this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
770 points (97.5% liked)
aww
26112 readers
157 users here now
A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.
AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about
- No racism or bigotry.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
- No SPAM posting.
- No trolling of others.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pitbulls need a muzzle and a cage.
Edit: I don't know who's downvoting the truth because it's inconvenient, but I sure hope a Pitbull doesn't catch you with your head in the sand 🙄.
Edit 2: funny how you can easily compare the people who deny reality in the comments below with MAGA, seeing as both groups look at data and choose to ignore it.
Edit 3 because people don't believe a single source apparently:
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
"Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you'll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed's behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: "Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of "[s]everal interacting factors" that determine a dog's likelihood to attack. 21"
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
"As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs"
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
Here's one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
This "data" may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady...
When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.
So this graph is representative of data over a twelve-year period? If so, that means all the dogs in that graph are entirely less dangerous than anyone would make them seem.
No it does not. 66% is 2023 alone.
"Pit Bulls were responsible for approximately 66% of fatal dog attacks in 2023."
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
I don't see it as the person you are replying to is talking about the ratio, but the absolute number. Even if it was the case, your "no" to their statement is just wrong. It is literally the next sentence in your quote:
Those are the numbers in the infographic. That is a 12ish year period. "No", is just such a misleading statement. And by your own admission, that is the numbers by "Dog Bite org".