Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq07yd wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Renting With Pitbull by weebchildren

Wrongly quoting them. You're not including over half of all dogs. And your quoting a tally as evidence of propensity, which it is not.

2

[deleted] t1_itq17pq wrote

False. 50ish dog killings per year, 30-40 from pitts. What makes you say that? What other dogs do I need to include? The bottom 20 breeds are responsible for under 5 attacks per year combined.

The dogs were bred for holding large animals by the throat and then rebred for fighting. Lots of mixing has gone on since then, so some pitts have more or less of the parent DNA from actual fighting dogs, but why take the risk? Plenty of other dog breeds to choose from that don’t kill 10-20 kids per year. If a lab bites my kid and I yell at it, it’ll let go. If a pitt goes after my kid, I’m gonna need 2 minutes of gore and trauma and my sharpest kitchen knife.

0

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itq4n5v wrote

There's the anti science pure blood bullshit.

That's not how genetics work. ✅

Pitbulls were selectively bred for hunting. ✅

Pitbulls were later bred for loyalty more than for fighting, with only a handful of dogs being trained to fight. ✅

1