Dogs should stop being bred for certain features period. Beyond aggressiveness, it’s just cruel. It gives them years of health problems. Some of the breeds all have the exact same health problem (sometimes it’s an inability to breathe properly because of their head shape).

Purebred dogs should be illegal to intentionally breed.

Thank you. This was so obviously my point…

Abuse and mistreatment can play a large role in a dog’s aggression, and pit bulls are often subjected to such conditions. In situations like this, dogs learn to be aggressive and will bite humans as a result. However, studies have shown that pit bulls’ aggression is largely due to their living conditions, and they aren’t necessarily naturally dangerous dogs

While many pit bulls can be held responsible for dog bites, it’s also worth noting that their reputation makes people quick to blame the breed. Other dog breeds have similar physical features as pit bulls, so people assume that’s what they are.

From the very article you linked in the other comment.

Don’t talk facts when your source refutes your claim.

As it does in many other areas, the controversial nature of the discussion poisons the well on sources supporting either view. The days of ‘here’s a study saying…’ being a useful tactic in anything are kind of dead. Most discussions can have reliable-sounding sources to support contradictory points. It gets hard to find the truth about anything without engaging in in-depth meta-analysis, let alone in a place like a comments section under a webcomic.

That is a very poor argument. Non-profit organizations lie about their statistics and their so-called facts all the time.

PETA is non-profit. Autism Speaks is non-profit. Anti-vax groups are non-profit. All sorts of groups dedicated to promoting authoritarian regimes are non-profit. And they all push a lot of bullshit that they claim to be facts and statistics.

What would convince you that any one breed of dog is more dangerous than others?

Pretty much nothing since that isn’t how it works.

There are some breeds that require more knowledge, experience, and time to handle properly. That includes the various breeds colloquially referred to as pitbulls, as well as German shephards, mastiffs, huskies, etc. I’d say most breeds with a job need knowledge and attention.

But the “danger” part is an issue with the owner (or previous owner). The only foster dogs I’ve ever been concerned about have been abused, whether by ignoring them, not feeding them, physically abusing them, or otherwise.

I can say I have a not insignificant amount of experience with quite a few breeds, and I can also say that blaming a breed is nonsensical.

And the only dog in my home right now is a corgi.

Edit: You’re clearly interested only in your opinion and not the reality of dog behavior. So I won’t bother further engaging with you, enjoy your day. I will simply note that health organizations such as the CDC note these same issues with statistics, and firmly recommend against breed-specific legislation for a reason. That, of course, may change under HHS Brainworms, but the actual data is quite clear.

The only reputable org having a likely informed and less biased conversation about real research on that list is the AVMA which states in the link you posted:

In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities…

Note that the emphasis was theirs.

While I suppose it is possible that one of those lawyers from the other links has done a responsible job of representing the facts and isn’t just an ambulance chaser, you clearly didn’t read your own sources, so I don’t see any reason to waste my time on it either.

You’re misrepresenting my argument. We both agree that dogs are not people and people are not dogs, and that having a specific opinion about dog breeds is different from having a specific opinion about race.

What I’m saying is that, even if you set aside questions of data reliability, there are dozens if not hundreds of ways to interpret the graph that everyone in this thread keeps posting. What if all dog breeds are equally aggressive, but only some are physically capable of killing a human? What if dog breeds that look more aggressive attract irresponsible owners that train them to be more aggressive and intentionally put them into dangerous situations around other humans? Of all the possible conclusions, that guy jumps to some breeds are just inherently more dangerous than others. This is the same logical leap that a racist follows when confronted with statistics about crime rate vs race.

And it’s not just that. Notice their language. Their comment is phrased like a question rather than a statement, a pattern that not-so-pleasant people are notorious for (look up “JAQing off”). The EDIT uses classic catchphrases like “Use your brain, not your feeeelings!”. This fits the verbiage of a modern internet racist to a tee.

Look, what I said about the alt twitter account was an exaggeration. Maybe the guy is genuinely not racist. But even if they are, why should I bother differentiating between a racist and someone whose arguments, language, and misuse of logic is functionally indistinguishable from those of a racist? The moment racism starts to enter the mainstream (due to a right-wing government or similar), I expect people like that to put up no resistance.

Yeah, people think black men are dangerous because of racism. 🙄

That’s what you sound like, smh.

Disclaimer: I’ve not vetted the statistic I posted but seen similar numbers before.

Edit: As has been rightly pointed out the above statistic does not say what I thought it did. A better version would be:

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

Not a ton of latinos in the UK, and they’re banned there.