Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Ban Pitts and then scratch your head a few years later when you hear about the German Shepherd attacks, ban the German Shepherds and then wipe the drool from your mouth while you read the article about the uptick in Rottweiler maulings the year after.
You can play wack-a-mole all you want, the rest of us will focus on achievable solutions.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Funny how 99% of the people responsible for dog attacks own pitbulls and not another breed of dog. It’s almost like this is a multifaceted issue that you’re being reductive about to fit your narrative.
You don’t have to be obtuse about “blame” here. If you own a dog, and it kills someone, it is your fault, sure. Not all breeds are the same though, since the vast majority of fatal dog attacks come from a single problematic breed that ought to be rightfully blamed for the danger they introduce to the community.
That blame should be used to restrict the right to own Pitbulls as a form of harm reduction. Just as a gun control advocate isn’t trying to absolve gun owners of responsibility for their actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous guns, a pitbull critic isn’t trying to absolve dog owners of responsibility for their dog’s actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous dog breeds. It’s all about minimizing human casualties.
Okay fine, Rottweilers too, the only other significant fatal attack risk.
#3 is German Shepherds, but Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are 18x more deadly, so probably not too much regulation needed for those good boys. They truly are most dangerous in the hands of bad owners, unlike the first 2 which are known for sudden catastrophic violence.
After that things aren’t really a problem outside of Pit Bull and Rottweiler mixes. Some smaller dogs are an even bigger bite risk, but basically a zero death risk so not really the urgency to address that any other way than case-by-case.
The data is pretty open and shut, no game of whack-a-mole is needed. We already know which dogs are lethally dangerous. Other countries around the world have solved this problem successfully. We’re not in uncharted territory, and we would save hundreds of lives annually by unconditionally banning Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.
Dog species don’t up their attack trends in response to other species falling behind. If pits are banned the attack rates of other species will remain about the same: much lower than pits.
I see, so all those tough guys that like to get lots of dogs for home protection. Never walk them. Never train them. Forget to feed them. They’re going to move on to the Rottweiler and that dog breed will luckily be uniquely suited to handle those circumstances and will turn out fine, not aggressive at all.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Ban Pitts and then scratch your head a few years later when you hear about the German Shepherd attacks, ban the German Shepherds and then wipe the drool from your mouth while you read the article about the uptick in Rottweiler maulings the year after.
You can play wack-a-mole all you want, the rest of us will focus on achievable solutions.
Funny how 99% of the people responsible for dog attacks own pitbulls and not another breed of dog. It’s almost like this is a multifaceted issue that you’re being reductive about to fit your narrative.
You don’t have to be obtuse about “blame” here. If you own a dog, and it kills someone, it is your fault, sure. Not all breeds are the same though, since the vast majority of fatal dog attacks come from a single problematic breed that ought to be rightfully blamed for the danger they introduce to the community.
That blame should be used to restrict the right to own Pitbulls as a form of harm reduction. Just as a gun control advocate isn’t trying to absolve gun owners of responsibility for their actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous guns, a pitbull critic isn’t trying to absolve dog owners of responsibility for their dog’s actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous dog breeds. It’s all about minimizing human casualties.
If it’s a good idea to regulate Pitt bulls then it’s a good idea to regulate other dogs as well. Anything else is just playing wack-a-mole
Okay fine, Rottweilers too, the only other significant fatal attack risk.
#3 is German Shepherds, but Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are 18x more deadly, so probably not too much regulation needed for those good boys. They truly are most dangerous in the hands of bad owners, unlike the first 2 which are known for sudden catastrophic violence.
After that things aren’t really a problem outside of Pit Bull and Rottweiler mixes. Some smaller dogs are an even bigger bite risk, but basically a zero death risk so not really the urgency to address that any other way than case-by-case.
The data is pretty open and shut, no game of whack-a-mole is needed. We already know which dogs are lethally dangerous. Other countries around the world have solved this problem successfully. We’re not in uncharted territory, and we would save hundreds of lives annually by unconditionally banning Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.
Dog species don’t up their attack trends in response to other species falling behind. If pits are banned the attack rates of other species will remain about the same: much lower than pits.
I see, so all those tough guys that like to get lots of dogs for home protection. Never walk them. Never train them. Forget to feed them. They’re going to move on to the Rottweiler and that dog breed will luckily be uniquely suited to handle those circumstances and will turn out fine, not aggressive at all.
Excellent evaluation 👌