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
[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pitbulls were specifically bred as fighting dogs to fight and kill other dogs in pits.

Don't apply human logic to dog breeding. Dogs are specifically bred by humans to have specific traits. Humans are not bred to have specific traits.

And at least one study I've read showed that bad ownership and rescue status only account for 20% of dog attacks, so most attacks are not a result of bad ownership.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The closest I could find to the study you mentioned was the following:

https://positively.com/articles/fatal-dog-bites-share-common-factors/

Where yes, it says that in 21% of cases the dog was subject to abuse and neglect (one out of five is a rather large number by the way).

That same study says that in 37.5% of cases the owner had previously 'mismanaged' the dog in the past.

And then you have numbers like in 76.2% of cases the dog was not kept as a family pet.

Or that in 84.4% of cases the dog was not spayed or neutered.

Including this gem:

Interestingly, the breeds of the dogs involved in fatal attacks could only be identified in 18% of the cases. Often times, the media's report of the dog's breed conflicted with animal control reports.

So please, tell me more about how we shouldn't be looking at environmental factors because dogs aren't people and with dogs it's all about breed and nothing else...

Edit: Ah, we also have this study's results:

Frequency distributions revealed that 100% of the owners of High Risk dogs had either one criminal conviction or traffic citation. Furthermore, 30% of the High Risk Cited dog owners had at least 5 criminal convictions or traffic citations (range 1-37) in comparison to the 1% of owners of Low Risk Licensed dog owners (range 1-6).

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the source for that webpage doesn't exist, so not going to believe a word on it.

Oh, a traffic offense, oh goodness they must be horrible dog owners. Seriously, nearly everyone has a traffic offense, if that's in the criteria, then no shit it's at 100%.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

the source for that webpage doesn't exist

You mean this?

Patronek, G. J., Sacks, J. J., Delise, K. M., Cleary, D. V., & Marder, A. R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009). Journal Of The American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726-1736. doi:10.2460/javma.243.12.1726

Direct link: https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/research_library/summary-analysis-co-occurrence-of-potentially-preventable-factors-in-256-dog-bite-related-fatalities-in-the-united-states-2000-2009/

"The source that disagrees with me doesn't exist after not even a single Google search, so I won't believe a word of it!"

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

Not when the link to said source gives a 404 doesn't exist page. Blame your source website.

And some of those factors just apply to pits because of their breed.

76% are not given lots of human contact, because pits are violent and aggressive, and need to be kept away from people.

77% compromised ability to interact with dogs; well pits are way too strong for the vast majority of people.

Unneutered dogs being more likely to attack. Just an argument to force neuter all pits.

As for breed identification. If it be big, terrier shaped, and boxy head, it's pit enough.

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

politics

19248 readers
2178 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