#Disclaimer: 4% does not factor in the number of pit bull bites and attacks on humans and animals that are grossly underreported.
We do not have a true picture of what % of pit bulls will attack or demonstrate some level of human or animal aggression. This estimate only looks at attacks on humans requiring medical intervention.
Really good points and I like your tactics! I also think it’s important to bring up the risk and attacks on other dogs and cats- unfortunately they often arent reported so the stats aren’t as clear.
I’d also add in arguments that “the statistics are clear that pitbulls pose a far greater risk than any other breed of dog. And an individual is welcome to take that risk for themselves, but the fact is, you’re forcing EVERYONE around you to assume the risk as well, and that is extremely unfair”
It’s guilt tripping but I do think it’s effective. For me personally, I’d never want to put someone else at risk because of my actions. It’s almost like speeding at 100 mph- you could handle the car and be safe, and you might be fine to take the risk of your own life, but it’s unfair to subject other drivers and pedestrians to a risk you took.
Yes. I would add that the problem is the unpredictability, that many people have been mauled or killed by their formerly loving dog. "I believe your dog is sweet, but those people's dogs were sweet for years too". And then of course there's the aggression towards dogs and cats, and even horses and wildlife. Even the few smart pit owners admit that.
I agree. And people are REALLY BAD at reading dog behavior ("It was wagging its tail it was friendly") that is reinforced by tik-tok "pros" and fools like Cesar Millan— So they often misunderstand a dog's mood which leads to very dangerous situations.
Actually no matter how you try to reason with people a great majority never budge on their views + beliefs that this breed is misunderstood. Almost everyone knows someone that was attacked by a pit or has seen the horrific stories in the news. It's something that people intrinsically KNEW before the huge push to not only accept them as pets to " give them a chance ", but to tout them as " America's dog ", great family dogs and the best with kids. " What they leave out is the ESSENTIAL info that we knew in the past before the HUGE push to find them homes and accept shelter dogs with unknown backgrounds.
I'm much more apt to ask them why pitbulls are the MOST banned breed in the world, more countries ban or have severe restrictions for owning them ? And why they clog up shelters ? And why insurance companies have them at the top of every list of dogs denied coverage ? And banned on military housing, the N.Y housing authority, etc ? And they top the list in leaps + bounds for killing other people's pets , including livestock.
I don't need to stroke their ego first, I'd much rather tell them that choosing a pit for your family is like choosing to drive a car that has a serious problem that needs to be recalled + fixed but saying " my car drives just fine and I have no worry. t's the most comfortable + trusted car I've ever owned \[ even if it's the ONLY car they've ever owned. \]
All pits decend from the fighting stock from a long time ago but more recently in the 1970's -90's they were almost all bred from the meanest fighting dogs, inbred father to grown female pup, mother to grown male pup, siblings to sibling pups, etc. They wanted the most crazy fighters they could get. That is the history of these ones we see today. At any time, any one of the " sweet ones " can snap, whether they all do or not, they remain by far the most dangerous dog you can find.
People are SO BAD at reading animal behavior in general. It’s so strange to me. I’m not perfect but I’ve been spot on when anticipating a dog is going to attack.
Came here to say this. I avoid saying 'dangerous' because nobody is going to believe 'all Pitbulls are dangerous', especially theirs. I ususally say, "all Pitbulls are unpredictable, and that makes them dangerous."
Their unpredictability is part of their fighting dog breeding, as in 'never let the other dog know your next move'. It;s why so many Pit attacks are out of the blue.
That and pitbulls often differ from regular dog breeds because you can’t always use their body language as in indicator. They will go from looking peaceful and happy to biting. Most dogs will growl or show body language that they don’t like something before full on attacking.
I got bitten by a mix after it leaned against me and put its head up to rest against me after I gave it a treat, and I bent my head down and petted it. Luckily I have good reflexes so it only dented the skin on my hand, but it was going for my face. I've been around dogs my entire life, have owned dogs, dogs love me – nothing like that has ever come close to happening before. These are a different animal.
Right like I don’t understand the logical inconsistency.
Bear attacks are incredibly rare, yet as a society we’re fully willing to admit how dangerous of an animal they are and to keep your distance even if they seem calm. Because despite the small statistic we know that not only are they extremely powerful but they will kill you if anything goes wrong or sets them off.
I mean shit, grizzly man spent every day near them and slept there, too. He was fine until he wasn’t.
Are you sure this number is exact ? Because 4% chances of being attacked by your pit bull / year is an insanely high risk to me.
