In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/

In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/

In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.

https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

The first linked thread was just one user getting pissy in the comments.

The second thread was flamebait, plain and simple. Has no business being in Lemmy Be Wholesome. On Shitpost I could give it a pass, maybe.

It's already too late, but I would suggest in this case not using this thread as an extension to continue back and forth the argument highlighted in this drama.

I'm a strong proponent that it's the owner, not the dog that is ultimately the reason pitty's get a bad rap. I've rarely come across a pit bull that isn't a big lovable goofball that just wants belly rubs and to play tug. But the one's that haven't been seem to have irresponsible owners that either don't know, or don't care about how to properly train their dog.

That said, it's hard not to look at the data and agree that a breed ban would be best.

Meanwhile, I just want to play tugs of war with those two goofballs

Wow, those posts got nasty fast

I see two cleaned out threads. Must have been nasty in there.

There's two types of people: those who hate pitbulls, and those who's pitbull hasn't mauled someone yet.

People started arguing about it here

My stance is on this is simple. Why don't people just move on when they see a pitbull instead of feeling the need to copy paste statistics about them.

I doubt they would walk up to someone waking their pitbull and read out their copy pastas lol.

The statistics about 90% dog attacks being pitbulls is because cops can call any dog a pitbull.

Those posts, holy fuck Fediverse, be better...

Somehow you posting a picture of your dogs in a wholesome sub REQUIRES them to comment something shitty when they could, idk, mind their own fucking business?

I’d just like to see a sensible discussion that doesn’t involve the falsified statistics presented by the Dogsbite blog and its offshoots.

The so-called academic behind their “statistics” was outed for multiple frauds, the blogs are all set up by shadowy anonymous individuals with opaque funding.

It’s all just so janky, like there’s a big movement intent on muddying the water of actual useful conversation.

Large terriers are undoubtedly a potential problem in the hands of inexperienced or irresponsible owners, but to over simplify the argument to “pitbull dogs bad” is irresponsible.

Any dog over ~15kg can do great harm, and when you take into account the breed traits of terriers, it’s easy to understand the importance of proper debate.

But the crusaders need to be ranked out in favour of proper discussion.

Who wants to talk about why it's 90% black people in city jails and see how well your pitbull argument holds water against rational thinkers with larger scale ethics to consider.