If I see a pit at a dog park, I grab my dog, and leave lol

Pitbulls are high energy dogs, and have a long history. Sadly, most people today only know about the bad stories.

They don't know about Petey, for example, the dog pal in the old Our Gang movies of the 1930s. He was a pit bull, and a total sweetheart of a dog.



Helen Keller had a pit bull for a pet, named Sir Thomas



The US Army decorated and promoted a pit bull in WW1 who served with infantry in seventeen battles in the trenches, named Sergeant Stubby.



Fact is, like many dogs Pitbulls are only vicious if they are abused and trained to be vicious.

It is important to understand the breed of any dog you adopt, because different breeds need different kinds of owners. Corgis, for example, can be very devoted, but usually to just a single human, so that they are great companions for individuals but do not make good family pets. Pitbulls, Chows and many hunting breeds are high energy dogs who are great if you are active, but not a good choice for sedentary folks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Pitbulls are high energy dogs, and have a long history. Sadly, most people today only know about the bad stories.

They don't know about Petey, for example, the dog pal in the old Our Gang movies of the 1930s. He was a pit bull, and a total sweetheart of a dog.



Helen Keller had a pit bull for a pet, named Sir Thomas



The US Army decorated and promoted a pit bull in WW1 who served with infantry in seventeen battles in the trenches, named Sergeant Stubby.



Fact is, like many dogs Pitbulls are only vicious if they are abused and trained to be vicious.

It is important to understand the breed of any dog you adopt, because different breeds need different kinds of owners. Corgis, for example, can be very devoted, but usually to just a single human, so that they are great companions for individuals but do not make good family pets. Pitbulls, Chows and many hunting breeds are high energy dogs who are great if you are active, but not a good choice for sedentary folks.

---

Nobody argues that they CAN be good dogs. Multiple friends claim the same as you. It's just that they are not the best choice for communities. Pitbull promoters/advocates tend to view pit bulls as misunderstood victims of bad owners or media bias. The problem is there are plenty of good owners where the dog snapped and KILLED people. And believe it or not - there are breeds that have bad owners and don't mass kill people, because most dogs attack for submission, pits attack to kill.

I'll just say, I don't think current pit owners should have to give their dogs up, I just don't believe they should be allowed in suburbs/communities going forward. So my opening remarks stand. There are better options for dog ownership if you live in a community. There is no need to be the guy who thinks he has full transparency into his dog's genetic predispositions and puts neighbors near the most killingest, illingest breed.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Pitbulls are high energy dogs, and have a long history. Sadly, most people today only know about the bad stories.

They don't know about Petey, for example, the dog pal in the old Our Gang movies of the 1930s. He was a pit bull, and a total sweetheart of a dog.



Helen Keller had a pit bull for a pet, named Sir Thomas



The US Army decorated and promoted a pit bull in WW1 who served with infantry in seventeen battles in the trenches, named Sergeant Stubby.



Fact is, like many dogs Pitbulls are only vicious if they are abused and trained to be vicious.

It is important to understand the breed of any dog you adopt, because different breeds need different kinds of owners. Corgis, for example, can be very devoted, but usually to just a single human, so that they are great companions for individuals but do not make good family pets. Pitbulls, Chows and many hunting breeds are high energy dogs who are great if you are active, but not a good choice for sedentary folks.

---

Nobody argues that they CAN be good dogs. Multiple friends claim the same as you. It's just that they are not the best choice for communities. Pitbull promoters/advocates tend to view pit bulls as misunderstood victims of bad owners or media bias. The problem is there are plenty of good owners where the dog snapped and KILLED people. And believe it or not - there are breeds that have bad owners and don't mass kill people, because most dogs attack for submission, pits attack to kill.

I'll just say, I don't think current pit owners should have to give their dogs up, I just don't believe they should be allowed in suburbs/communities going forward. So my opening remarks stand. There are better options for dog ownership if you live in a community. There is no need to be the guy who thinks he has full transparency into his dog's genetic predispositions and puts neighbors near the most killingest, illingest breed.

---

I have been around dogs my whole life. In my experience, pits don't "snap" anymore than other breeds.