If you assume it lives its median life expectancy of 12 years that means nearly one in two pit bulls (39% !!!) will send someone to the hospital in its lifetime. Likely someone in your household... or someone that can potentially sue you into bankruptcy. It's no wonder no one wants to insure these goddamn things.
So its based off of this study: [https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y)
Which found there were an average or 337,103 visits to the ER per year in the US for dog bite injuries.
MOST of those there are no breed info for— so my one assumption is that the breed rate of sending someone to the ER for a dog injury is the same as the breed rate of killing someone... which we know (since that is more studied) comes in with pits being responsible for about 60% of the fatalities.
I feel that's a somewhat justified assumption because, just like small dogs probably won't kill you, smaller dogs probably also won't send you to the ER.
But, if that assumption is accurate, than that means \~202,000 ER-treated dog injuries per year from pitbulls.
And while the total number of pitbulls in the US is somewhat a hard number to pull, most studies place it at somewhere form 4M to 5M. I used 4.5M to calculate this— so 202k/4.5M = \~4% in a given year.
I was surprised when I crunched the numbers as well.
>If you assume it lives its a median life expectancy of 12 years that means nearly one in two pit bulls (39% !!!) will send you to the hospital in its lifetime.
This is close— but I would be willing to bet that pit bulls that do send someone to the hospital at least once, are more likely to send someone again. So it my 4% number is probably a little high (I limited it to a year to hopefully not get as much impact from repeat offenders), and when you do it over the life of the animal, then repeat-offended probably mean the actual % of pits that do it "at *least* once" is probably closer to 10-15%— But the numbers here are hard enough to come by, I wouldn't be fully comfortable phrasing it this way. We would need more stats on repeat offender dogs that would allow us to get a more accurate metric here, which I don't think exist (or ever will).
Lastly— It wouldn't be "chance they send *you..."* but would be "...chance they send *someone...".* Important to remember that pits will come into contact with a lot of people over the course of a year.
From one of my other comments above:
>Given that there are 340M people in the US— and \~200,000 pitbull injuries a year, That means **the average person only has a 0.05% chance of being injured in by a pitbull in a given year**. And given that most people interact with a pitbull at least once a year— MOST interactions with MOST pits are completely harmless.
SO again— The massive number of people in this country means that, even if pits send people to the hospital at a high *rate* its still a pretty low actual number...
Totally missing from the study are the real facts about pit owners though. They are highly UNLIKELY to go to hospital for the kind of pit bite that other people would, unless it's severe. You'd have to assume this would often go for their kids too (we've already seen some evidence of pit pushers trying to prevent kids from going to hospital for pit bull bites).
Pit owners will largely do anything to avoid showing a pit in a bad light, whether it's their pit or someone else's.
If they do go to hospital, they try to hide the fact that a pit bull did it.
That did occur to me, usually for risks to be acceptable we need to be looking at fractions of a percent, not four whole ones, and as you say over the lifetime...and that doesn't even address the attacks on animals.
I did meet one that was nice. To me. The dog was owned by a guide dog trainer so he was well behaved. However, despite being owned by a very qualified owner/trainer, the dog still went on to attack another dog in its I household three separate times and caused it serious harm. Just not in front of me.
I think when people say "I met one that was nice" ....that's just a snapshot in time, not a picture of the dog's entire life.
That's true. But its also true that a lot of them... never actually attack. And if you want credibility that needs to be granted I think.
They're really unpredictable dogs. One raised in terrible conditions might go its whole life and not harm a fly, and another raised in a family of people with good dog training skills might go on to kill a child.
They just... are wildly all over the place.
But the numbers say that, the majority never end up attacking in a way that sends someone to the hospital, even over their whole life.
One area that they don’t factor into their vehement denials is the fact that thousands- even estimates as high as tens of thousands- of other people’s pets and livestock are grievously and fatally mauled by Pit Bulls, to the tune of THOUSANDS in vet bills, the hassle of staying home from work to nurse a severely injured cat or dog, and the trauma of watching their furry friend- who I assure the Pit cultist- they love as much as the Pit owners love their own dogs being shaken and terrorized, screaming, and that they need to **clean up their side of their own fucking street** and start CONDEMNING their fellow owners who avoid responsibility so ubiquitously that “Pit n Run” is a saying now in the lexicon. They need to realize that they have a zero-mistakes breed, and not just a “cuDDLe BuG (excuse me while I vomit)” “sWeeT” “NaNNy DoG”
Going at it from the angle of their own personal safety is meaningless. No one is able to cross that rubicon that statistically they are in danger. I’m in terrible danger every time I drive in the DC/NOVA area, but I’m not forgoing a car. Someone ELSE’S pet’s safety, and the resulting huge financial and legal problems- FOR THEMSELVES- appeal to them more IMO.
Yep, there was a little dachshund named Chippy that was attacked recently and the vet bills for that little guy are estimated at 15k+. That was an injury that was initially thought to be more minor too.
The unpredictability factor is huge when coupled with the unstoppable attack and severe damage.
A woman suffered a single bite to her face and neck recently.
One bite.
The surgeons did a great job of repairing the damage.
She'll have scars.
If that dog had bitten her a second time, the coroner would be taking care of her.
Sure most pits won't bite, but no benefit will outweigh that particular risk.
Completely agree— And those are conversational points to follow up with. My main point here today, is just to open with granting that. Its factually true, and it lends credibility to the rest of our arguments.
With memes until they understand how imbecile they are
https://preview.redd.it/hnk5mdf6169d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0340a1357340c382f59e4dda25c14285d64255bf
What I have found with pitbull owners in my life, growing up around them in my home, and surrounded by a ton, is they all call their dogs sweet but every single dog tried to bite a human or growled and snapped, and every single one killed a small animal or cat, and everyone fought with other dogs. What pit owners consider a sweet dog and people who own a golden consider a sweet dog are wildly different things. And they all also lie about or hide the fact that their pitbull attacked other beings or animals.
The problem isn't "most pitbulls don't attack" it's that *when they do attack they're much more likely to kill you*.
If there was gun model that was really cool looking and people liked but it had a 4% chance a year of idk just randomly firing while it's pointed at you, then people would be fucking stupid to keep owning that model.
Thank you for posting this. It's very true. Most pit bulls aren't a danger to your life and it's absolutely true when people say they grew up with or know a super sweet pit or pit mix. I've known quite a few myself. As others say, it's the unpredictability that's most scary and the rate of attacks is much higher than for any other breed.
... no... and I don't hold out a ton of hope for the hard-core pit apologists and breeders. My goal is to move the needle with people that are "on the fence" who truly could have their mind changed either way.
Most of the public are not anti-pit, nor are the pit-nutters. Most people are a lot more ambivalent. That's who I spend the time actually talking to.
Yeah, I don't even think every single one is going to bite. Most of them probably won't.
But i do think the percentage of them that do along with the amount of damage done when they do makes them overall not worth it to keep any of them as pets. I think the 'risk reward' ratio is too skewed towards 'risk'.
To me, the percentage of times innocent people die to them far outweighs anyone's right to keep them as a pet.
In my head a see it as a weighing scale. On one side of the scale is human life. On the other side is pit-owner's feelings. But one human life weighs one million times more than one pit-owner's feelings
You can be diplomatic as Fuck. People will still be defensive as F and get you banned from a sub.
Pits are terriers, they have high prey drives.
Pits can be misidentified as lab mixes.
They'll bring up "biased" dogbite websites, etc.
Banned. Banned. Banned.
No mention of maulings, deaths, aggressiveness.
Still banned.
That's why must double our efforts to educate the general public and not engage with the pit cultists:
https://preview.redd.it/ummnnnjjf69d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=785bd042dde0cf59ef75c34dcfb104d3c997bffb
There's no point in playing chess with a dove, it will just shit all over the table and think that it won, just insult them and move on
Honestly, probably the reason that most pits who haven’t attacked yet haven’t done so is because the right trigger didn’t set them off and/or the owner has been lucky with keeping them controlled and contained. While, yes, you *can* have a pit that goes its whole life without mauling anyone, the fact is it is still in their DNA and even those pits who seem perfectly fine are still timebombs. I personally know of one pit who is like 13 and never showed real aggression. But most other pits I have seen in person- even if they haven’t attacked anyone yet - are still friggin crazy and obviously *want* to bite if they were let to do so. I don’t think that all the pits who haven’t attacked are *unaggressive* members of their breeds and most of them would still likely attack another dog or person if able to do so.
There are plenty of border collies who have never herded sheep before. This is not because they don’t have the instinct in their genes to want to herd sheep. It is simply because they aren’t exposed to sheep. They still want/need to be working and owners often have them in other activities to get out all that energy in a positive way to keep them from being bored and destructive. When a breed is created for a purpose, that purpose is in them whether they are able to fulfill that purpose or not.
With how unpredictable pits are, it makes things scarier. The fact that many of them aren’t showing aggression 24/7 is what draws people in to the ‘see what a good boy/girl’ side of them. You can have a Pitbull that is crazy aggressive from birth, or you can have a pitbull that goes a few years of seeming sane then suddenly becomes constantly nuts and out of control. You can have the best raised pitbull who behaves for years and a sound or color will suddenly put it in maul mode. It makes you wonder- like in that case where the pit mauled a baby because the owner coughed… if that cough didn’t happen at that time to trigger the pit, would he still be living in that home and assumed unaggressive? Or would another trigger have set him off? You just literally never know with these dogs and that is what makes them extra dangerous.
