4 ms·

There is a reason BSLs exist. Scientists in those countries have decided pitbulls in particular are statistically more dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

There is a reason BSLs exist. Scientists in those countries have decided pitbulls in particular are statistically more dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present. God bless, have a great holiday.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Breed specific legislation depends on the argument that certain breeds are more dangerous. It's illogical to posit this is so because the legislation exists its circular.
- sn_master 6y ago
  What are you even saying? Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted. Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay! Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here. Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Surely you could provide some studies that show that in areas with breed bans the rate of gruesome violent deaths are down 90%, or you could if that were real. Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
    - sn_master 6y ago
      Why are you comparing apples to oranges and claiming to care about science at the same time? We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too. Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI) Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull. I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-dogs-mislabeled-pit-bulls/stories/201203180054 https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...). What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption? Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult. Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.
serf 6y ago
>regardless of whatever evidence I present. a youtube search query for a socially charged topic isn't evidence. There are volumes of youtube search results for free energy, moon-landing hoax explanations, remote viewing, voodoo, whatever. The list goes on forever. Right now -- this very second -- one can find videos of labradors mauling people, basset hounds mauling people, schnauzers , scottish terriers, again, the list goes on forever. The difference? The public hasn't been shown countless scare-pieces on basset hounds & schnauzers, so it's not a topic of interest in the public mind. Any poorly trained dog is a foot-gun.
- sn_master 6y ago
  those videos show real incidents, correlated by news reports, hospital and police reports and interviews with real scientists, all sharing their names and institutions. Nothing similar to whatever you're referencing in your comment here.
perardi 6y ago
Define a “pit bull”. Go right ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
dragonwriter 6y ago
> There is a reason BSLs exist. Largely, responding to cultural trends among humans, and taking easy, symbolic legislative outs without supporting science.
- sn_master 6y ago
  Hospital reports on dog fatalities and violent attacks are not "supporting science"? What do you consider constitutes supporting science then?!?
hurflmurfl 6y ago
From this article on Wikipedia you've posted a link to: > In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community". > In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety". > In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective. In any case, I'm not sure that having a legislation can be used as a proof of anything. In some countries same-sex sexual activity is illegal and penalized. What does this prove?
- sn_master 6y ago
  Sure, lets look at those one-by-one: The "American Bar Association" is not a valid source about dog behavior. They're lawyers being paid to push whatever agenda gives them the most money. Not gonna comment on that one since its missing any other scientific evidence. The 2014 American Veterinary Medical Association "literature review" is being picked and chosen from in the Wikipedia article. Quotes from the very same report that were conveniently missing from the Wikipedia article: "While small dogs may be more aggressive their size means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals" "Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers)" "...cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified..." The 2013 Canadian study isn't being cited in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the citation is a link to an opinion piece that mentions the said study without giving any references to it (no links or even author or institution name). As far as I am concerned, that Canadian study is made up, unless you can find it and we discuss it. I never saw any respected author mention a scientific study and then fail to completely give any references to it, not even freshmen in university would do that. On the other hand, this is an actual cited quote from that opinion piece that's directly linked in place of the Canadian study: "Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders." The Dutch ban on dangerous dogs which was lifted on 2008, was more or less re-instated in 2017. Wikipedia conveniently forgot to mention that: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerous-dogs-list-send-owners-back-to-school/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerou... Using one law that in your opinion isn't sound, as an argument against laws in general having no merit doesn't make a lot of sense either. A law isn't a scientific proof, but at a minimum it tells a lot that a problem in society has become so prevalent to justify passing said law. If the number of victims and complaints were so negligible, the law wouldn't have had enough momentum to pass the all of the bureaucratic barriers, including the European animal rights groups, who are far more fierce than the US ones.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Breed specific legislation depends on the argument that certain breeds are more dangerous. It's illogical to posit this is so because the legislation exists its circular.

sn_master 6y ago
What are you even saying? Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted. Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay! Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here. Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Surely you could provide some studies that show that in areas with breed bans the rate of gruesome violent deaths are down 90%, or you could if that were real. Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
  - sn_master 6y ago
    Why are you comparing apples to oranges and claiming to care about science at the same time? We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too. Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI) Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull. I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-dogs-mislabeled-pit-bulls/stories/201203180054 https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...). What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption? Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult. Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.

serf 6y ago

>regardless of whatever evidence I present. a youtube search query for a socially charged topic isn't evidence. There are volumes of youtube search results for free energy, moon-landing hoax explanations, remote viewing, voodoo, whatever. The list goes on forever. Right now -- this very second -- one can find videos of labradors mauling people, basset hounds mauling people, schnauzers , scottish terriers, again, the list goes on forever. The difference? The public hasn't been shown countless scare-pieces on basset hounds & schnauzers, so it's not a topic of interest in the public mind. Any poorly trained dog is a foot-gun.

sn_master 6y ago
those videos show real incidents, correlated by news reports, hospital and police reports and interviews with real scientists, all sharing their names and institutions. Nothing similar to whatever you're referencing in your comment here.

perardi 6y ago

Define a “pit bull”. Go right ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

dragonwriter 6y ago

> There is a reason BSLs exist. Largely, responding to cultural trends among humans, and taking easy, symbolic legislative outs without supporting science.

sn_master 6y ago
Hospital reports on dog fatalities and violent attacks are not "supporting science"? What do you consider constitutes supporting science then?!?

hurflmurfl 6y ago

From this article on Wikipedia you've posted a link to: > In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community". > In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety". > In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective. In any case, I'm not sure that having a legislation can be used as a proof of anything. In some countries same-sex sexual activity is illegal and penalized. What does this prove?

sn_master 6y ago
Sure, lets look at those one-by-one: The "American Bar Association" is not a valid source about dog behavior. They're lawyers being paid to push whatever agenda gives them the most money. Not gonna comment on that one since its missing any other scientific evidence. The 2014 American Veterinary Medical Association "literature review" is being picked and chosen from in the Wikipedia article. Quotes from the very same report that were conveniently missing from the Wikipedia article: "While small dogs may be more aggressive their size means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals" "Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers)" "...cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified..." The 2013 Canadian study isn't being cited in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the citation is a link to an opinion piece that mentions the said study without giving any references to it (no links or even author or institution name). As far as I am concerned, that Canadian study is made up, unless you can find it and we discuss it. I never saw any respected author mention a scientific study and then fail to completely give any references to it, not even freshmen in university would do that. On the other hand, this is an actual cited quote from that opinion piece that's directly linked in place of the Canadian study: "Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders." The Dutch ban on dangerous dogs which was lifted on 2008, was more or less re-instated in 2017. Wikipedia conveniently forgot to mention that: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerous-dogs-list-send-owners-back-to-school/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerou... Using one law that in your opinion isn't sound, as an argument against laws in general having no merit doesn't make a lot of sense either. A law isn't a scientific proof, but at a minimum it tells a lot that a problem in society has become so prevalent to justify passing said law. If the number of victims and complaints were so negligible, the law wouldn't have had enough momentum to pass the all of the bureaucratic barriers, including the European animal rights groups, who are far more fierce than the US ones.