I agree that high energy dogs like Pits. Rotties, Shepherds are potentially dangerous if you don't know how or by whom they were bred, but I have never been bit by one, nor known anyone bit by a PitBull. I have a neighbor in my community who was bit by a Shepherd, because the woman who kept the Shepherd never let the dog out and used him for protection, so he never learned to trust anyone but his owner and one day got and basically freaked out.

I simply don't see evidence for your claims that by nature Pits are what you claim. Wouldn't be the first time someone posted something here just out of emotion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Pitbulls are high energy dogs, and have a long history. Sadly, most people today only know about the bad stories.

They don't know about Petey, for example, the dog pal in the old Our Gang movies of the 1930s. He was a pit bull, and a total sweetheart of a dog.



Helen Keller had a pit bull for a pet, named Sir Thomas



The US Army decorated and promoted a pit bull in WW1 who served with infantry in seventeen battles in the trenches, named Sergeant Stubby.



Fact is, like many dogs Pitbulls are only vicious if they are abused and trained to be vicious.

It is important to understand the breed of any dog you adopt, because different breeds need different kinds of owners. Corgis, for example, can be very devoted, but usually to just a single human, so that they are great companions for individuals but do not make good family pets. Pitbulls, Chows and many hunting breeds are high energy dogs who are great if you are active, but not a good choice for sedentary folks.

---

Nobody argues that they CAN be good dogs. Multiple friends claim the same as you. It's just that they are not the best choice for communities. Pitbull promoters/advocates tend to view pit bulls as misunderstood victims of bad owners or media bias. The problem is there are plenty of good owners where the dog snapped and KILLED people. And believe it or not - there are breeds that have bad owners and don't mass kill people, because most dogs attack for submission, pits attack to kill.

I'll just say, I don't think current pit owners should have to give their dogs up, I just don't believe they should be allowed in suburbs/communities going forward. So my opening remarks stand. There are better options for dog ownership if you live in a community. There is no need to be the guy who thinks he has full transparency into his dog's genetic predispositions and puts neighbors near the most killingest, illingest breed.

---

I have been around dogs my whole life. In my experience, pits don't "snap" anymore than other breeds.

I agree that high energy dogs like Pits. Rotties, Shepherds are potentially dangerous if you don't know how or by whom they were bred, but I have never been bit by one, nor known anyone bit by a PitBull. I have a neighbor in my community who was bit by a Shepherd, because the woman who kept the Shepherd never let the dog out and used him for protection, so he never learned to trust anyone but his owner and one day got and basically freaked out.

I simply don't see evidence for your claims that by nature Pits are what you claim. Wouldn't be the first time someone posted something here just out of emotion.

---

I, too, have been around dogs my whole life. Grew up going to field trials with American short hair pointers, trained them in the summers for my uncle. Owned my own pet store. The only breed of dog that I've seen attack a sliding glass door to try and kill a 3 month old baby was a female pit. The only dog that attacked my puppy in public was a pit. The only breed I've had to kick in the diaphragm to save a cat was a pit, because most dogs would have let go before it got to that point. I love the personality of most pits. They're wiggly loving dogs. They just aren't safe to have around the public, because as stated here previously, they kill when they snap.

We live in different worlds then.

The sky is blue here, what color is it on your world?

Oldbear83 said:

---

We live in different worlds then.

The sky is blue here, what color is it on your world?

---

The sky is colored "more people are killed by pits than any other breed" here in reality.

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We live in different worlds then.

The sky is blue here, what color is it on your world?

---

The sky is colored "more people are killed by pits than any other breed" here in reality Paranoidland.

---

OK then.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

We live in different worlds then.

The sky is blue here, what color is it on your world?

---

The sky is colored "more people are killed by pits than any other breed" here in reality Paranoidland.

---

OK then.

---

It isn't paranoid to point out the fact that;
"Pit bulls are responsible for approximately 66.9% of dog bite fatalities in the United States. Rottweilers are the second most lethal breed, contributing to about 9% of these deaths." That isn't opinion. That's not bias or paranoia. It's math.

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

You sound like a real p ussy.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

Here is what the AKC has to say about the breed (American version):

" From his brawling past, the muscular but agile Staffordshire Bull Terrier retains the traits of courage and tenacity. Happily, good breeding transformed this former gladiator into a playful, energetic, and sometimes boisterous, companion with a special affection for kids."