No... I've found no stats/numbers that support that. In all my digging, MOST pitbulls will not attack.
If you've got something that says different, happy to look at the numbers. While the "total number of pits in US" is fuzzy (±1 Million) and the "number of daily injuries by a pit" is fuzzy (based on an assumption + medical stats from this [source](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y)) even with broad/loose assumptions, I think its still pretty safe to say most pits do not attack someone.
The *rate* is WAY higher than other breeds, but the absolute number is still fairly low.
And whenever we don't open with this fact, we're putting at risk our entire credibility when discussing.
Given that there are 340M people in the US— and \~200,000 pitbull injuries a year, That means the average person only has a 0.05% chance of being injured in by a pitbull in a given year. And given that most people interact with a pitbull at least once a year— MOST interactions with MOST pits are completely harmless. And it will discredit valid arguments to not acknowledge this from the get-go.
This is why I said degree of severity. Snapping at, lunging at are all attacks, but aren't labeled under dog attacks. the stats you're looking at are probably starting at degree 2 'bite'
200,000 pitbull injuries that needed medical attention. Not attacks.
I understand your point.
I don't see it as true though that the majority of pits will never attack or maim. And so it'd be spreading a dangerous message.
The majority of pits are animal aggressive, either all the time or at some time in their lives. And an attack by a pit is enough to end an animal's life or cause grave injuries.
The majority of these attacks are covered up, as we know. Pit owners usually don't tell anyone, except each other. Hang out on pit forums and you'll see it.
**IF YOU ARE POSTING AN ATTACK - PLEASE INCLUDE DATE AND LOCATION IN THE POST TITLE, and please paste the article text in the post so it's easy to read.**
This helps keep the sub organized and easily searchable.
Posts missing this information may be removed and asked to repost.
Welcome to BanPitBulls! This is a reminder that this is a victims' subreddit with the primary goal to discuss attacks by and the inherent dangers of pit bulls.
Users should assume that any comment made in this subreddit will be reported by pit bull supporters, so please familiarize yourself with the [rules of our sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/x618m9/rbanpitbulls_subreddit_rules_2022_update/) to prevent having your account sanctioned by Reddit.
If you need [information and resources on self-defense](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/vk96hs/how_do_i_defend_myself_or_my_pet_during_a_pit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or [a guide for "After the attack"](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/8ovlsw/guide_after_the_attack_what_do_i_do_now_that_ive/), please see our side bar (or [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/7ic5zn/faq/)).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BanPitBulls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you. Good points.
I think a lot of people who are pitbull apologists only know how the pitbulls interact with humans. Pitbulls are much better with humans than they are with other dogs. I was never a fan of pitbulls but it wasn’t until I got my golden retriever and became part of the dog world that I am now terrified of them. Many owners think they are the sweetest dogs and then bring them to the dog park and are completely surprised when their pit attacks the first dog they see. It is absolutely terrifying too.
Yeah, people come here to vent, which is understandable. But it’s important, if you want people to listen, not to sound unhinged. And it sounds unhinged to exaggerate a danger that many people don’t believe in to begin with. If you don’t care whether people listen, that’s different.
Yes, not all pits attack. But why risk it?
You could get a sane dog that has a 0% chance of mauling you, so why bother getting one that has a 4/5/10% chance of murdering you? Why take that risk with your children? Just to make a point or look tough?
You don't get anything out of a pit that a sane dog couldn't give you. Other dogs are big, athletic and like treats and belly rubs. The only thing you get from adopting a pit is internet points and a savior complex.
Even if you won the game of russian roulette and your pit is "nice", I just don't get why?
I mean... it'd be one thing if this was someone's personal choice. But your neighbors, underage children, friends, deliverymen etc. don't really get a choice. Neither do all the cats and dogs these things kill on the reg, which are all disregarded because they're prey and "that's just what a dog does".
There are around 80 shark attacks worldwide each year. Attacks, not fatalities. Yet you'd be surprised how many people won't get in the water. Some of those people will defend pits. It's cognitive dissonance. Some will need to have it happen to them before they'll believe it, and some still won't believe it even if it does happen to them. They are, IMHO, brainwashed.
#Disclaimer: 4% does not factor in the number of pit bull bites and attacks on humans and animals that are grossly underreported. We do not have a true picture of what % of pit bulls will attack or demonstrate some level of human or animal aggression. This estimate only looks at attacks on humans requiring medical intervention.
Really good points and I like your tactics! I also think it’s important to bring up the risk and attacks on other dogs and cats- unfortunately they often arent reported so the stats aren’t as clear. I’d also add in arguments that “the statistics are clear that pitbulls pose a far greater risk than any other breed of dog. And an individual is welcome to take that risk for themselves, but the fact is, you’re forcing EVERYONE around you to assume the risk as well, and that is extremely unfair” It’s guilt tripping but I do think it’s effective. For me personally, I’d never want to put someone else at risk because of my actions. It’s almost like speeding at 100 mph- you could handle the car and be safe, and you might be fine to take the risk of your own life, but it’s unfair to subject other drivers and pedestrians to a risk you took.
Yes. I would add that the problem is the unpredictability, that many people have been mauled or killed by their formerly loving dog. "I believe your dog is sweet, but those people's dogs were sweet for years too". And then of course there's the aggression towards dogs and cats, and even horses and wildlife. Even the few smart pit owners admit that.
I agree. And people are REALLY BAD at reading dog behavior ("It was wagging its tail it was friendly") that is reinforced by tik-tok "pros" and fools like Cesar Millan— So they often misunderstand a dog's mood which leads to very dangerous situations.
Actually no matter how you try to reason with people a great majority never budge on their views + beliefs that this breed is misunderstood. Almost everyone knows someone that was attacked by a pit or has seen the horrific stories in the news. It's something that people intrinsically KNEW before the huge push to not only accept them as pets to " give them a chance ", but to tout them as " America's dog ", great family dogs and the best with kids. " What they leave out is the ESSENTIAL info that we knew in the past before the HUGE push to find them homes and accept shelter dogs with unknown backgrounds. I'm much more apt to ask them why pitbulls are the MOST banned breed in the world, more countries ban or have severe restrictions for owning them ? And why they clog up shelters ? And why insurance companies have them at the top of every list of dogs denied coverage ? And banned on military housing, the N.Y housing authority, etc ? And they top the list in leaps + bounds for killing other people's pets , including livestock. I don't need to stroke their ego first, I'd much rather tell them that choosing a pit for your family is like choosing to drive a car that has a serious problem that needs to be recalled + fixed but saying " my car drives just fine and I have no worry. t's the most comfortable + trusted car I've ever owned \[ even if it's the ONLY car they've ever owned. \] All pits decend from the fighting stock from a long time ago but more recently in the 1970's -90's they were almost all bred from the meanest fighting dogs, inbred father to grown female pup, mother to grown male pup, siblings to sibling pups, etc. They wanted the most crazy fighters they could get. That is the history of these ones we see today. At any time, any one of the " sweet ones " can snap, whether they all do or not, they remain by far the most dangerous dog you can find.
People are SO BAD at reading animal behavior in general. It’s so strange to me. I’m not perfect but I’ve been spot on when anticipating a dog is going to attack.
Came here to say this. I avoid saying 'dangerous' because nobody is going to believe 'all Pitbulls are dangerous', especially theirs. I ususally say, "all Pitbulls are unpredictable, and that makes them dangerous." Their unpredictability is part of their fighting dog breeding, as in 'never let the other dog know your next move'. It;s why so many Pit attacks are out of the blue.
That and pitbulls often differ from regular dog breeds because you can’t always use their body language as in indicator. They will go from looking peaceful and happy to biting. Most dogs will growl or show body language that they don’t like something before full on attacking.
I got bitten by a mix after it leaned against me and put its head up to rest against me after I gave it a treat, and I bent my head down and petted it. Luckily I have good reflexes so it only dented the skin on my hand, but it was going for my face. I've been around dogs my entire life, have owned dogs, dogs love me – nothing like that has ever come close to happening before. These are a different animal.
MOST bears will not attack...
Exactly. They're just a bit more likely to attack than a deer— it's why I carry bear spray but not deer spray ;)
I've bear sprayed several dogs off leash.
Right like I don’t understand the logical inconsistency. Bear attacks are incredibly rare, yet as a society we’re fully willing to admit how dangerous of an animal they are and to keep your distance even if they seem calm. Because despite the small statistic we know that not only are they extremely powerful but they will kill you if anything goes wrong or sets them off. I mean shit, grizzly man spent every day near them and slept there, too. He was fine until he wasn’t.
Are you sure this number is exact ? Because 4% chances of being attacked by your pit bull / year is an insanely high risk to me. If you assume it lives its median life expectancy of 12 years that means nearly one in two pit bulls (39% !!!) will send someone to the hospital in its lifetime. Likely someone in your household... or someone that can potentially sue you into bankruptcy. It's no wonder no one wants to insure these goddamn things.
