Agreed that the hype over pitbulls is overblown, though.

[Andsed]

I mean if we’re talking physically than yes. Aggressiveness wise not really. A Pit Bull raised in a good home is most likely going to be as sweet as any other dog. Trying to say ban Pit Bulls is ultimately pointless. the dogs are not the issue, the owners are.

[Estado Novo Portugues]

Yeah, I'd regulate them more than "normal dogs", but less than exotic animals. Also require owners to have mandatory insurance if they're going to take their Pitbulls in public without a muzzle or cage.

That’s an awful idea.

A Pitbull isn't a Golden Retriever. Would you let small children play with a wolf or bear? Those can be really friendly too, but the risk is too big. If others don't understand the animal's body language, they could unintentionally provoke it to snap. And then the animal would get sentenced to death for defending itself, but not even a fine for the person who provoked it into attacking. Pitbulls and families don't mix. This is for the protection of both the public and the dogs themselves.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Pitbull isnt a breed. It's a genaric look that seems to comprise 20% of all dogs in the US. They also make up around 50% of all dogs in shelters.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Regulation on who gets to raise a pitbull could actually benefit the breed. It would reduce surrenders to shelters, abusive breeding, animal abuse, subjection to fighting rings, and outright abandonment of pitbulls.

Yeah, I'd regulate them more than "normal dogs", but less than exotic animals. Also require owners to have mandatory insurance if they're going to take their Pitbulls in public without a muzzle or cage.

Too much regulation has drawbacks and these could make it worse, not better, for the welfare and wellbeing of the pitbulls.

[Heloin]

That’s an awful idea.

A Pitbull isn't a Golden Retriever. Would you let small children play with a wolf or bear? Those can be really friendly too, but the risk is too big. If others don't understand the animal's body language, they could unintentionally provoke it to snap. And then the animal would get sentenced to death for defending itself, but not even a fine for the person who provoked it into attacking. Pitbulls and families don't mix. This is for the protection of both the public and the dogs themselves.

I’d let a small child play with a pit bull, I played with a pit bull as a kid, I take my pit bull to the dog park and she plays with kids and other dogs. If you are the kind of person who thinks dog breeds are the difference between life and death then you clearly shouldn’t be allowed to have dogs.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No.

[Jebslund]

That’s an awful idea.

A Pitbull isn't a Golden Retriever. Would you let small children play with a wolf or bear? Those can be really friendly too, but the risk is too big. If others don't understand the animal's body language, they could unintentionally provoke it to snap. And then the animal would get sentenced to death for defending itself, but not even a fine for the person who provoked it into attacking. Pitbulls and families don't mix. This is for the protection of both the public and the dogs themselves.

"A Honda isn't a Chrysler or a Ford. Would you let your teen drive an Me-262 or an F-35?" "A Nerf gun isn't the same as a toy noisemaker gun. Would you let your small child play with a revolver or a live grenade?"

A pit bull is a dog, same as any other dog, not some alien deathbeast that's just sometimes friendly. Golden Retrievers can be provoked into attacking just like pit bulls. The owner's competence and understanding of their pet, along with the compliance of other humans in the vicinity with the owner's decisions and the pet's body language, determines how a dog will act, not the breed. A well-trained animal, regardless of breed, will attack only under extreme provocation, and a poorly-trained animal, regardless of breed, will attack at the barest hint.

[Senkaku]

I mean, they might be strong, but they're just dogs, it's the same species. Kinda hard to take a study like this seriously given that people who, you know, want guard/attack dogs are gonna be more inclined to buy pit bulls and train them to be aggressive given their image in popular culture, which would then skew the numbers on which breeds are most aggressive.

[Estado Novo Portugues]

I’d let a small child play with a pit bull shark, I played with a pit bull shark as a kid, I take my pit bull shark to the dog park ocean and she plays with kids and other dogs fish. If you are the kind of person who thinks dog fish breeds are the difference between life and death then you clearly shouldn’t be allowed to have dogs fish.

Still a good idea now?

