• bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, because I saw you’re a fan of banpitbull subreddit.

    I need to ask a very simple question. Do you care about actual safety, or do you just want pitbulls banned? Like what is your goal?

    Because all science in the last 5 years states people, not pitbulls, are the problem. Globally. That’s the issue.

    If you actually want “less harm and death done” then you need to listen to the scientific experts and stop pushing for BSL, and instead push for things that move towards the goal of less harm and death.

    But okay let’s address the rest now

    Are you shitting me? https://financesonline.com/number-of-dogs-in-the-us/

    You don’t need to have a census to have a pretty damn good idea of how many there are. And you all keep telling me that I’m disingenuous.

    You say that and then the link you provided did not give me a very good idea about per capita of the breeds… I have no idea how many of any breed there are.

    This is a persons representation of a study. Not the study. but it links to here (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639) So if breed has nothing to do with anything. How come there’s qualities organized by breed by the study? You can’t claim that behaviors aren’t affected by breed, then show me a study that shows a bunch of behaviors organized by breed. And you all keep telling me that I’m disingenuous.

    You are being disingenuous… Less than 9% difference across all breeds. A dog is a dog is a dog. Some howl, some don’t. Some are more active. A dog is a dog is a dog.

    Except this misses one big premise… Amount of cases can be exactly the same, but severity of each case can go down severely. Also amount of cases can be the same, but have less fatalities!

    Well it was counting hospitalizations… So it’s safe to say we’re only talking about severe ones…

    • Saik0A
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I need to ask a very simple question. Do you care about actual safety, or do you just want pitbulls banned? Like what is your goal?

      Oh I would be okay with all large breeds (let’s say over 50lbs. as being a start) being required licensing. But considering the specific damage caused by pitbulls I would love to see them go first if there’s got to be a first. And “banned” in my case would be force spay/neuter and legalize breeding of them. I’m not a monster that wants to see a witch hunt to murder all currently existing pit bulls. I just want to see a breed that was bred for causing as much damage as possible in a fight not… Other large dogs being kept in a city apartment should also be illegalized as well IMO… but other breeds don’t have the predilection to bite the way pit bulls do.

      You say that and then the link you provided did not give me a very good idea about per capita of the breeds… I have no idea how many of any breed there are.

      Because I was specifically addressing your “census” comment. I have no issue providing more information to a point if required. There’s a few ways to infer population stats… https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html has some for instance (DNA sites or veterinary data). Or you can grab stats from any number of dog rescues/pounds/etc… These stats won’t ever be perfect singularly. But certainly good enough.

      You are being disingenuous… Less than 9% difference across all breeds. A dog is a dog is a dog. Some howl, some don’t. Some are more active. A dog is a dog is a dog.

      So in your mind… pitbulls are fine because there’s only a 9% difference in breeds even though they make up 71% of all dog related deaths since 2011? You realize this isn’t just a case of strictly bite numbers. You even pointed it out. Even if pitbulls are LESS likely to bite, but each instance of a bite causes significantly more damage that causes hospitalization/death… This is STILL A PROBLEM. I’d still like to point out that your own source STILL managed to organize the breeds even though it’s only “9%”…

      Well it was counting hospitalizations… So it’s safe to say we’re only talking about severe ones…

      So instead of addressing the article I posted you ignore it? Again?

      • bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well your article isn’t a study, it’s a literary review from a very biased source of a Colleen Lynn

        In fact if you want to read up on your source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogsbite.org

        You can see that she complains about science and ignores expert opinions in the field because they disagree with her.

        It’s very telling when her literary review comes to very different conclusions than actual scientists performing studies in the field.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The site’s founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as ‘science whores,’ which alone is enough to discredit her claims.

          Science whores? And people take her seriously?