56
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.

XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A pitbull isn't even a breed of dog. Grouping them all together as a breed is like grouping together all dogs considered hounds. It's an umbrella term for the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American bulldog, Boston terrier, Boxer, Bull terrier, Bullmastiff, English bulldog, French bulldog, and Staffordshire bull terrier.

So essentially statistics on pitbull bites are either completely flawed, or just flat out wrong.

Vox did a very nice piece on pitbull stigma that changed my mind about them.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

They're all intentionally flawed because the people that spew this horseshit always conveniently leave out per capita statistics and the fact that pit bull breeds, as far as they're typically defined with APBT's and Staffordshire terriers, are far more populous than any other breed.

When you actually look at the numbers per capita bullies are not even as "dangerous" as things like German shephers, rottweilers, dobermans, or several other breeds nobody wants to ban.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

70% of fatal bites are by pitbulls, but no where near 70% of dogs are pitbulls. Pits are roughly 6% of dogs.

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago

Ooh look, you're partway there.

Now do some more reading on how many dogs that is, what percentage of the population other breeds account for, and what percentage of pit bulls are responsible for fatal injuries vs what percentage of other breeds are responsible for fatal injuries.

And then, to actually make it even, separate the pit bull breeds into their individual actual breeds. You did know there were several breeds considered pit bulls, right?

https://www.pitbullinfo.org/inaccurate-pit-bull-statistics.html

100% FAlse: "Pitbulls" account for around 65% of fatal dog attacks
This statistic is derived from grouping together all dog bite-related incidents for the four unique pitbull-type breeds, 20+ bully-type breeds (and their many mixes) that are frequently misidentified as one of the pitbull-type breeds, and the many different mixed breed dogs that can be mislabeled as "pitbulls" (based on their appearance) into one bucket and classifying all of these dogs as "pitbulls" - which will undoubtedly lead to flawed and inflated "statistics".

What you find is that PER CAPITA pit bull breeds are not significant outliers when it comes to fatal injuries or attacks. They are similar to other breeds that nobody gives a shit about like rottweilers, dobermans, German shepherds, and other common breeds you can find anywhere that pit bull haters live.

"~~Black people~~ Pit bulls are only X% of dogs but account for Y% of ~~crime~~ fatal injuries!"

Stop me if you've heard that one. It tends to come from the same type of person.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Don't bring racism into this, this has nothing to do with racism or people.

And yes, per capita pitbulls do account for far more fatal attacks compared to other breeds.

And my goodness, you're actually linking to pitbullinfo, hahahaha. I already did a full teardown of that idiotic site, and its inability to actually read scientific papers with another lemmier. It's such a massive crap pile of propaganda, trying to disguise itself as a reliable source.

Every paper they list in their sources either doesn't say what they claim it does, or says literally the exact opposite. It's hilarious how bad that site is, and I can't believe anyone falls for it.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Breed specific bans are about racism.

I recall one advocate I think from New Jersey who said the quiet part out loud about banning pitbulls: "we just don't want these kind of people around here."

Hmmm.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

All the pitbulls I know are owned by white people. I still want that shit breed banned.

It's not about race, pitbulls are shit dogs and should no longer be bred.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You seem like a shit person to be totally honest. Pretty much everyone I know did a book report on this subject in the 5th grade and realize how fucking dumb breed restrictions were. I guess you were sick that day.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Because I think the breed responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks is a shit breed?

I think you're a shit person for supporting such a shit breed.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

No it's because you never learned to read, if you had, you'd know how stupid you sound talking about dog bite statistics when in over half of all reported cases the breed is unknown, and in the less than half of cases that the breed is reported, it is self reported by people who are not trained to make visual identifications of dog breeds, and even the people who are trained usually get it wrong, because dog breeds usually cannot be identified visually with any sort of accuracy. So you see, you're an abject moron who obviously cannot read.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Nope, that's just the pitbull propaganda trying to make the shit breed look better.

Pits were bred to fight and kill other dogs. They are aggressive terriers with a strong prey drive, and they have the physical strength to kill people. That is a bad, and dangerous combination, and the shit breed needs to be done away with.

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
56 points (65.2% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2608 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS