There was a pit bull on a plane with me yesterday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

LA LA LAND!!!!

Where you live, with your fingers in your ears and your enculado head, willfully ignoring any logic that challenges your biases.

Stay there, please.

I would live it if you actually presented anything logical.

Wipe your eyes off, scroll up and read. There are links right in this particular comment thread.

Lordy Jaysus... you won't be helped, but you won't be quiet either. It's obnoxious af.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

LA LA LAND!!!!

Where you live, with your fingers in your ears and your enculado head, willfully ignoring any logic that challenges your biases.

Stay there, please.

I would live it if you actually presented anything logical.

Wipe your eyes off, scroll up and read. There are links right in this particular comment thread.

Lordy Jaysus... you won't be helped, but you won't be quiet either. It's obnoxious af.

yeah pitties are just misunderstood, whaaa whaaaa....girl, bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43

Are you citing... the AI synopsis?

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

Dp this is what this poster believes. Pits are just misunderstood and the reason is many of them are languishing in rescues eating up all the overhead fees earned by non pit adoptions is simply because people like you and me are dumb and biased. Nothing to do with their aggression, harm capabilities or the fact that pit owners are irresponsible and don’t fix their pets. Nope. It’s your fault.

It's not a hard argument to make when you listen to what these anti-pit screeds reduce to: "I don't understand dogs, I don't like pit bulls, and I think the world should cater to me."

Pit bulls aren't particularly hard to understand. They're dogs. That's it. They're not some special kind of magical dog that only people who like pit bulls can understand. They operate by the exact same metrics as literally any other breed. If you can train a dog, you can train a pit bull, because a pit bull is a dog. Some of you don't understand that, because you're biased and, yes, at this point in these threads, willfully ignorant. It has nothing to do with the aggression or harm capabilities of a "pit bull" which are the same as any other breed of similar size and strength (and less than many of your favorite breeds, which you'd also understand if you knew what you were talking about).

Yes, some pit owners are irresponsible and don't fix their pets. There should be breeder licenses for dogs of all breeds which, when properly enforced, would solve that problem. But that's never what y'all suggest.

This isn't about the dogs. It's about you hating the dogs. That is the definition of a you problem: the problem is with you.

LA LA LAND!!!!

Where you live, with your fingers in your ears and your enculado head, willfully ignoring any logic that challenges your biases.

Stay there, please.

I would live it if you actually presented anything logical.

Wipe your eyes off, scroll up and read. There are links right in this particular comment thread.

Lordy Jaysus... you won't be helped, but you won't be quiet either. It's obnoxious af.

yeah pitties are just misunderstood, whaaa whaaaa....girl, bye.

Thank you for making your refusal to engage in good faith (or even in an adult fashion) perfectly plain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43

Are you citing... the AI synopsis?

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

Your are willfully ignoring a 100 links telling you that pit bulls are responsible for most of the attacks and deaths. You are a ignorant moron and I don’t have any more energy to point out what every intelligent, sane person can find out with a simple Google search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43

Are you citing... the AI synopsis?

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

Your are willfully ignoring a 100 links telling you that pit bulls are responsible for most of the attacks and deaths. You are a ignorant moron and I don’t have any more energy to point out what every intelligent, sane person can find out with a simple Google search.

Okay. I'm going to ignore your "ignorant moron" projection and try (again) to help you.

That it shows up in a google search doesn't make it a fact. That it exists on the internet doesn't make it true. You need to vet your sources. Here's a link to the CRAAP method, which is a pretty solid start https://libguides.rbc.edu/c.php?g=484846&p=3320444

The link you provided gives me* Reddit as the first link. That's a usersite where anyone can say pretty much anything. It's like citing DCUM. This fails the "authority" check"
Then, I get "bring Jackson home" which is someone's personal aggregator clickbait site (a site where someone posts a bunch of links they get money for helping/making you click) This fails authority, and also relevance, and its purpose is sus af.
Next, I get wikipedia, which is more credible than Reddit, but still not considered a reliable primary source, as it can be edited by anyone with an edit-access account. So not an authoritative source.
I get two ads for law firms (purpose is to advertise, not educate)...

