Support NeoGAF

[boiled goose]

Thing is, as someone who has been reading along (and occassionally dipping a toe into the thread here and there) this isn't really happening all that frequently. It's what makes everyone quoting Scathe's post so frequently over the last three pages a little disillusioning considering the length of the thread - it goes to the point that people aren't necessarily reading anything anyone else is saying, they're simply looking for a recitation of the talking points they already agree with.

Many of the pro-pitbull arguments (such as they are) in the thread seem to be pretty measured, overall. There are a minor few people for whom the entire argument is "my dog is nice so all these dogs are nice it's just mean people make them bad," just as there are a tiny few people on the opposite side arguing "Ban them all, and then kill the ones that are left."

So with those outliers being as small as they are, and as fringe as they are, it seems better to ignore those weird satellites of poorly presented/considered opinion, so as to put more thought into engaging with people who are obviously thinking before they speak.

There are a lot of people in here on either side of the argument who actually agree with each other more than they don't.

What id like to see more from both sides is actual statistics.

 

[Tenebrous]

Blame is a kind of irrelevant.
Can Pitbulls cause more harm? If legal will harm occur? How much harm do we tolerate?

These are the relevant questions.

Do Chihuahuas being legal cause harm? Do Pitbulls lead to more harm than german s. Or other large breeds?

Can Pitbulls cause more harm than other breeds? Absolutely.

Harm can come from any dog that's not trained properly. Screening has to be in place for larger dogs, but that's too much hassle, so people would rather see them banned instead.

I've read about more people getting bit here in the UK by smaller dogs than bigger dogs. Chihuahua's and other little ratty things often go without any training because D'awww it's so cute! Despite all the bad press they get, every single Staffordshire Bull Terrier I've met hasn't acted poorly at all.

Do pitbulls do more harm than other large breeds? Whether it's a big Malamute, a Dogo Argentino, a Pitbull or a Caucasian Ovcharka, a poorly trained big dog can do serious amounts of damage.

 

[RM8]

Oh alright, American Bully it is!

Lol this is terrifying.

 

[Tenebrous]

Can you spot the Pit Bull?

Hm... Never see Catahoula Leopards in this country, but damn, they're gorgeous dogs. Going to take a stab at this...

10/16?

 

[boiled goose]

Can Pitbulls cause more harm than other breeds? Absolutely.

Harm can come from any dog that's not trained properly. Screening has to be in place for larger dogs, but that's too much hassle, so people would rather see them banned instead.

I've read about more people getting bit here in the UK by smaller dogs than bigger dogs. Chihuahua's and other little ratty things often go without any training because D'awww it's so cute! Despite all the bad press they get, every single Staffordshire Bull Terrier I've met hasn't acted poorly at all.

Do pitbulls do more harm than other large breeds? Whether it's a big Malamute, a Dogo Argentino, a Pitbull or a Caucasian Ovcharka, a poorly trained big dog can do serious amounts of damage.

The question is do Pitbulls cause more harm than other large breeds?

Or if certain large breeds cause equal or more damage, the same discussion should apply to them.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

Man, dog owners and gun owners should form an alliance. Because you guys make exactly the same arguments.

Guns: "It's not the weapon, it's the person wielding it."
Dogs: "It's not the animal, it's the owner."

Guns: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."
Dogs: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles are just as safe as my tank."
Guns: "No, tanks aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have tanks."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain weapons shouldn't be owned by people, just not your weapon of choice."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, pitbulls are just as safe as my lion."
Dogs: "No, lions aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have lions."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain animals shouldn't be owned by people, just not your animal of choice."

Guns: "I'm a responsible gun owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."
Dogs: "I'm a responsible dog owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."

Guns: "It's not the type of weapon. If you ban these weapons, people would just use other weapons."
Dogs: "It's not the breed of dog. If you ban this breed, people would just use this other breed."

Guns: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."
Dogs: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

You realise that you're comparing inanimate objets to pets who, as far as their owners are concerned, are family members, right?

The only thing that need to be done is to force pitbull owners to use a muzzle when their dog is outside. No need to talk about exterminating whole breeds and risk making it a nasty habit.

 

[Tenebrous]

The question is do Pitbulls cause more harm than other large breeds?