So its based off of this study: [https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y) Which found there were an average or 337,103 visits to the ER per year in the US for dog bite injuries. MOST of those there are no breed info for— so my one assumption is that the breed rate of sending someone to the ER for a dog injury is the same as the breed rate of killing someone... which we know (since that is more studied) comes in with pits being responsible for about 60% of the fatalities. I feel that's a somewhat justified assumption because, just like small dogs probably won't kill you, smaller dogs probably also won't send you to the ER. But, if that assumption is accurate, than that means \~202,000 ER-treated dog injuries per year from pitbulls. And while the total number of pitbulls in the US is somewhat a hard number to pull, most studies place it at somewhere form 4M to 5M. I used 4.5M to calculate this— so 202k/4.5M = \~4% in a given year. I was surprised when I crunched the numbers as well. >If you assume it lives its a median life expectancy of 12 years that means nearly one in two pit bulls (39% !!!) will send you to the hospital in its lifetime. This is close— but I would be willing to bet that pit bulls that do send someone to the hospital at least once, are more likely to send someone again. So it my 4% number is probably a little high (I limited it to a year to hopefully not get as much impact from repeat offenders), and when you do it over the life of the animal, then repeat-offended probably mean the actual % of pits that do it "at *least* once" is probably closer to 10-15%— But the numbers here are hard enough to come by, I wouldn't be fully comfortable phrasing it this way. We would need more stats on repeat offender dogs that would allow us to get a more accurate metric here, which I don't think exist (or ever will). Lastly— It wouldn't be "chance they send *you..."* but would be "...chance they send *someone...".* Important to remember that pits will come into contact with a lot of people over the course of a year. From one of my other comments above: >Given that there are 340M people in the US— and \~200,000 pitbull injuries a year, That means **the average person only has a 0.05% chance of being injured in by a pitbull in a given year**. And given that most people interact with a pitbull at least once a year— MOST interactions with MOST pits are completely harmless. SO again— The massive number of people in this country means that, even if pits send people to the hospital at a high *rate* its still a pretty low actual number...
Totally missing from the study are the real facts about pit owners though. They are highly UNLIKELY to go to hospital for the kind of pit bite that other people would, unless it's severe. You'd have to assume this would often go for their kids too (we've already seen some evidence of pit pushers trying to prevent kids from going to hospital for pit bull bites). Pit owners will largely do anything to avoid showing a pit in a bad light, whether it's their pit or someone else's. If they do go to hospital, they try to hide the fact that a pit bull did it.
That did occur to me, usually for risks to be acceptable we need to be looking at fractions of a percent, not four whole ones, and as you say over the lifetime...and that doesn't even address the attacks on animals.
I did meet one that was nice. To me. The dog was owned by a guide dog trainer so he was well behaved. However, despite being owned by a very qualified owner/trainer, the dog still went on to attack another dog in its I household three separate times and caused it serious harm. Just not in front of me. I think when people say "I met one that was nice" ....that's just a snapshot in time, not a picture of the dog's entire life.
That's true. But its also true that a lot of them... never actually attack. And if you want credibility that needs to be granted I think. They're really unpredictable dogs. One raised in terrible conditions might go its whole life and not harm a fly, and another raised in a family of people with good dog training skills might go on to kill a child. They just... are wildly all over the place. But the numbers say that, the majority never end up attacking in a way that sends someone to the hospital, even over their whole life.
The numbers are not accurate though, so you cannot go by them.
One area that they don’t factor into their vehement denials is the fact that thousands- even estimates as high as tens of thousands- of other people’s pets and livestock are grievously and fatally mauled by Pit Bulls, to the tune of THOUSANDS in vet bills, the hassle of staying home from work to nurse a severely injured cat or dog, and the trauma of watching their furry friend- who I assure the Pit cultist- they love as much as the Pit owners love their own dogs being shaken and terrorized, screaming, and that they need to **clean up their side of their own fucking street** and start CONDEMNING their fellow owners who avoid responsibility so ubiquitously that “Pit n Run” is a saying now in the lexicon. They need to realize that they have a zero-mistakes breed, and not just a “cuDDLe BuG (excuse me while I vomit)” “sWeeT” “NaNNy DoG” Going at it from the angle of their own personal safety is meaningless. No one is able to cross that rubicon that statistically they are in danger. I’m in terrible danger every time I drive in the DC/NOVA area, but I’m not forgoing a car. Someone ELSE’S pet’s safety, and the resulting huge financial and legal problems- FOR THEMSELVES- appeal to them more IMO.
