• crank0271@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    First off, the infographic you posted doesn’t even spell the name of the propaganda site it cites properly (dogsbite[dot]org). Just because it’s a .org doesn’t grant it instant legitimacy. It’s one woman (Colleen Lynn) with a vendetta. (You don’t still believe the disproven and later retracted “study” about vaccines causing autism now, do you?)

    Second, engage in some critical thinking. (I know, you weren’t bred to do so - but it isn’t your fault!). Do many people keep these several dog breeds for home and family protection, and do they similarly neglect and fail to train their dogs? To use your own irresponsible analogy where several breeds of dogs = guns, yes, many people own guns and don’t follow proper safety practices with them. And we’ve also decided as a society that even with many undereducated people doing stupid things with guns that education is part of a larger solution. Please educate yourself further, unless you’re just here to stir up trouble.

      • crank0271@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        So you didn’t even look at the picture you posted. Thanks for confirming that you aren’t engaging in good faith. Easy block.

      • Predalien@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        So far you’ve just called people trolls and kept posting the same link, it seems without even reading the comments you’re responding to thoroughy.

        The charity you’ve linked, world animal foundation seems to be a respectable charity. The problem; and what you’re being critisized for; is the source of the statistic they use, which you keep quoting.

        A quick google search shows that that statistic ( from dogsbite.org, as shown on your linked article) does not reflect actual results, as shown by studies from both the american dog breeders association and the national library of medicine.

        Another article from world animal foundation paints a picture of pitbulls as not significantly more aggressive than other breeds if you ignore the statistics provided by dogsbite.org, which I hope at this is no longer considered a legitimate source [1, 2 ].

        If you can list any sources not originally from dogsbite.org or quoting them, I’d be happy to read through those and reconsider my position.

        EDITS: formatting

        • shadowplayer2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          He’s just projecting that he’s the troll. He literally doesn’t want to hear about any nuance, and the extended list of other sources go straight over his head.

          If the account isn’t a bot then they’re living a sad life

        • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Alright.

          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


          You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.


          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