Or if certain large breeds cause equal or more damage, the same discussion should apply to them.

More harm in what sense?

More harm done on an average attack?
More harm done through quantity of attacks?

 

[888]

Oh alright, American Bully it is!

This also is a pit bull. Damn target dog.

 

[boiled goose]

More harm in what sense?

More harm done on an average attack?
More harm done through quantity of attacks?

Of course the answer is both and more.

Is the breed more prone to attack?
Is it used more to attack?
If it attacks, how much damage?

The discussion so far has been based on personal anecdotes. We need numbers.

 

[Tenebrous]

Of course the answer is both and more.

Is the breed more prone to attack?
Is it used more to attack?
If it attacks, how much damage?

The discussion so far has been based on personal anecdotes. We need numbers.

I'd also like to add...

What is the annual income of the owners who's dogs were involved in violence?

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Of course the answer is both and more.

Is the breed more prone to attack?
Is it used more to attack?
If it attacks, how much damage?

The discussion so far has been based on personal anecdotes. We need numbers.

No it is not more prone to attack.
yes it is used more to attack.
if it does attack it can do lots of damage because of its ability to shake when it has a good grip.

 

[boiled goose]

No it is not more prone to attack.
yes it is used more to attack.
if it does attack it can do lots of damage because of its ability to shake when it has a good grip.

Not that i dont believe you,but without numbers there's not much to discuss.

I'd also like to add...

What is the annual income of the owners who's dogs were involved in violence?

Care to explain why this is relevant?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

What id like to see more from both sides is actual statistics.

I remember both sides putting up more than a few links to numbers throughout the thread. I wouldn't say statistics and data are particularly lacking throughout the course of this discussion.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Not that i dont believe you,but without numbers there's not much to discuss.


Care to explain why this is relevant?

I'll look up some sources for you on my break here. I posted a study earlier in the thread about dogs human aggression and their likelyhood of biting someone. They scored low to average behind many other breeds.
Its well known that pitbulls are a favorite fighting dog.
And its ability to do damage from its shake is easy to find if you look it up. Its also has a weaker bite than many breeds. Which is also easy to look up.

 

[Tenebrous]

Care to explain why this is relevant?

Poorer people are likely to be in rougher scenarios, and Pitbulls seem to be a go-to breed for the lower/working class. Staffy Bull Terriers are that dog breed in the UK, but as I said earlier, despite that, I'm yet to meet a bad one.

Maybe worth some research. Are poor people/people in worse off parts of the country more likely to be involved in a dog accident? Might look that up.

I'll look up some sources for you on my break here. I posted a study earlier in the thread about dogs human aggression and their likelyhood of biting someone. They scored low to average behind many other breeds.
Its well known that pitbulls are a favorite fighting dog.
And its ability to do damage from its shake is easy to find if you look it up. Its also has a weaker bite than many breeds. Which is also easy to look up.

Yeah the power PSI of a Mastiff's bite was something ridiculous if I recall correctly...

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Not that i dont believe you,but without numbers there's not much to discuss.


Care to explain why this is relevant?

You can find some basic stats peppered throughout the thread (I'd dig them up but I'm on mobile...I posted one set myself).

There's only so much you can draw from them, because they're just raw numbers and not really normalized for type of owner, environment, etc and the breeds are self-reported (people misidentify pit bulls all the time)

Surprisingly, Huskeys are actually far, far more dangerous (by number of attacks, injuries and deaths) when you normalize the population size. Chows were similarly dangerous.

 

[The Beard]

Man, dog owners and gun owners should form an alliance. Because you guys make exactly the same arguments.

Guns: "It's not the weapon, it's the person wielding it."
Dogs: "It's not the animal, it's the owner."

Guns: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."
Dogs: "Those statistics are inaccurate and skewed because 'reasons'."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles are just as safe as my tank."
Guns: "No, tanks aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have tanks."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain weapons shouldn't be owned by people, just not your weapon of choice."

Bystander (mockingly): "Yeah, pitbulls are just as safe as my lion."
Dogs: "No, lions aren't the same. You shouldn't be allowed to have lions."
Bystander: "So, you agree certain animals shouldn't be owned by people, just not your animal of choice."

Guns: "I'm a responsible gun owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."
Dogs: "I'm a responsible dog owner. It's everyone else who are terrible owners."

