Pit bulls and statistics
Just putting this here because I keep having to re-research this to respond to bad political takes
- Yes: ~60% of fatal attacks by dogs are caused by pit bulls.
- No: That does not mean pit bulls are more dangerous.
Armchair statistics like this are harmful and are often exploited by people with an agenda.
Even if the number was 100%, it would mean nothing.
Here’s why:
- Dogs attack people because they are poorly trained, abused, neglected and otherwise mishandled
- The types of people that are abusive, neglectful and otherwise overwhelmingly prefer pit bulls
- This means pit bulls are the most abused breed, and this accounts, 100% for the reason they are involved in more attacks
Pits are definitely more unsociable towards other dogs. There are numerous studies that show this. They also aren’t “fooled” by dolls and other tests, and are definitely willing to play with a human-like doll aggressively.
But most studies seem to show that the are more social, and are less likely to become aggressive towards humans than other breeds.
Banning breeds doesn’t work. What does work is banning “large” dogs (because larger dogs cause more damage). Also, banning chaining, and requireing training / certification works very well.
Banning can even make things worse: ”in 2004, Toronto had 567 recorded dog bite reports, prior to the institution of a providence-wide breed ban. Post BSL, the rate did not go down and, in fact the city had 767 recorded cases of bites by 2014 — from breeds not included in the initial ban.”
Study 1: No evidence that “breed” is an important factor. Indeed, the temperament of the owner is more important!
Study 2: Fact is, pit bulls have a *better* temperament than other dogs. (My theory? Probably because so many are descended from survivors of abuse.)