And then I get a copy of the article “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998”, published in the September 15, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf It isn't the most timely, but it meets the other criteria.

And do you know what it says and cites? Exactly what I already said/cited for you upthread.

You're welcome to keep calling me an idiot, but there are the actual facts about this issue, again, should you wish to become a better-informed person.

*Keep in mind that the algorithm may feed you different search results depending on what it thinks it knows about you, where else you're logged in, what you have previously searched for...

[Anonymous]

Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30
breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people,
including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a
Labrador Retriever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43

Are you citing... the AI synopsis?

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

Your are willfully ignoring a 100 links telling you that pit bulls are responsible for most of the attacks and deaths. You are a ignorant moron and I don’t have any more energy to point out what every intelligent, sane person can find out with a simple Google search.

Okay. I'm going to ignore your "ignorant moron" projection and try (again) to help you.

That it shows up in a google search doesn't make it a fact. That it exists on the internet doesn't make it true. You need to vet your sources. Here's a link to the CRAAP method, which is a pretty solid start https://libguides.rbc.edu/c.php?g=484846&p=3320444

The link you provided gives me* Reddit as the first link. That's a usersite where anyone can say pretty much anything. It's like citing DCUM. This fails the "authority" check"
Then, I get "bring Jackson home" which is someone's personal aggregator clickbait site (a site where someone posts a bunch of links they get money for helping/making you click) This fails authority, and also relevance, and its purpose is sus af.
Next, I get wikipedia, which is more credible than Reddit, but still not considered a reliable primary source, as it can be edited by anyone with an edit-access account. So not an authoritative source.
I get two ads for law firms (purpose is to advertise, not educate)...

And then I get a copy of the article “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998”, published in the September 15, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf It isn't the most timely, but it meets the other criteria.

And do you know what it says and cites? Exactly what I already said/cited for you upthread.

You're welcome to keep calling me an idiot, but there are the actual facts about this issue, again, should you wish to become a better-informed person.

*Keep in mind that the algorithm may feed you different search results depending on what it thinks it knows about you, where else you're logged in, what you have previously searched for...

DP. You’re the one who is wildly defensive and uniformed. Just keep your ‘hippos’ away from others, thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense.

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.

A dachshund, you mean? The insurance rate should be the exact same. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense.

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous.

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43

Are you citing... the AI synopsis?

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

Your are willfully ignoring a 100 links telling you that pit bulls are responsible for most of the attacks and deaths. You are a ignorant moron and I don’t have any more energy to point out what every intelligent, sane person can find out with a simple Google search.

Okay. I'm going to ignore your "ignorant moron" projection and try (again) to help you.

That it shows up in a google search doesn't make it a fact. That it exists on the internet doesn't make it true. You need to vet your sources. Here's a link to the CRAAP method, which is a pretty solid start https://libguides.rbc.edu/c.php?g=484846&p=3320444

The link you provided gives me* Reddit as the first link. That's a usersite where anyone can say pretty much anything. It's like citing DCUM. This fails the "authority" check"
Then, I get "bring Jackson home" which is someone's personal aggregator clickbait site (a site where someone posts a bunch of links they get money for helping/making you click) This fails authority, and also relevance, and its purpose is sus af.
Next, I get wikipedia, which is more credible than Reddit, but still not considered a reliable primary source, as it can be edited by anyone with an edit-access account. So not an authoritative source.
I get two ads for law firms (purpose is to advertise, not educate)...

And then I get a copy of the article “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998”, published in the September 15, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf It isn't the most timely, but it meets the other criteria.

And do you know what it says and cites? Exactly what I already said/cited for you upthread.

You're welcome to keep calling me an idiot, but there are the actual facts about this issue, again, should you wish to become a better-informed person.

*Keep in mind that the algorithm may feed you different search results depending on what it thinks it knows about you, where else you're logged in, what you have previously searched for...

DP. You’re the one who is wildly defensive and uniformed. Just keep your ‘hippos’ away from others, thanks

As predicted... You anti-pit bullies don't want facts, you just want to hate and troll.