Staffordshire Bull Terrier Dog Breed Information

" The Stafford is intelligent, learns easily, responds quickly, and can be a loving and fun companion. They have an ardent desire to please and easily comply with the requests of their owners. However, remember that they were originally bred to fight other dogs, and most have retained a strong prey drive, so watch for escalation in enthusiastic play, especially after maturity. Like all dogs, they should be trained to the basics of obedience using positive methods so that they become the perfect pet. It is imperative that from the beginning a Stafford puppy have clear and consistent positive training. Despite their tough outward appearance and sometimes stoic disposition, they can be quite sensitive and do not respond well to harsh training methods.''

That's a fair and unbiased evaluation.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

---

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Flbear and Sam like to pretend willful ignorance is a valid defense, didn't expect it from you.

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

---

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Flbear and Sam like to pretend willful ignorance is a valid defense, didn't expect it from you.

---

Look, I posted a direct quote from the AKC, included the link.

You refuse to do as much, just claiming you found ... something ... on a search engine that says what you want to say.

You'd be laughed out of a formal debate, and it's still the fact that when someone posts a thing as a quote, they have the responsibility for showing its source. It has never been the other guy's duty to do the work you refuse to show.

Just admit you are scared of the Pits and are going just on emotion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

---

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Flbear and Sam like to pretend willful ignorance is a valid defense, didn't expect it from you.

---

Look, I posted a direct quote from the AKC, included the link.

You refuse to do as much, just claiming you found ... something ... on a search engine that says what you want to say.

You'd be laughed out of a formal debate, and it's still the fact that when someone posts a thing as a quote, they have the responsibility for showing its source. It has never been the other guy's duty to do the work you refuse to show.

Just admit you are scared of the Pits and are going just on emotion.

---

you posted a description of the breed with zero humans killed statistics. You proved nothing except that you can search out the definition of a pit. You'd be laughed out of any hearing.

If you're scared of DuckDuckGo, try Google. Ask what dog breed is responsible for the most human deaths every year. But you won't, because you're scared of search engines. Or some stupid ***** Lol

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

---

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Flbear and Sam like to pretend willful ignorance is a valid defense, didn't expect it from you.

---

Look, I posted a direct quote from the AKC, included the link.

You refuse to do as much, just claiming you found ... something ... on a search engine that says what you want to say.

You'd be laughed out of a formal debate, and it's still the fact that when someone posts a thing as a quote, they have the responsibility for showing its source. It has never been the other guy's duty to do the work you refuse to show.

Just admit you are scared of the Pits and are going just on emotion.

---

you posted a description of the breed with zero humans killed statistics. You proved nothing except that you can search out the definition of a pit. You'd be laughed out of any hearing.

---

No, I posted the AKC description of the American version commonly known as the 'Pit Bull'. If you click the link you will even see a photo which matches.

Your problem seems to be that you conflate a few abused animals into a breed which is not what you claim.

I have noted historical Pit Bulls which were notably gentle and obedient, not vicious at all. And I chose the AKC, because that group is well known for standards and strict identification.

It's OK to say that there are animals which have been abused to be trained for attacks. That's sadly true, and it's also true that the people who choose to abuse Pits in this way do so because the Pits are obedient and loyal to their masters. This is even more true for the Bull Mastiffs, which are most commonly found in England but whose abuse for violent attacks goes back to the 19th Century; the Pit Bull gangs just applied the same cruelty to the smaller but still powerful Staffordshire Bull Dog in the US.

It's not OK, however, to demonize the entire breed out of fear or ignorance, especially since the Staffordshire was originally bred specifically to protect children from wild animals and other threats.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

---

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Flbear and Sam like to pretend willful ignorance is a valid defense, didn't expect it from you.

---

Look, I posted a direct quote from the AKC, included the link.

You refuse to do as much, just claiming you found ... something ... on a search engine that says what you want to say.

You'd be laughed out of a formal debate, and it's still the fact that when someone posts a thing as a quote, they have the responsibility for showing its source. It has never been the other guy's duty to do the work you refuse to show.

Just admit you are scared of the Pits and are going just on emotion.