Guns: "It's not the type of weapon. If you ban these weapons, people would just use other weapons."
Dogs: "It's not the breed of dog. If you ban this breed, people would just use this other breed."

Guns: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."
Dogs: "Everything would be fine if everyone was properly trained."

I wonder what the cross-over between Pitbull owners and NRA members is.

Sure there are similarities between the arguments. Guns don't have a mind of their own though. They never go off on their own without being handled by a person. There typically needs to be bad intentions of the gun handler in order to kill someone.

If Golden Retrievers are single shot, spring loaded BB guns. Pit Bulls would be semi-auto .50 cal hand cannons. One is not like the other.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Pit bulls aren't any more or less aggressive than other breeds, it's their strength that differs.

I've owned a St. Bernard to labradors to Alsatians (German shepherd for e.g) and Dobermans.

Unfortunately humanity has a bad history with blood sports, pit bulls were and are currently used also in a lot of illegal dog fights. They are also used by gangsters/criminals a lot too for intimidation and protection.

While not any more aggressive, the issue is when they do get aggressive they're more dangerous due to their strength/tenacity. The damage a pit bull can do when it gets aggressive is way, way more than say if a labrador gets aggressive.

That's why a lot of pit bull owners will defend their pit bulls, they're just like every other dog, they behave the same, they're friendly, etc. So comparing them to gun owners is incredibly stupid because most pit owners do not experience aggressive behaviour from them just like other dog owners do not experience aggressive behaviour from their breeds. The times when pits are dangerous is when they do become aggressive and there are 3 situations. Firstly, taunted/enraged by humans (assholes). Secondly, trained (like being commanded, such as this owner). Lastly, personality/disorder. The personality/disorder is rare as it is with a lot of breeds, there is no fault in the breed that will result in that here.

So when you compare pit owners to gun owners you're kind of forgetting about the difference between aggressive nature and the damage they can inflict. Your gun analogy depends on them being more aggressive than others. A lot of people here are saying that pits are some more aggressive breed (they're not), BUT YES, when they are aggressive they are one of the most dangerous. The thing that makes the gun analogy dumb is that the majority of pit owners do not experience aggressive dogs and again, just like I said is the same with any other breed. Your analogy only works when it's compared to pit owners who have trained their dogs to be aggressive upon command (like morons/assholes like in the article or a lot of gangsters/criminals).

 

[Tenebrous]

You can find some basic stats peppered throughout the thread (I'd dig them up but I'm on mobile...I posted one set myself).

There's only so much you can draw from them, because they're just raw numbers and not really normalized for type of owner, environment, etc and the breeds are self-reported (people misidentify pit bulls all the time)

Surprisingly, Huskeys are actually far, far more dangerous (by number of attacks, injuries and deaths) when you normalize the population size. Chows were similarly dangerous.

This isn't surprising at all. I'm a Malamute owner at the moment, and almost every other snow dog we've met has been poorly trained & is not getting anywhere near the right amount of exercise & stimulation.

I'd rather be in a room with a Pitbull that hasn't been for its walkies than a bored husky, fucking hell... They're mental, but hey, too many people have seen Twilight/GoT and adopt these dogs without doing the research. The number of snow dogs waiting to be adopted in the UK from shelters is just terrifying - They're up something like 600% over the last ten years.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

This isn't surprising at all. I'm a Malamute owner at the moment, and almost every other snow dog we've met has been poorly trained & is not getting anywhere near the right amount of exercise & stimulation.

I'd rather be in a room with a Pitbull that hasn't been for its walkies than a bored husky, fucking hell... They're mental, but hey, too many people have seen Twilight/GoT and adopt these dogs without doing the research. The number of snow dogs waiting to be adopted in the UK from shelters is just terrifying - They're up something like 600% over the last ten years.

I meant "surprising" in the sense that lots of people demonize pit bulls but not huskeys.

 

[Daweex]

Don't have to be dramatic about it then. You can just leave, if you are not gonna come up with something better.

