It is true that pit bulls make up a hugely disproportionate number of reported dog attacks, it's also true that they are especially dangerous and have caused the most deaths by dog bite.
What many of these statistics fail to account for are environmental factors (pit bulls tend to be the most abused and most regularly abandoned dogs because of dog fighting and also because they are just a handful to properly train and care for.), it is also very difficult to gather accurate data on breed specific attacks/aggression because while pit bulls are the highest reported in most dog bite statistics, they are also not a breed as much as a group of breeds that includes:
The American Pit Bull Terrier
The American Staffordshire Terrier
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and
The American Bully
A study found that dogs classified as Pit Bulls only had 43.5% DNA from Pit Bull-type ancestry.
The study, carried out in two shelters in California and Arizona, also found that 62% of dogs labeled as Pit Bulls had less than a 50% DNA concentration from Pit Bull-type ancestry, Pit Bull facts and statistics show.
Identifying the right breed of dog in attacks and death is incredibly difficult. This is why the CDC stopped collecting breed-specific data in dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in 1998.
The fact that there’s no official data to go by makes it even harder to separate myths from facts regarding Pit Bull attacks in the US.
Okay cool, so pits might make headlines more because of their strength and ability to inflict fatal wounds easier than other breeds but that goes for most large dogs.
German Shepherds had a similar stigma back when Americans were still xenophobic toward German immigrants and there were similar attitudes around that breed in the mid twentieth century. Prior to WWII Pit Bulls were a working class icon and were as much or more known for their reputation as great working dogs and loyal and loving family dogs as fighting dogs or vicious guard dogs.
Pit Bulls were bred for a wide variety of reasons and selected for many different traits but like most dogs they were foremost bread for physical traits and secondly for their temperament toward humans.
So what happened?
Racism it's always racism.
No new owner may settle in the area so long as they possess such a dog. Critics argue that these bans are not based on sound scientific or statistical evidence—that pit bulls pose no greater risk than any other breed of dog. Advocates of these laws urge that the bans are crucial to protect the public health and safety from dangerous dogs. Yet, perhaps these concerns have less to do with dogs and more to do with the individuals who own them. Breed-specific legislation may be being used as a new form of redlining to keep minorities out of majority-white neighborhoods.
“We don’t want those people here,” a city council member said of the bans. Strong cultural ties exist between pit bull dogs and the Black community. The same is true of the Latino community. Research undertaken here to investigate this claim suggests that people of color are perceived to be the most likely owner of this breed of dog. While at the present time, actual ownership data is not available, if true ownership resembles the perceived distribution measured here, such a finding may form the basis for a legal claim. Under new law, breed-specific legislation could be challenged under the Fair Housing Act if it can be shown that these laws are disproportionately excluding minority groups.
-The Black Man's Dog: The Social Context of Breed Specific Legislation, by Ann Linder
If you take a look at my responses you'll see I've made one specific point, which is that the concentration of DNA an organism inherits does not say anything inherently about what traits are expressed in that organism. In this situation, a dog having less than 50% Pit Bull DNA doesn't mean anything without knowing the function of that DNA, let alone what we mean by "Pit Bull DNA"1.
As far as I know that's just how genetics work, just the same as how my siblings and I each carry 50% of our mother's DNA, but it's not necessarily the same 50%, if that makes sense.
I would also advise a second look at your sources as the tweet at the end of the list has been deleted and I couldn't find it in the wayback machine.
1Is this DNA within the canine genome, in keeping with the methods in the study you linked by Gunter, Barber, and Wynne? Or is it shared DNA in the broader sense, (like how humans technically share a large amount of our genetic code with bananas, albeit this is boilerplate stuff like "how to make a cell). I would assume the former, but since it's not sourced I can't tell. After searching the quote I found it verbatim in this listicle, which also does not directly provide the source.
Just refreshed and saw that my other posts got removed so I suppose this one isn't too long for this world
Can you provide any sources that show that pitbulls are genetically predisposed to aggression toward humans? Because I presented several that discount that notion.
Once again, my point is that I don't think that proportion of DNA inherited itself is any direct indicator of inherited traits. I don't have a source for the claim you mention because I'm not making that claim. In fact, isn't it in favor of your argument that being a pitbull mix doesn't automatically equal aggression?
my point is that I don't think that proportion of DNA inherited itself is any direct indicator of inherited traits.
Okay but that was the point I was making to begin with that even the genetic claims are bullshit. What even are you saying here? That all dogs are potentially violent? Because that is not a refutation.
Your whole argument seemed to be trying to refute my post based on that when it in fact reinforces my post.
I'd encourage you to go into the modlog and reread my comment where I said "I don't think this specific point is meaningful." It was not meant to address anything but that specific point because I believe it's not good reasoning regardless of who's using it for whatever purpose. That is where my "argument" begins and ends. I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I really did try my best to make clear the scope of my critique.