Most of the time, a Pitbull doesn't want to hurt a child. But it's dangerous to take that for granted and generalize that as true for every individual dog. Animal behavior isn't a deterministic algorithm, so you can't guarantee that the next 10, 100, 1000 times, the dog will still be friendly. What's certain is the potential danger: 235 PSI of biting force, much harder than a Golden Retriever, Poodle or Collie. Nobody expects to crash when driving, but it's definitely possible, so I'd pick a car with a good crash rating just in case.

[Senkaku]

I’d let a small child play with a pit bull shark, I played with a pit bull shark as a kid, I take my pit bull shark to the dog park ocean and she plays with kids and other dogs fish. If you are the kind of person who thinks dog fish breeds are the difference between life and death then you clearly shouldn’t be allowed to have dogs fish.

Still a good idea now?

Most of the time, a Pitbull doesn't want to hurt a child. But it's dangerous to take that for granted and generalize that as true for every individual dog. Animal behavior isn't a deterministic algorithm, so you can't guarantee that the next 10, 100, 1000 times, the dog will still be friendly. What's certain is the potential danger: 235 PSI of biting force, much harder than a Golden Retriever, Poodle or Collie. Nobody expects to crash when driving, but it's definitely possible, so I'd pick a car with a good crash rating just in case.

Shark: giant wild carnivorous fish with an endless supply of razor-sharp teeth that can cross oceans and bite people in half

Pit bull: literally a fucking dog with some slightly larger chompers

You: these are the same to me.

[Heloin]

I’d let a small child play with a pit bull shark, I played with a pit bull shark as a kid, I take my pit bull shark to the dog park ocean and she plays with kids and other dogs fish. If you are the kind of person who thinks dog fish breeds are the difference between life and death then you clearly shouldn’t be allowed to have dogs fish.

Still a good idea now?

Most of the time, a Pitbull doesn't want to hurt a child. But it's dangerous to take that for granted and generalize that as true for every individual dog. Animal behavior isn't a deterministic algorithm, so you can't guarantee that the next 10, 100, 1000 times, the dog will still be friendly. What's certain is the potential danger: 235 PSI of biting force, much harder than a Golden Retriever, Poodle or Collie. Nobody expects to crash when driving, but it's definitely possible, so I'd pick a car with a good crash rating just in case.

Your quite good at proving that you have next to no idea what you’re talking about.

[Jebslund]

I’d let a small child play with a pit bull shark, I played with a pit bull shark as a kid, I take my pit bull shark to the dog park ocean and she plays with kids and other dogs fish. If you are the kind of person who thinks dog fish breeds are the difference between life and death then you clearly shouldn’t be allowed to have dogs fish.

Still a good idea now?

Most of the time, a Pitbull doesn't want to hurt a child. But it's dangerous to take that for granted and generalize that as true for every individual dog. Animal behavior isn't a deterministic algorithm, so you can't guarantee that the next 10, 100, 1000 times, the dog will still be friendly. What's certain is the potential danger: 235 PSI of biting force, much harder than a Golden Retriever, Poodle or Collie. Nobody expects to crash when driving, but it's definitely possible, so I'd pick a car with a good crash rating just in case.

I mean, by that logic, you should stay home and never socialise. You can't guarantee the next 10, 100, 1000 times, the person you talk to won't be a murderer. Human behavior isn't a deterministic algorithm. What's certain is that murderers exist.

As for bite force, bite force is irrelevant. Well-trained dogs do not just attack for no reason, and children should not be around poorly-trained dogs of *any* breed unsupervised. Hell, even well-trained animals shouldn't be around children who aren't thoroughly educated in what body language says "stop doing that" unsupervised. It's common sense, and pretty much every animal attack can be traced back to human negligence and/or malfeasance at some step. Pit bulls aren't the problem. You're just falling for the public scapegoat.

[Cantelo]

The following infographic shows that the Pit Bull is still responsible for the most fatal attacks in the U.S. by far, killing 284 people over that 13-year period - 66 percent of total fatalities. That's despite the breed accounting for just 6.5% of the total U.S. dog population.

- Forbes

It’s statistics like this that makes it seem so backwards to me the idea that Pit Bulls don’t have some inherent danger to them. It can’t just so happen that all terrible dog owners go for that specific breed, it can’t be some sort of strange propaganda against a particular type of dog, what the hell is it then? Isn’t the most obvious conclusion that this particular breed has been bred to amplify its aggression and ability to cause harm?