I've literally been posting the same things over and over but you guys choose to ignore them because you choose to believe what you want to believe instead of logic and facts.
Guns are tools.
Dogs are animals.
Animals have their own sets of behaviors and insticts, tools do not.
Therefore, trying to find a correlation between dogs and guns is non-sensical and it's just grasping at straws.
This isn't even science, it's basic logic.

once again you are trying to paint domesticated dogs and wolves as if they are very far away from similar when even though dogs have been domesticated to oblivion they still share many traits (both physically and instinctual) with wolves. this is true whether you are looking at phenotype or genetics or even behavior (running with packs, howling, etc etc)

and i enjoy the aggressiveness you're showing, it's quite sad when paired with your ignorance about biology

Except you're completely ignoring all the basic psychological differences both species have due to dogs having lived with humans for centuries.
Dogs and wolves aren't the same thing, period.

 

[boiled goose]

So it does seem that while pitbulls can cause more damage they are not necessarily particularly prone to attack and other breeds can also do similar levels of damage.

If this is the case then those calling for regulation or bans should keep this in consideration

 

[cosmicblizzard]

That's a logical fallacy. And besides that, you should look up the numbers pertaining to pit bul incidents.

Yeah, the numbers look bad for pits as far as percentages of all incidents is concerned.

But it's good to keep in mind even those attacks are a very small drop in a bucket when considering the amount of dogs that DON'T attack.

Pitbulls account for 7% of all dogs in America. That's MILLIONS that have never had any kind of incident whatsoever. Millions of docile dogs that are being judged because of a relatively recent reputation perpetuated by shitty owners.

It's the same argument I've seen used against people of certain faiths and races (no, I'm not comparing, but again it's a better comparison than guns).

So now you are getting into a discussion about dogs having free will huh?

Dogs are fucking property.
As humans we decide whatever the fuck we want to do with them. We have laws protecting animals from abuse, but these are our laws.

You call out people comparing dogs to objects yet you go ahead and equate canines with humans.

In this case (laws we make as a society) dogs are closer to objects. Sorry.

And for clarification,im not even saying Pitbulls should be banned and ive been a dog owner my entire life. Let's please stick to reality though.

I would even argue that the fact that Pitbulls are animals makes them even less predictable than a man made object. Your objection is basically irrelevant to the discussion.

No, dogs are not humans, but they are proven to have their own individual personalities that may trump instinctual reactions that people seem to think are set in stone.

Guns were created for the sole purpose of being a weapon. Dog domestication was done for a variety of reasons from working to hunting, and most common in the modern era, companionship. This took place over thousands of years, possibly more.

The pit bulls have only been around for a few hundred years, and a large chunk of their existence was NOT for the main purpose of being fighting dogs. Hell, one of their ancestors, the Old English Terrier, are extremely friendly to humans.

 

[boiled goose]

Dogs having personalities that may trump instinct is irrelevant.

Would you allow individuals to own domesticated bears or lions and walk them to the park?

The answer is of course no which proves that animals even those that can be domesticated or trained can be and should be regulated by humans.

The question is of course where should we draw the line

Intended function is also irrelevant. If I create a toy that explodes half the time it should not be allowed to be sold. Equally irrelevant is the ancestry of pitbulls. What matters are the facts about pit bulls now. Some people have been posting some while you are still having issue understanding the terms of the discussion

 

[Daweex]

I think all the people who try bringing other animal species into this fail to understand the diffence between a domesticated animal and a tamed one.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Would you allow individuals to own domesticated bears or lions and walk them to the park?

I don't know the answer because those things don't exist (and would take centuries to produce, if possible at all) so it's sort of a pointless question to entertain.

 

[boiled goose]

I don't know the answer because those things don't exist (and would take centuries to produce, if possible at all) so it's sort of a pointless question to entertain.

Ive seen plenty of trained animals in circuses and reserves. Of course the question is silly it illustrates the point that humans regulate animals.

Cosmic Blizzard, im sorry but you have gone off the deep end my friend.

Are you seriously suggesting that generalizations about animal breeds is the same thing as generalizations about human beings?

You cant possibly be this dense to see the difference. Animals are PROPERTY. can you own humans as pets?

For purposes ofthe LAW and societies organized by moral agents dogs are pretty much objects.

If we deem certain dog breeds inadequate for human ownership that doesn't mean we are going to torture random dogs.

Give me a freaking break..

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Ive seen plenty of trained animals in circuses and reserves. Of course the question is silly it illustrates the point that humans regulate animals.

