this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
893 points (97.6% liked)
aww
28765 readers
204 users here now
A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.
AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about
- No racism or bigotry.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
- No SPAM posting.
- No trolling of others.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
First off, the infographic you posted doesn't even spell the name of the propaganda site it cites properly (dogsbite[dot]org). Just because it's a .org doesn't grant it instant legitimacy. It's one woman (Colleen Lynn) with a vendetta. (You don't still believe the disproven and later retracted "study" about vaccines causing autism now, do you?)
Second, engage in some critical thinking. (I know, you weren't bred to do so - but it isn't your fault!). Do many people keep these several dog breeds for home and family protection, and do they similarly neglect and fail to train their dogs? To use your own irresponsible analogy where several breeds of dogs = guns, yes, many people own guns and don't follow proper safety practices with them. And we've also decided as a society that even with many undereducated people doing stupid things with guns that education is part of a larger solution. Please educate yourself further, unless you're just here to stir up trouble.
Oof" my sister thinks .org means trustworthy. I can't convince her otherwise :[
Wrong website, troll. Educate yourself further.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
So you didn't even look at the picture you posted. Thanks for confirming that you aren't engaging in good faith. Easy block.
Lmao.
For someone who didn't provide jack all you're sure proud of yourself, idiot.
So far you've just called people trolls and kept posting the same link, it seems without even reading the comments you're responding to thoroughy.
The charity you've linked, world animal foundation seems to be a respectable charity. The problem; and what you're being critisized for; is the source of the statistic they use, which you keep quoting.
A quick google search shows that that statistic ( from dogsbite.org, as shown on your linked article) does not reflect actual results, as shown by studies from both the american dog breeders association and the national library of medicine.
Another article from world animal foundation paints a picture of pitbulls as not significantly more aggressive than other breeds if you ignore the statistics provided by dogsbite.org, which I hope at this is no longer considered a legitimate source [1, 2 ].
If you can list any sources not originally from dogsbite.org or quoting them, I'd be happy to read through those and reconsider my position.
EDITS: formatting
He’s just projecting that he’s the troll. He literally doesn’t want to hear about any nuance, and the extended list of other sources go straight over his head.
If the account isn’t a bot then they’re living a sad life
Congrats on being entirely useless to this conversation.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
"Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you'll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed's behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: "Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of "[s]everal interacting factors" that determine a dog's likelihood to attack. 21"
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
"As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs"
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I've listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here's one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf