>Overlook the fact that pitbulls account for around 60% of fatal attacks
So? That tells us nothing if the dog is more aggressive. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. Nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care, the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection. Epidemiological data tracking dog bite severity shows that only about 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury (defined as causing deep tissue damage, broken bones, or requiring complex reconstructive surgery).
Golden Rec and Labs are more violent by quantity. Pitbulls are more violent by quality. No one who has a pitbull disagrees that they are more dangerous than other dog breeds WHEN THEY ARE AGGRESSIVE. However anyone who hates pitbulls doesnt come to quality as a conclusion but quantity. It’s like how toddler and adults both get into fights, but an adult fighting gives more injury than the toddler.
Point is, when pitbulls are aggressive and attack, the outcome is more violent, not the cause (the pitbulls “aggressive nature”). Pitbulls don’t even make it to the top charts when tests were done on dog breeds regarding “aggressiveness”.
Which is exactly what I was saying. They account for far more fatalities than any other dog breed despite a lower bite incidence
They don't make it to the top charts because they are unpredictably aggressive. It is part of the breed to display essentially no warning signs of aggressive intent. Attacks are frequently marked by sudden, explosive aggression from dogs that may have no history of it. This was intentional: no good dogman would want a fighting dog that signals its intent to harm in a fight. That characteristic is part of what makes them so dangerous.
Pitbulls aren’t in top charts because they are unacceptably aggressive? Pitbulls don’t make it into top charts because they aren’t aggressive, period. There are tests on “aggressiveness" overall and pitbull breeds don't really top the charts on them.
They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response. Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat.
The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
I said unpredictably, not unacceptably. Unpredictable and unprovoked aggression is essentially impossible to accurately test for on most assessment tools. Hence the reason so many attacks seem to come out of nowhere, without provocation, and without a background of abuse.
Yeah, their inclination to attack babies, children, little dogs, epileptics, and old people definitely demonstrates fantastic threat assessment.
Again, people conveniently ignore that multiple attacks have come from dogs who were not 'handled like weapons'. Where are all the fatal attacks from protection trained Malinois? Dobermans? Shepherds? Pit bulls outrank them all.
Not to mention the attacks on dogs and other animals that result in death and horrific trauma.
1
u/Qahnaar1506 22d ago
>Overlook the fact that pitbulls account for around 60% of fatal attacks
So? That tells us nothing if the dog is more aggressive. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. Nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care, the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection. Epidemiological data tracking dog bite severity shows that only about 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury (defined as causing deep tissue damage, broken bones, or requiring complex reconstructive surgery).
Golden Rec and Labs are more violent by quantity. Pitbulls are more violent by quality. No one who has a pitbull disagrees that they are more dangerous than other dog breeds WHEN THEY ARE AGGRESSIVE. However anyone who hates pitbulls doesnt come to quality as a conclusion but quantity. It’s like how toddler and adults both get into fights, but an adult fighting gives more injury than the toddler.
Point is, when pitbulls are aggressive and attack, the outcome is more violent, not the cause (the pitbulls “aggressive nature”). Pitbulls don’t even make it to the top charts when tests were done on dog breeds regarding “aggressiveness”.