Trained is not domesticated. Those are completely different concepts.

edit: read through this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

 

[Tenebrous]

I meant "surprising" in the sense that lots of people demonize pit bulls but not huskeys.

Maybe people understand with Husky's that it really is the owner that's the problem? I didn't want to mention it, but perhaps racism plays a part with public perception of Pitbulls.

 

[Daweex]

Ive seen plenty of trained animals in circuses and reserves. Of course the question is silly it illustrates the point that humans regulate animals.

Those are TAMED animals.
Domestication is a process that takes centuries, you can't domesticate a single animal becase that term applies to the whole species.
You can't domesticate a lion, however you can tame it.
I hope it's clear now.

 

[RM8]

Maybe people understand with Husky's that it really is the owner that's the problem? I didn't want to mention it, but perhaps racism plays a part with public perception of Pitbulls.

Honestly I'm okay with better regulation of all potentially lethal dogs.

 

[Tenebrous]

Honestly I'm okay with better regulation of all potentially lethal dogs.

All dogs are potentially lethal, but I see your point. As a big dog owner, so am I. That would be a mindfuck to enforce, though.

 

[boiled goose]

Those are TAMED animals.
Domestication is a process that takes centuries, you can't domesticate a single animal becase that term applies to the whole species.
You can't domesticate a lion, however you can tame it.
I hope it's clear now.

That's fair that it's a distinction, however you are arguing semantics when my point was not really a semantics one.

Thanks for the clarification.

However, unless you are arguing that if any species is domesticated it should be available for ownership, then the point stands.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Honestly I'm okay with better regulation of all potentially lethal dogs.

Where do you draw the line, though? How do you designate a "potentially lethal" dog? By size and/or weight? Are great danes or golden retrievers and labs lethal? By behavior? Are nippy/yappy small dogs lethal?

However, unless you are arguing that if any species is domesticated it should be available for ownership, then the point stands.

What domesticated species shouldn't we own? That's sort of the point of domestication. This isn't just a difference in "semantics". We literally breed domestic species for our needs as humans.

 

[RM8]

Where do you draw the line, though? How do you designate a "potentially lethal" dog? By size and/or weight? Are great danes or golden retrievers and labs lethal? By behavior? Are nippy/yappy small dogs lethal?

I mean, we have statistics, right? I'd go with that.

 

[boiled goose]

Where do you draw the line, though? How do you designate a "potentially lethal" dog? By size and/or weight? Are great danes or golden retrievers and labs lethal? By behavior? Are nippy/yappy small dogs lethal?

We can come up with some smart criteria. Come on it's not rocket science.

I mean, we have statistics, right? I'd go with that.

Yup... quantifying lethal requires nuance and discussion but it's not some random arbitrary process.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Honestly I'm okay with better regulation of all potentially lethal dogs.

A big part of the problem is that Pit Bulls are not a recognized breed by the AKC. So people just breed them at will. Its the reason nobody usually sees the issues you see with pitbulls in staffys and staffy bull terriers. If the American Pitbull Terrier was recognized by the AKC, then people breeding them would have to follow strict breeding guidlines. Since they are not people breed a "pit bull" and sell it as such when in fact it probably isnt a pitbull at all.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Dogs having personalities that may trump instinct is irrelevant.

Would you allow individuals to own domesticated bears or lions and walk them to the park?

Lions and bears haven't been domesticated over thousands of years, let alone to the point of being distinct from their ancestors. Hell, even house cats are arguably not domesticated, making it questionable if it's even possible to domesticate lions.

If bears and lions COULD be domesticated and made more compact as dogs have become in comparison to wolves (outside of say Irish Wolfhounds), and it happened over a long period of time to the point of aggression being an EXTREMELY minor issue in comparison to size of the species, then sure I'd be fine with people taking bears and lions to the park on leashes.

Some people have been posting some while you are still having issue understanding the terms of the discussion

I posted a Dogs 101 video on pits, which is more than many people have done. No, the show isn't 100% accurate all the time, but generally the only info you have to really be wary on with them is the health portion of the segment. It's well-researched beyond that.

 

[Tenebrous]

I'd also like to add...

What is the annual income of the owners who's dogs were involved in violence?