No I pointed out the racist origins of pitbull hysteria and BSL redlining. Are you that obtuse? Or do you just internalize unscientific racist bullshit because it "feels right"
You're saying that analyzing the behavior of different breeds is equivalent to phrenology, which implies that human "races" are as equivalently different from each other as dog breeds are, which is of course nonsense and racist.
No I am arguing the so-called "science" behind it is racist. Do you have any counter arguments backed up with actual data because I presented several sources in my post.
are absolutely more different from each other than a black person and a white person are from each other. Dogs have been selectively bred for ten thousand years, and they've been very specifically bred for different roles, literally changing their physical shape. Human beings have not, we're all pretty much the same. Unless you're going to argue that domestication and animal husbandry are fake then I do not see how this is equivalent to differences in melanin production.
My specific argument is with you comparing differences in dog breeds to phrenology. I'm not saying that dogs of a specific breed are more aggressive; Im saying that comparing dog breeds on a morphological level is not the same as comparing human races on a morphological level. Phrenology is a pseudoscience specifically because human races do not vary morphologically, especially not in skull shape. You can easily measure a dog's skull to tell a Great Dane from a Chihuahua, which is why I used those breeds as an example.
For another example beyond body profile, bloodhounds actually have more scent receptor cells than any other dog according to this article. A study from 2016 shows that scent hounds indeed perform better at sniffing for stuff. I did find a recent article about a study claiming to find evidence to the contrary, although it's a pre-print study that has not undergone peer review yet.
Hi again - I hope this doesn't get too confusing since we've got two different threads going on but I'm not making any claims about human aggression. Maybe "behavior" if we count smelling things as behavior.
No it is not lmao. Dog breeds most certainly do have drastic morphological differences created by humans selectively breeding them for thousands of years.
That is true, Im not disputing that, but comparing the differences between dog breeds, which are wildly different morphologically, is not equivalent to phrenology and race science. Human races are not morphologically different from each other, race is a social construct.
Please show me some science that backs up your assumptions then. Because I am telling you your assumptions are based on racially motivated pseudoscience.
Im sorry but can you not see how a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are physically different from one another? One can entirely fit into the others mouth. I'm not arguing that Pit hysteria isnt founded in racism, but the concept that dogs breeds cannot be any more different from each other than human "races" are is insane.
Your own sources above specifically state that different breeds are identifiable through genetic testing, idk exactly what else you want from me here.
It is unreal how any time pit bulls come up here, random hexbearians who probably have normal left opinions about most other things will pop up to be like "Actually breed specific legislation is okay because these dogs in particular are evil"
I think the word "said" is being overlooked here, he meant there is not the same type of anti-Black and anti-Latino racism and history of redlining in the UK as there has been in the US and that pit bull bans there do not seem to be geared in the same degree toward barring select races from moving into select neighborhoods. He wasn't trying to say the UK has never had any history of slavery and racism with any race, just that attributing a pit bull ban to race in the fashion that the OP cites does not square with the dynamics behind the UK pit bull ban--which almost exclusively affects chud white people.
Because US political brainworms always do. Qanon is a great recent example.
This phenomenon of pitbull demonizing is literally only like 30 years old.
They were also never bred for "aggression to humans" as someone incorrectly stated, they were first and foremost bred as working dogs and even in fighting circles would be immediately put down if they expressed aggression toward humans. Dogs have to be severely abused in 99% of cases to be made to be aggressive or at least be deprived of socialization.
I beg everyone here to actually read science on this stuff that I have included in my effort post before falling back to reactionary vibes based opinions built on reactionary racist propaganda.
If anything, pit bulls make me think of bogans. Could be argued that's classist but i grew up a bogan and it's why basically any dog above my upper leg makes me nervous. But then, they mostly have Standard Issue Shelter mixes and don't usually get dogs from breeders.
To be fair Black and Latino communities are where overt display of machismo and toxic masculinity might manifest in ownership of a pit bull. Furthermore in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime pit bulls sometimes get used in lieu of guns to threaten and rob people. If you read DMX's memoir he talked about how he would go around with his large muscular pit bull and take things from people, then use the dog to intimidate them into walking away.
It is true that pit bulls make up a hugely disproportionate number of reported dog attacks, it's also true that they are especially dangerous and have caused the most deaths by dog bite.
What many of these statistics fail to account for are environmental factors (pit bulls tend to be the most abused and most regularly abandoned dogs because of dog fighting and also because they are just a handful to properly train and care for.), it is also very difficult to gather accurate data on breed specific attacks/aggression because while pit bulls are the highest reported in most dog bite statistics, they are also not a breed as much as a group of breeds that includes:
The American Pit Bull Terrier The American Staffordshire Terrier The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and The American Bully
A study found that dogs classified as Pit Bulls only had 43.5% DNA from Pit Bull-type ancestry.