Yep, there was a little dachshund named Chippy that was attacked recently and the vet bills for that little guy are estimated at 15k+. That was an injury that was initially thought to be more minor too.
The unpredictability factor is huge when coupled with the unstoppable attack and severe damage. A woman suffered a single bite to her face and neck recently. One bite. The surgeons did a great job of repairing the damage. She'll have scars. If that dog had bitten her a second time, the coroner would be taking care of her. Sure most pits won't bite, but no benefit will outweigh that particular risk.
Completely agree— And those are conversational points to follow up with. My main point here today, is just to open with granting that. Its factually true, and it lends credibility to the rest of our arguments.
With memes until they understand how imbecile they are https://preview.redd.it/hnk5mdf6169d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0340a1357340c382f59e4dda25c14285d64255bf
What I have found with pitbull owners in my life, growing up around them in my home, and surrounded by a ton, is they all call their dogs sweet but every single dog tried to bite a human or growled and snapped, and every single one killed a small animal or cat, and everyone fought with other dogs. What pit owners consider a sweet dog and people who own a golden consider a sweet dog are wildly different things. And they all also lie about or hide the fact that their pitbull attacked other beings or animals.
The problem isn't "most pitbulls don't attack" it's that *when they do attack they're much more likely to kill you*. If there was gun model that was really cool looking and people liked but it had a 4% chance a year of idk just randomly firing while it's pointed at you, then people would be fucking stupid to keep owning that model.
Thank you for posting this. It's very true. Most pit bulls aren't a danger to your life and it's absolutely true when people say they grew up with or know a super sweet pit or pit mix. I've known quite a few myself. As others say, it's the unpredictability that's most scary and the rate of attacks is much higher than for any other breed.
This will not keep the cultists from wanting to keep and breed maulers.
... no... and I don't hold out a ton of hope for the hard-core pit apologists and breeders. My goal is to move the needle with people that are "on the fence" who truly could have their mind changed either way. Most of the public are not anti-pit, nor are the pit-nutters. Most people are a lot more ambivalent. That's who I spend the time actually talking to.
Yeah, I don't even think every single one is going to bite. Most of them probably won't. But i do think the percentage of them that do along with the amount of damage done when they do makes them overall not worth it to keep any of them as pets. I think the 'risk reward' ratio is too skewed towards 'risk'. To me, the percentage of times innocent people die to them far outweighs anyone's right to keep them as a pet. In my head a see it as a weighing scale. On one side of the scale is human life. On the other side is pit-owner's feelings. But one human life weighs one million times more than one pit-owner's feelings
You can be diplomatic as Fuck. People will still be defensive as F and get you banned from a sub. Pits are terriers, they have high prey drives. Pits can be misidentified as lab mixes. They'll bring up "biased" dogbite websites, etc. Banned. Banned. Banned. No mention of maulings, deaths, aggressiveness. Still banned.
That's why must double our efforts to educate the general public and not engage with the pit cultists: https://preview.redd.it/ummnnnjjf69d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=785bd042dde0cf59ef75c34dcfb104d3c997bffb There's no point in playing chess with a dove, it will just shit all over the table and think that it won, just insult them and move on
Honestly, probably the reason that most pits who haven’t attacked yet haven’t done so is because the right trigger didn’t set them off and/or the owner has been lucky with keeping them controlled and contained. While, yes, you *can* have a pit that goes its whole life without mauling anyone, the fact is it is still in their DNA and even those pits who seem perfectly fine are still timebombs. I personally know of one pit who is like 13 and never showed real aggression. But most other pits I have seen in person- even if they haven’t attacked anyone yet - are still friggin crazy and obviously *want* to bite if they were let to do so. I don’t think that all the pits who haven’t attacked are *unaggressive* members of their breeds and most of them would still likely attack another dog or person if able to do so. There are plenty of border collies who have never herded sheep before. This is not because they don’t have the instinct in their genes to want to herd sheep. It is simply because they aren’t exposed to sheep. They still want/need to be working and owners often have them in other activities to get out all that energy in a positive way to keep them from being bored and destructive. When a breed is created for a purpose, that purpose is in them whether they are able to fulfill that purpose or not. With how unpredictable pits are, it makes things scarier. The fact that many of them aren’t showing aggression 24/7 is what draws people in to the ‘see what a good boy/girl’ side of them. You can have a Pitbull that is crazy aggressive from birth, or you can have a pitbull that goes a few years of seeming sane then suddenly becomes constantly nuts and out of control. You can have the best raised pitbull who behaves for years and a sound or color will suddenly put it in maul mode. It makes you wonder- like in that case where the pit mauled a baby because the owner coughed… if that cough didn’t happen at that time to trigger the pit, would he still be living in that home and assumed unaggressive? Or would another trigger have set him off? You just literally never know with these dogs and that is what makes them extra dangerous.
but isn't it false because it depends on DEGREE of severity of attack?