Quoting myself. I found a study...

SES - Socioeconmic Status
DBIH - Dog Bite Injury Hospitalizations

Page 4
"... in the USA, significant negative correlation was observed between dog bites and median household income distribution. Biting dogs were more likely than non-biting dogs to live in neighborhoods where the residents median incomes were less than the county median income value. In France, 21% of children with facial dog-bite injuries were reported to belong to an unfavorable social environment. In the UK, children that owned dogs lived in more deprived areas than those without dogs, and deprivation increased with number of dogs owned. Pit bull or cross & bull breed dogs were more likely to be found in more deprived areas than other dog types. Pit bulls or cross bull breeds are categorized as dangerous dogs in several jurisdictions, although there is no universal consensus on whether some breeds are more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. Whether the observed high prevalence is aneffect of increased number & density of dogs, type of dogs, resource availability or a combination of several factors is yet to be determined."

 

[FyreWulff]

With an attitude like this, I can't imagine why people find pit defenders so abrasive.

With posts like you've made in this thread, I can't imagine why you're allowed to shitpost.

 

[boiled goose]

Lions and bears haven't been domesticated over thousands of years, let alone to the point of being distinct from their ancestors. Hell, even house cats are arguably not domesticated, making it questionable if it's even possible to domesticate lions.

If bears and lions COULD be domesticated and made more compact as dogs have become in comparison to wolves (outside of say Irish Wolfhounds), and it happened over a long period of time to the point of aggression being an EXTREMELY minor issue in comparison to size of the species, then sure I'd be fine with people taking bears and lions to the park on leashes.



I posted a Dogs 101 video on pits, which is more than many people have done. No, the show isn't 100% accurate all the time, but generally the only info you have to really be wary on with them is the health portion of the segment. It's well-researched beyond that.

Ok. Glad to know you'd be ok with lions and bears on leashes.

Amazing.

Guess you dont mind me carrying a bazooka to the park. It is 100 percent perfectly domesticated. In fact, it shows zero aggression.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Are you seriously suggesting that generalizations about animal breeds is the same thing as generalizations about human beings?

I said myself it's a bad comparison. Just a better one than comparing living creatures with a working brain and an unlimited number of reactions to any scenarios, to guns, which is used for the sole purpose of shooting. You disagree, which is fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me crazy because of it.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Ok. Glad to know you'd be ok with lions and bears on leashes.

Amazing.

They wouldn't look anything like lions or bears as you know them now. You really need to do yourself a favor and read through the wiki article I posted. I still don't think you understand how domestication works.

edit: oh god, the bazooka analogy you edited in is cringeworthy. Please do some reading and research before coming back.

 

[Chimkey]

Potentially lethal dog regulation? I'd like to see what sort of criteria that would entail. I own a Dalmatian who is only 60 pound but is pure muscle to the point ive been asked if he is on steroids and he is the biggest wimp you could ever meet.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Ok. Glad to know you'd be ok with lions and bears on leashes.

Amazing.

Guess you dont mind me carrying a bazooka to the park. It is 100 percent perfectly domesticated. In fact, it shows zero aggression.

I'm just going to quote Mumei here who has the same stance as me. He's been backing up his arguments with actual sources and stuff.

It depends on how domesticated they are. For instance, it is widely debated exactly how domesticated cats are - and certainly everyone agrees that cats, which are thought to be essentially self-domesticated animals at most, are far less domesticated than are dogs. I think we've all heard jokes about how we're lucky that cats aren't as big as wild ones, right?

So, if you managed to domesticate a population of a large species of wild cat so that it was as domesticated as a dog is, then yes. I would feel comfortable with that. If you managed to domesticate it only to the point that our house cats are domesticated, well... no. I don't have a death wish.

And pibbles aren't "massive:. They're comparable to Australian Shepherds or Boxers or Collies or a GSP; all breeds typically in the 50 - 70 pound range

 

[Cap'n Cook]

Funny that you chose picture of pitbull with cropped ears over any other photo of that breed. And hey, don't come with answer "but they play so rough and often bite each others ears". I've heard it all, everyone knows why people cut ears and tails of dogs, for their own vanity.

