Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.

XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah frankly the statistics are pretty conclusive.

    From the article:

    Pit bulls were responsible for the highest percentage of reported bites across all the studies (22.5%), followed by mixed breeds (21.2%), and German shepherds (17.8%).

    “Mixed breeds” are just barely behind pit bulls. That’s hardly conclusive.

    • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “mixed breeds” just means any dog that isn’t purebred, which is the vast majority of dogs, so it doesn’t say much that they account for a lot of attacks

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great, so why isn’t there a huge outcry about mixed breed dogs? I mean, oh my god, they’re essentially as dangerous as pit bulls.

        • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because “mixed breed” dogs aren’t a breed? That’s my whole point.

          What you’re arguing is basically equivalent to this “psychopaths account for 26% of murderers, closely followed by people with brown eyes at 25%, why aren’t we doing anything about the brown eyed menace!”

          Lumping all mixed breed dogs just inflates the numbers, because - again - the vast majority of dogs are mixed breed.

          Put another way, because I can tell you’re having a hard time grasping this - mixed breed dogs account for 53% of all dogs in the US according to the AKC. Pit bulls account for just a hair under 6% (5.8, if you want the specifics). That means according to the stats in the article, any given pit bull is 10x more likely to bite than any given mixed breed dog.

          Get it?

          • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because “mixed breed” dogs aren’t a breed? That’s my whole point.

            “Pit bull” isn’t a breed either.

            American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed. It’s one of several collective breeds that people typically refer to when they use pit bull. The others being American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and sometimes the American Bulldog.

            That term is also often used for mixed dogs that may have some amount of one of those breeds or that shares physical characteristics with one of those breeds, usually head and/or body shape.

            Anecdotally, I have a neighbor whose neighbor on the other side called the police on him for having a “dangerous breed” dog. They told the police he had a pit bull. It was a boxer.

            • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a fair point, but “pit bull” being comprised of several sub-breeds isn’t even kind of the same sort of umbrella as “literally every dog that isn’t a pure bred”

              And your neighbor being an idiot really doesn’t have any relevance on the discussion

              • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                They are not sub-breeds, they are breeds, and I never said it was the same. I simply pointed out that pit bull is not itself a breed. It would be closer to a classification than a breed.

                Comparing and banning mixed breed dogs makes as much sense as comparing and banning pit bulls if you don’t actually define what breeds are intended by using “pit bull”. That’s why many statutes in the US specify breeds in the legislation.

                Language is important, especially when you’re talking about legislation used to restrict or ban something. Particularly if your primary determinant is visual appearance since, unless the animal is a registered purebred or DNA tested, you’re relying on what the dog looks like.

                I used my neighbors situation as an example of how “pit bull” is not a proper identifier by itself.

                • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t disagree that specific language will need to be used when drafting laws with regards to what breeds (or what traits of which breeds) you’ll be regulating the breeding of. Of course it would have to, otherwise any such law is unenforceable - not sure what in my previous comments would make you think otherwise.

                  In an online discussion though (which is to say, not a court room) I’d argue that you’re more derailing the discussion by getting worked up over terminology as opposed to the actual issue.

                  Do you take issue with how the study were discussing, or the AKC define “pit bull”? Did you even read either study/census to see how they did so before just going “oh they aren’t even defining it right so their data is nil”. Or did you just decide that your neighbor being an idiot meant the entire scientific community was too?

                  • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because “mixed breed” dogs aren’t a breed? That’s my whole point.

                    I took issue with this because pit bull isn’t a breed either. You used a poor word choice, had it pointed out to you and now you’re getting defensive.

                    And for some reason you’re hung up on the neighbor anecdote.

                    You know what makes me think you don’t value the importance of language? Getting rudely defensive about mixed breeds it being a breed but using pit bull like it is.

                    I’m derailing the discussion? The topic is about dog breed bans and you’re using terminology that doesn’t refer to a dog breed.

                    I was trying to help you understand because it’s a common mistake but now it seems like you just want to be a dick.