---

you posted a description of the breed with zero humans killed statistics. You proved nothing except that you can search out the definition of a pit. You'd be laughed out of any hearing.

---

No, I posted the AKC description of the American version commonly known as the 'Pit Bull'. If you click the link you will even see a photo which matches.

Your problem seems to be that you conflate a few abused animals into a breed which is not what you claim.

I have noted historical Pit Bulls which were notably gentle and obedient, not vicious at all. And I chose the AKC, because that group is well known for standards and strict identification.

It's OK to say that there are animals which have been abused to be trained for attacks. That's sadly true, and it's also true that the people who choose to abuse Pits in this way do so because the Pits are obedient and loyal to their masters. This is even more true for the Bull Mastiffs, which are most commonly found in England but whose abuse for violent attacks goes back to the 19th Century; the Pit Bull gangs just applied the same cruelty to the smaller but still powerful Staffordshire Bull Dog in the US.

It's not OK, however, to demonize the entire breed out of fear or ignorance, especially since the Staffordshire was originally bred specifically to protect children from wild animals and other threats.

---

This conversation about dangerous dogs means nothing without death statistics. Are you able to produce any statistics that prove most deaths by dog attack come from other breeds than the pit? You can describe their color, typical weight, original uses etc. and it's all irrelevant to this discussion. But you knew that. Show me your statistics.

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ima I notice you did not link to the source. That makes your statement your opinion and no more.

I get it, you are scared of pits and have heard all kinds of stories.

But your fears don't become facts just because you toss them out there.

---

I said I personally like pits. If you don't know where my source came from, copy and paste my quoted portion and discover for yourself. It's not a difficult thing to do and once you get into the habit of doing so you can quickly sus out the origins of anyone's claims. I love doing it to the left when they make a statement and it turns out they got it from some Reddit post.

---

Why not just link? Your claim is your responsibility to source, not mine.

Or are you admitting your quote is just "from some Reddit post"?

I will just ignore it as paranoid delusion if you won't put more effort into your claim.

---

DuckDuckGo search. Search assist. Willful ignorance is not the defense of your opinion that you believe it to be.

---

If you post a quote, providing the source is your responsibility. That you don't says a lot.

---

I'm sorry I was not clear. I DuckDuckGo searched for the dog breed responsible for the most deaths every year. That search assist brought up the information. Has multiple links to back up their information.

---

So you still cannot or will not support your claim.

Noted.

---

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Flbear and Sam like to pretend willful ignorance is a valid defense, didn't expect it from you.

---

Look, I posted a direct quote from the AKC, included the link.

You refuse to do as much, just claiming you found ... something ... on a search engine that says what you want to say.

You'd be laughed out of a formal debate, and it's still the fact that when someone posts a thing as a quote, they have the responsibility for showing its source. It has never been the other guy's duty to do the work you refuse to show.

Just admit you are scared of the Pits and are going just on emotion.

---

you posted a description of the breed with zero humans killed statistics. You proved nothing except that you can search out the definition of a pit. You'd be laughed out of any hearing.

---

No, I posted the AKC description of the American version commonly known as the 'Pit Bull'. If you click the link you will even see a photo which matches.

Your problem seems to be that you conflate a few abused animals into a breed which is not what you claim.

I have noted historical Pit Bulls which were notably gentle and obedient, not vicious at all. And I chose the AKC, because that group is well known for standards and strict identification.

It's OK to say that there are animals which have been abused to be trained for attacks. That's sadly true, and it's also true that the people who choose to abuse Pits in this way do so because the Pits are obedient and loyal to their masters. This is even more true for the Bull Mastiffs, which are most commonly found in England but whose abuse for violent attacks goes back to the 19th Century; the Pit Bull gangs just applied the same cruelty to the smaller but still powerful Staffordshire Bull Dog in the US.

It's not OK, however, to demonize the entire breed out of fear or ignorance, especially since the Staffordshire was originally bred specifically to protect children from wild animals and other threats.

---

This conversation about dangerous dogs means nothing without death statistics. Are you able to produce any statistics that prove most deaths by dog attack come from other breeds than the pit? You can describe their color, typical weight, original uses etc. and it's all irrelevant to this discussion. But you knew that. Show me your statistics.