The study, carried out in two shelters in California and Arizona, also found that 62% of dogs labeled as Pit Bulls had less than a 50% DNA concentration from Pit Bull-type ancestry, Pit Bull facts and statistics show.
Identifying the right breed of dog in attacks and death is incredibly difficult. This is why the CDC stopped collecting breed-specific data in dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in 1998.
The fact that there’s no official data to go by makes it even harder to separate myths from facts regarding Pit Bull attacks in the US.
Okay cool, so pits might make headlines more because of their strength and ability to inflict fatal wounds easier than other breeds but that goes for most large dogs.
German Shepherds had a similar stigma back when Americans were still xenophobic toward German immigrants and there were similar attitudes around that breed in the mid twentieth century. Prior to WWII Pit Bulls were a working class icon and were as much or more known for their reputation as great working dogs and loyal and loving family dogs as fighting dogs or vicious guard dogs.
Pit Bulls were bred for a wide variety of reasons and selected for many different traits but like most dogs they were foremost bread for physical traits and secondly for their temperament toward humans.
So what happened?
Racism it's always racism.
No new owner may settle in the area so long as they possess such a dog. Critics argue that these bans are not based on sound scientific or statistical evidence—that pit bulls pose no greater risk than any other breed of dog. Advocates of these laws urge that the bans are crucial to protect the public health and safety from dangerous dogs. Yet, perhaps these concerns have less to do with dogs and more to do with the individuals who own them. Breed-specific legislation may be being used as a new form of redlining to keep minorities out of majority-white neighborhoods.
“We don’t want those people here,” a city council member said of the bans. Strong cultural ties exist between pit bull dogs and the Black community. The same is true of the Latino community. Research undertaken here to investigate this claim suggests that people of color are perceived to be the most likely owner of this breed of dog. While at the present time, actual ownership data is not available, if true ownership resembles the perceived distribution measured here, such a finding may form the basis for a legal claim. Under new law, breed-specific legislation could be challenged under the Fair Housing Act if it can be shown that these laws are disproportionately excluding minority groups.
-The Black Man's Dog: The Social Context of Breed Specific Legislation, by Ann Linder
https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107223/
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/
https://twitter.com/GeeDee215/status/1338869829911146497
Damn this is a fucking 🔥 post
Thanks I did some rather exhaustive research to put it together, you can read all the sources for even more info on how much bullshit BSL is.
When regular phrenology isn't enough and you have to invent dog phrenology to be even more racist.
British Sign Language...?
Breed Specific Legislation
Removed by mod
You really think dog phrenology is gonna fly here? You'd understand it's just a Trojan horse for race science right?
deleted by creator
Please read the source material.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Wtf I just played out how your precious dog phrenology is dubious science with sources. I'm not fucking having this argument again.
Hexbear stop being weird about random shit challenge [failed]
If you take a look at my responses you'll see I've made one specific point, which is that the concentration of DNA an organism inherits does not say anything inherently about what traits are expressed in that organism. In this situation, a dog having less than 50% Pit Bull DNA doesn't mean anything without knowing the function of that DNA, let alone what we mean by "Pit Bull DNA"1.
As far as I know that's just how genetics work, just the same as how my siblings and I each carry 50% of our mother's DNA, but it's not necessarily the same 50%, if that makes sense.
I would also advise a second look at your sources as the tweet at the end of the list has been deleted and I couldn't find it in the wayback machine.
1Is this DNA within the canine genome, in keeping with the methods in the study you linked by Gunter, Barber, and Wynne? Or is it shared DNA in the broader sense, (like how humans technically share a large amount of our genetic code with bananas, albeit this is boilerplate stuff like "how to make a cell). I would assume the former, but since it's not sourced I can't tell. After searching the quote I found it verbatim in this listicle, which also does not directly provide the source.
Just refreshed and saw that my other posts got removed so I suppose this one isn't too long for this world
Can you provide any sources that show that pitbulls are genetically predisposed to aggression toward humans? Because I presented several that discount that notion.
Once again, my point is that I don't think that proportion of DNA inherited itself is any direct indicator of inherited traits. I don't have a source for the claim you mention because I'm not making that claim. In fact, isn't it in favor of your argument that being a pitbull mix doesn't automatically equal aggression?
Okay but that was the point I was making to begin with that even the genetic claims are bullshit. What even are you saying here? That all dogs are potentially violent? Because that is not a refutation.
Your whole argument seemed to be trying to refute my post based on that when it in fact reinforces my post.
I'd encourage you to go into the modlog and reread my comment where I said "I don't think this specific point is meaningful." It was not meant to address anything but that specific point because I believe it's not good reasoning regardless of who's using it for whatever purpose. That is where my "argument" begins and ends. I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I really did try my best to make clear the scope of my critique.