Stay ignorant then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do we have a "society" that needs to bring a pit bull on the plane? Someone explain

Why do we have a scare-quotes "society" that feels entitled to judge everyone else's lives instead of just minding your own damned business?

You make it everyone's business when you bring your pitbull where it doesn't belong, like airports and stores.

Obviously the airline disagrees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

Chihuahuas are definitely aggressive. They suck. Show me how many people have been maimed or killed by them pls.

Pls research your own stats. I have a scar from a chihuahua, so that's at least one. that they're small doesn't mean they're harmless, and this argument that you think is so strong actually works against your point.

People don't train their chihuahuas because they're "just" a chihuahua. Whereas if someone with a "pit bull" behaved that way, you'd probably think them criminally negligent. At the root of this is the exact same problem: poor owner behavior, failure to train, lack of understanding of how to properly handle a dog. What you're trying to do is ban breeds, which will NOT solve the problem. What would is better owner training, including requiring a licensing exam before people could legal own a dog of any breed.

Every time you make it about "pit bulls" (which used to be rotties, which used to be dobies, which used to be GSDs; this is an old-ass argument) you knock us off track from any progress we might make toward an actual solution to dog bite incidents.

You know why people don't care about Chihuahuas? Because they aren't killing people!!!!!!!

But to your credit I would never own a rottie, or dobie or GDS. But I especially wouldn't not own a pittie since they are responsible for the largest number of human deaths.

Baby, i don't want to get bit by anyone's dog. I don't care that it's "not going to kill me".

Baby, I don't want to get bit by anyone's dog either. But you keep ignoring the fact that one can kill me, and the other will require a stitch or two.

It didn't even bark. You have a phobia. There's therapy for that. Seek the professional help you clearly need.

Nope. Keep your beloved pittie at home where it belongs. You don't get to make decisions for me.

Maybe you should stay home. You can't control the world. It isn't calmed ' making decisions for you' it is called living your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Happened to me. I posted about it here, and the pit bull posters about tore me to shreds. Wonder where they learned that behavior from. Oh, wait, I don't.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1215401.page

If you were torn to shreds than you would be dead. Yet, Here you are!

That asinine argument is like saying we don't need seatbelts because most of the time we drive we don't get into an accident.

I was talking about the people who 'tore' her to shreds ie had a different opinion not the dog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op. The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".

Chihuahuas are definitely aggressive. They suck. Show me how many people have been maimed or killed by them pls.

Pls research your own stats. I have a scar from a chihuahua, so that's at least one. that they're small doesn't mean they're harmless, and this argument that you think is so strong actually works against your point.

People don't train their chihuahuas because they're "just" a chihuahua. Whereas if someone with a "pit bull" behaved that way, you'd probably think them criminally negligent. At the root of this is the exact same problem: poor owner behavior, failure to train, lack of understanding of how to properly handle a dog. What you're trying to do is ban breeds, which will NOT solve the problem. What would is better owner training, including requiring a licensing exam before people could legal own a dog of any breed.

Every time you make it about "pit bulls" (which used to be rotties, which used to be dobies, which used to be GSDs; this is an old-ass argument) you knock us off track from any progress we might make toward an actual solution to dog bite incidents.

You know why people don't care about Chihuahuas? Because they aren't killing people!!!!!!!

But to your credit I would never own a rottie, or dobie or GDS. But I especially wouldn't not own a pittie since they are responsible for the largest number of human deaths.

Baby, i don't want to get bit by anyone's dog. I don't care that it's "not going to kill me".

Baby, I don't want to get bit by anyone's dog either. But you keep ignoring the fact that one can kill me, and the other will require a stitch or two.

It didn't even bark. You have a phobia. There's therapy for that. Seek the professional help you clearly need.

Nope. Keep your beloved pittie at home where it belongs. You don't get to make decisions for me.

Maybe you should stay home. You can't control the world. It isn't calmed ' making decisions for you' it is called living your life.

Typical delusional dog owner. "my dog deserves to travel more than people." Just so you know, you sound totally crazy to the sane people.