---

Context is vital here. Your numbers do not note the difference between an animal trained and abused to become vicious, versus the natural character of the animal.

That is why the source is vital. You keep pointing to a search engine but a vague and leading question. I cited the AKC for specific and objective data.

You should show a source which is specific and objective, if you want to make a compelling claim. Just throwing out a claim and demanding I find out what it's made of is not going to hunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

Again, there is no detail on whether the dogs were trained to be vicious, which is essential to the question.

Here's three sources you might consider:

Are Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous? What Science Says - ScienceInsights

" Pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. Controlled studies have not identified pit bull-type dogs as disproportionately aggressive, and no genetic markers distinguish them as uniquely prone to aggression compared to other breeds. The idea that these dogs are born dangerous persists largely because of media coverage patterns, visual misidentification, and a self-reinforcing cycle of stigma, but the scientific evidence does not support it."

" This aligns with what the American Veterinary Medical Association has concluded: "The substantial within-breed variation suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed."

Are Pitbulls Dangerous? Exploring Truths About Their Nature.

"Another fact that tends to taint pit bulls is their past. Centuries ago, dog fighting, bear and bull baiting were popular entertainment venues. These old dog breeds were used to attack wild animals chained to posts (humans are so disgusting) for entertainment. More recently, we had the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal.

"Breeders advanced certain genetic factors and traits in these pit-fighting dogs for a reason.
Then there's the lovely myth of nanny dogs. Yes, decades ago, people used pit bull breeds to guard their children while they were away working. Before media attention distorted their image, pit bulls were gentle and loving playmates for children.

"So what turned the tables from keeping pit bulls as nanny dogs to becoming dogs with a criminal past? Perhaps there is a common denominator that influences how pit bulls turn bad.

"A Pitbull's Upbringing Matters

"A common denominator with some pit bull owners is that this particular breed helps them project an image or social status. Others jump on the bandwagon to save these dogs because they identify with the underdog.
A dog's behavior can be traced back to their upbringing. Genetic markers in a breed, which makes them appealing to us, influence the dog's personality and traits. Dogs, true to their wolf-pack history, need boundaries. They follow the rules set by their alpha."


Are Pit Bulls Dangerous? What Experts and Statistics Say

"Key Takeaways

• Pit bull aggression influenced by socialization, training, and genetics.
• Media impact skews perception of pit bull danger.
• Proper training and socialization can mitigate pit bull aggression.
• Statistics may be skewed by reporting biases and population size.
• Responsible ownership crucial for managing pit bull behavior."

ATL Bear said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

---

The reason there are disproportionately more deaths by pit bulls is due to owner ignorance of the breed, sometimes willful, as displayed here in these comments. No amount of results will sway someone dedicated to a narrative only supported by their anecdotal experiences.

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

---

The reason there are disproportionately more deaths by pit bulls is due to owner ignorance of the breed, sometimes willful, as displayed here in these comments. No amount of results will sway someone dedicated to a narrative only supported by their anecdotal experiences.

---

Did you read any of the three scientific sources I cited in my last post?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

---

The reason there are disproportionately more deaths by pit bulls is due to owner ignorance of the breed, sometimes willful, as displayed here in these comments. No amount of results will sway someone dedicated to a narrative only supported by their anecdotal experiences.

---

Did you read any of the three scientific sources I cited in my last post?

---

What breed is responsible for the most human deaths every year?

Wangchung said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

---

The reason there are disproportionately more deaths by pit bulls is due to owner ignorance of the breed, sometimes willful, as displayed here in these comments. No amount of results will sway someone dedicated to a narrative only supported by their anecdotal experiences.

---

Did you read any of the three scientific sources I cited in my last post?

---

What breed is responsible for the most human deaths every year?

---

Did you know that "Pit Bull" is not even a specific breed?

Do you care about the difference between abusing an animal to make it vicious and pretending it is vicious by nature?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did you know that "Pit Bull" is not even a specific breed?

Do you care about the difference between abusing an animal to make it vicious and pretending it is vicious by nature?

---

The formal breed names for pit bulls include American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Bully. Pit bull is an umbrella term.

Pit Bulls are high energy dogs and are unpredictable. Even ones who haven't been trained to be vicious can go off unexpectedly.