No I pointed out the racist origins of pitbull hysteria and BSL redlining. Are you that obtuse? Or do you just internalize unscientific racist bullshit because it "feels right"
You're saying that analyzing the behavior of different breeds is equivalent to phrenology, which implies that human "races" are as equivalently different from each other as dog breeds are, which is of course nonsense and racist.
No I am arguing the so-called "science" behind it is racist. Do you have any counter arguments backed up with actual data because I presented several sources in my post.
Yeah this
Show me the actual scientific data regarding aggression to humans.
My specific argument is with you comparing differences in dog breeds to phrenology. I'm not saying that dogs of a specific breed are more aggressive; Im saying that comparing dog breeds on a morphological level is not the same as comparing human races on a morphological level. Phrenology is a pseudoscience specifically because human races do not vary morphologically, especially not in skull shape. You can easily measure a dog's skull to tell a Great Dane from a Chihuahua, which is why I used those breeds as an example.
For another example beyond body profile, bloodhounds actually have more scent receptor cells than any other dog according to this article. A study from 2016 shows that scent hounds indeed perform better at sniffing for stuff. I did find a recent article about a study claiming to find evidence to the contrary, although it's a pre-print study that has not undergone peer review yet.
None of this says anything about behavior or human aggression.
Hi again - I hope this doesn't get too confusing since we've got two different threads going on but I'm not making any claims about human aggression. Maybe "behavior" if we count smelling things as behavior.
Breeds are just as much a thing as race is, its all made up bullshit
No it is not lmao. Dog breeds most certainly do have drastic morphological differences created by humans selectively breeding them for thousands of years.
Pitbulls haven't been a "breed" for longer than the early 20th century. That is not "thousands of years"
deleted by creator
That is true, Im not disputing that, but comparing the differences between dog breeds, which are wildly different morphologically, is not equivalent to phrenology and race science. Human races are not morphologically different from each other, race is a social construct.
Please show me some science that backs up your assumptions then. Because I am telling you your assumptions are based on racially motivated pseudoscience.
Im sorry but can you not see how a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are physically different from one another? One can entirely fit into the others mouth. I'm not arguing that Pit hysteria isnt founded in racism, but the concept that dogs breeds cannot be any more different from each other than human "races" are is insane.
Your own sources above specifically state that different breeds are identifiable through genetic testing, idk exactly what else you want from me here.
Already addressed in my post.
It is unreal how any time pit bulls come up here, random hexbearians who probably have normal left opinions about most other things will pop up to be like "Actually breed specific legislation is okay because these dogs in particular are evil"
Keep in mind that Hexbearians are still
ers at their roots and still have 
brain on niche subjects sometimes.
Conclusion doesn’t apply to other nations without said racism/slavery history.
Where do you think pitbull hysteria originated?
Also lmao at the implication that the UK doesn't have a history of slavery and racism. What the hell kind of take is this?
I think the word "said" is being overlooked here, he meant there is not the same type of anti-Black and anti-Latino racism and history of redlining in the UK as there has been in the US and that pit bull bans there do not seem to be geared in the same degree toward barring select races from moving into select neighborhoods. He wasn't trying to say the UK has never had any history of slavery and racism with any race, just that attributing a pit bull ban to race in the fashion that the OP cites does not square with the dynamics behind the UK pit bull ban--which almost exclusively affects chud white people.
I’m Australian. Pit Bulls aren’t and weren’t owned by ex slaves or indigenous people here.
Didn't answer my question.
Why do you think that “hysteria” has been exported internationally?
Because US political brainworms always do. Qanon is a great recent example.
This phenomenon of pitbull demonizing is literally only like 30 years old.
They were also never bred for "aggression to humans" as someone incorrectly stated, they were first and foremost bred as working dogs and even in fighting circles would be immediately put down if they expressed aggression toward humans. Dogs have to be severely abused in 99% of cases to be made to be aggressive or at least be deprived of socialization.
I beg everyone here to actually read science on this stuff that I have included in my effort post before falling back to reactionary vibes based opinions built on reactionary racist propaganda.
If anything, pit bulls make me think of bogans. Could be argued that's classist but i grew up a bogan and it's why basically any dog above my upper leg makes me nervous. But then, they mostly have Standard Issue Shelter mixes and don't usually get dogs from breeders.
deleted by creator
To be fair Black and Latino communities are where overt display of machismo and toxic masculinity might manifest in ownership of a pit bull. Furthermore in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime pit bulls sometimes get used in lieu of guns to threaten and rob people. If you read DMX's memoir he talked about how he would go around with his large muscular pit bull and take things from people, then use the dog to intimidate them into walking away.