I’ve never understood the near-rabid defense of these animals, regardless of the statistics that back up the claims of Pit Bulls being prone to aggression.

[Senkaku]

That’s an awful idea.

A Pitbull isn't a Golden Retriever. Would you let small children play with a wolf or bear? Those can be really friendly too, but the risk is too big. If others don't understand the animal's body language, they could unintentionally provoke it to snap. And then the animal would get sentenced to death for defending itself, but not even a fine for the person who provoked it into attacking. Pitbulls and families don't mix. This is for the protection of both the public and the dogs themselves.

bears: anywhere from 120 to 600 lbs, never domesticated, known for tearing humans and basically most other animals literally limb from limb

pit bulls: literally medium to large sized dogs

[Senkaku]

The following infographic shows that the Pit Bull is still responsible for the most fatal attacks in the U.S. by far, killing 284 people over that 13-year period - 66 percent of total fatalities. That's despite the breed accounting for just 6.5% of the total U.S. dog population.

- Forbes

It’s statistics like this that makes it seem so backwards to me the idea that Pit Bulls don’t have some inherent danger to them. It can’t just so happen that all terrible dog owners go for that specific breed, it can’t be some sort of strange propaganda against a particular type of dog, what the hell is it then? Isn’t the most obvious conclusion that this particular breed has been bred to amplify its aggression and ability to cause harm?

oh my god people take a stats class

yes, it can. it can! they have an image of being dangerous, so ppl who want a dangerous dog buy one, and then end up having dangerous dogs which happen to be pit bulls. jesus christ how hard is the math on this to sort out

[Jebslund]

The following infographic shows that the Pit Bull is still responsible for the most fatal attacks in the U.S. by far, killing 284 people over that 13-year period - 66 percent of total fatalities. That's despite the breed accounting for just 6.5% of the total U.S. dog population.

- Forbes

It’s statistics like this that makes it seem so backwards to me the idea that Pit Bulls don’t have some inherent danger to them. It can’t just so happen that all terrible dog owners go for that specific breed, it can’t be some sort of strange propaganda against a particular type of dog, what the hell is it then? Isn’t the most obvious conclusion that this particular breed has been bred to amplify its aggression and ability to cause harm?

I’ve never understood the near-rabid defense of these animals, regardless of the statistics that back up the claims of Pit Bulls being prone to aggression.

It doesn't just so happen. Their reputation and their physical strength are what draw terrible owners to them. Essentially, they are a magnet for douchebags who either want dogs to use for dogfighting, want a security system but are too lazy to get one properly installed and/or cheap to pay for monitoring, or want big scary dogs to use for intimidation.

There's also the fact that measuring fatalities is a poor method of measuring overall aggression and slants the data massively. It'd be like trying to prove that people who drive semis are more prone to crashing by showing how many people are killed in accidents every year and what vehicles were involved. Of course semis are going to result in more fatalities proportionally than other cars. They have more mass, so accidents involving them are fatal at much lower speeds.

[Cantelo]

- Forbes

It’s statistics like this that makes it seem so backwards to me the idea that Pit Bulls don’t have some inherent danger to them. It can’t just so happen that all terrible dog owners go for that specific breed, it can’t be some sort of strange propaganda against a particular type of dog, what the hell is it then? Isn’t the most obvious conclusion that this particular breed has been bred to amplify its aggression and ability to cause harm?

oh my god people take a stats class

yes, it can. it can! they have an image of being dangerous, so ppl who want a dangerous dog buy one, and then end up having dangerous dogs which happen to be pit bulls. jesus christ how hard is the math on this to sort out

Okay, so what’s your point? That a lot of pit bulls, chosen due to their image, end up living up to that image as violent/aggressive dogs?

Thirty-nine percent of all dog bite-related emergency department visits at our facility resulted in an injury requiring orthopaedic treatment. Pit bull terrier bites were responsible for a significantly higher number of orthopaedic injuries and resulted in an amputation and/or bony injury in 66% of patients treated, whereas bites from law enforcement dogs and other breeds were less associated with severe injuries.

- Source