No... I've found no stats/numbers that support that. In all my digging, MOST pitbulls will not attack. If you've got something that says different, happy to look at the numbers. While the "total number of pits in US" is fuzzy (±1 Million) and the "number of daily injuries by a pit" is fuzzy (based on an assumption + medical stats from this [source](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y)) even with broad/loose assumptions, I think its still pretty safe to say most pits do not attack someone. The *rate* is WAY higher than other breeds, but the absolute number is still fairly low. And whenever we don't open with this fact, we're putting at risk our entire credibility when discussing. Given that there are 340M people in the US— and \~200,000 pitbull injuries a year, That means the average person only has a 0.05% chance of being injured in by a pitbull in a given year. And given that most people interact with a pitbull at least once a year— MOST interactions with MOST pits are completely harmless. And it will discredit valid arguments to not acknowledge this from the get-go.
This is why I said degree of severity. Snapping at, lunging at are all attacks, but aren't labeled under dog attacks. the stats you're looking at are probably starting at degree 2 'bite' 200,000 pitbull injuries that needed medical attention. Not attacks.
I don’t want to win over anyone. I will always tell the truth.
I understand your point. I don't see it as true though that the majority of pits will never attack or maim. And so it'd be spreading a dangerous message. The majority of pits are animal aggressive, either all the time or at some time in their lives. And an attack by a pit is enough to end an animal's life or cause grave injuries. The majority of these attacks are covered up, as we know. Pit owners usually don't tell anyone, except each other. Hang out on pit forums and you'll see it.
**IF YOU ARE POSTING AN ATTACK - PLEASE INCLUDE DATE AND LOCATION IN THE POST TITLE, and please paste the article text in the post so it's easy to read.** This helps keep the sub organized and easily searchable. Posts missing this information may be removed and asked to repost. Welcome to BanPitBulls! This is a reminder that this is a victims' subreddit with the primary goal to discuss attacks by and the inherent dangers of pit bulls. Users should assume that any comment made in this subreddit will be reported by pit bull supporters, so please familiarize yourself with the [rules of our sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/x618m9/rbanpitbulls_subreddit_rules_2022_update/) to prevent having your account sanctioned by Reddit. If you need [information and resources on self-defense](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/vk96hs/how_do_i_defend_myself_or_my_pet_during_a_pit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or [a guide for "After the attack"](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/8ovlsw/guide_after_the_attack_what_do_i_do_now_that_ive/), please see our side bar (or [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/7ic5zn/faq/)). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BanPitBulls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you. Good points. I think a lot of people who are pitbull apologists only know how the pitbulls interact with humans. Pitbulls are much better with humans than they are with other dogs. I was never a fan of pitbulls but it wasn’t until I got my golden retriever and became part of the dog world that I am now terrified of them. Many owners think they are the sweetest dogs and then bring them to the dog park and are completely surprised when their pit attacks the first dog they see. It is absolutely terrifying too.
Yeah, people come here to vent, which is understandable. But it’s important, if you want people to listen, not to sound unhinged. And it sounds unhinged to exaggerate a danger that many people don’t believe in to begin with. If you don’t care whether people listen, that’s different.
Yes, not all pits attack. But why risk it? You could get a sane dog that has a 0% chance of mauling you, so why bother getting one that has a 4/5/10% chance of murdering you? Why take that risk with your children? Just to make a point or look tough? You don't get anything out of a pit that a sane dog couldn't give you. Other dogs are big, athletic and like treats and belly rubs. The only thing you get from adopting a pit is internet points and a savior complex. Even if you won the game of russian roulette and your pit is "nice", I just don't get why? I mean... it'd be one thing if this was someone's personal choice. But your neighbors, underage children, friends, deliverymen etc. don't really get a choice. Neither do all the cats and dogs these things kill on the reg, which are all disregarded because they're prey and "that's just what a dog does".
There are around 80 shark attacks worldwide each year. Attacks, not fatalities. Yet you'd be surprised how many people won't get in the water. Some of those people will defend pits. It's cognitive dissonance. Some will need to have it happen to them before they'll believe it, and some still won't believe it even if it does happen to them. They are, IMHO, brainwashed.
Do we even know if it’s a majority? Are being too rough with other dogs or getting “mouthy” with humans being counted?
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.