Nope, I chose that picture because that dog is very proportioned and looks like it falls within the ideal size and weight of a pitbull (35-60lbs). I will admit some dogs look better with cropped ears, including pitbulls but I don't and won't do it to my dogs.

My pit/boxer mix, although he looks mostly like a pit. If you're wondering about the eye, just like your typical viciously aggressive pitbulls he decided to pick a fight, unfortunately it was with a wasp.

 

[boiled goose]

I'm just going to quote Mumei here who has the same stance as me. He's been backing up his arguments with actual sources and stuff.

Again degree of domestication is ONE criteria.

I would be against domesticated bears in the park.

Why? Even though chance of attack is low, damage from attack is very very high.

 

[LaserBuddha]

The question is do Pitbulls cause more harm than other large breeds?

Or if certain large breeds cause equal or more damage, the same discussion should apply to them.

To my knowledge the issue isnt just their capacity for maiming (though that head is something special) but their tenacity in continuing to attack and how they tend to "snap" or "trigger" in the first place. Their popularity as a breed among bad owners is a problem but not the only problem. Pits reflect the jobs they were bred for just like other dogs.

People say all breeds are the same and its just abut the owner, but that requires ignoring the entire history of dog breeding and what you can see with your own eyes. Ive owned labs and jack russells and can tell you without any doubt that there are personality differences in breeds.

If I found myself with a Pit I would love it and give it the best training I could. I would not let it be around children no matter how good of an owner I thought I was.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Nope, I chose that picture because that dog is very proportioned and looks like it falls within the ideal size and weight of a pitbull (35-60lbs). I will admit some dogs look better with cropped ears, including pitbulls but I don't and won't do it to my dogs.

My pit/boxer mix, although he looks mostly like a pit. If you're wondering about the eye, just like your typical viciously aggressive pitbulls he decided to pick a fight, unfortunately it was with a wasp.

Just a heads up. A wasp sting can become serious if it is followed by swelling in the area for dogs. If that is recent, I would take it to the vet if you havnt already.

Edit: super cute dog by the way

 

[Mumei]

Animals don't magically appear into existence fully mature. As such, dangerous characteristics that are "inherent" to mature animals come from 3 places.

1) Their physical capacity to do damage.
2) Their genetic nature, which can involve domestication.
3) The way they were raised.

Arguing with only #2 in mind when evaluating the safety of an animal and thus how suitable it is to public ownership is completely ridiculous to me.

I didn't expect everyone to assume I'm such a dumbass as to not understand domestication. The aspects of the illustration regarding training were simply to mimic how beside the point the good behavior of an animal is to the threat of its physical power in itself when it comes to how people feel about it. I didn't expect people to literally think that physical power is completely irrelevant so as to focus solely on domesticated nature as invalidating what was (to me) obviously not the point I was trying to make.

Well, the reason that people think you don't understand domestication is because you think that focusing on number two is ridiculous when the comparison you provided was with an animal that wasn't domesticated. In your example with the mountain lion, the mountain lion was different in two of the three ways (stronger, not domesticated), and potentially similar in one way (the way they were raised). But the difference between a domesticated and not-domesticated animal is not related to the way that they are raised; it is inherent to the animal. In order to have a vicious domesticated animal, you have to fuck up somewhere while raising it. In order to have a vicious wild animal, you don't have to do much of anything "wrong." It's a major difference.

A dachshund?!?!? Talk about vicious.

Heh. You might be joking, but as I recall dachshunds are rather notorious for being bad-tempered.

I remember both sides putting up more than a few links to numbers throughout the thread. I wouldn't say statistics and data are particularly lacking throughout the course of this discussion.

Well, there is a dearth of accurate statistics. This is because statistics for dog attacks tend to be derived from newspaper reports and hospital records, where breed identification is done by eye and by non-professionals. If you look at the PDFs I linked to a few posts ago with pictures of amstaffs, german shepherds, and labrador retrievers you'll see how fraught this exercise can be. In the CDC study, it's made more suspect by the fact that the study counted "pit bull" as a single breed, despite the fact that it doesn't actually describe a breed of dog. This is why even the study authors say:

"Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites."

What's more, the study authors have also since said that the study was not an appropriate tool for making breed-specific policies or legislative decisions. This doesn't stop it from popping up in nearly every GAF topic involving pit bull attacks, though.