strobel

I wasn't implying that they're all drug dealers' dogs... the point I was making is that the breed is heavily favored by criminals & associated groups that desire an aggressive dog. These groups influence pit bull breeders, who in turn select for aggression, but these same breeders also sell to people who don't associate with such groups and might be unaware of these breeders' practices.

When I say aggression, I usually mean aggression specifically towards people, which seems to be peculiarly intense in pit bulls. Aggression towards other dogs is a given for any dogfighting breed.

I didn't say pit bulls have a reputation for being unaggressive... did you even bother to read what I actually said? I said ‘pit bulls’ that have such a reputation are unlikely to actually be purebred pitbulls, since one would expect modern purebreds to be aggressive, and this might include the dogs I've met that I assumed were pit bulls.

I'm not sure what the point is of the last study you linked.

The CDC had done a study once & gotten similar statistics to what you've quoted, but ultimately they concluded that the data was flawed & unreliable. However, as I learn more about what's going on, the big picture gets more depressing...

Pit bulls are indeed disproportionately mistreated & improperly trained, far more than any other breed of dog. They're the breed of choice for drug dealers and gangsters in the US, and account for the vast majority of dogs seized by police at dogfighting operations. This isn't by coincidence, as pit bulls have always had a variety of traits that make them ideal for dogfighting.

Originally pit bulls weren't bred to be overly aggressive (even in dogfighting, indiscriminate aggression isn't a desirable trait), but modern pit bulls absolutely are, and this trend is only getting worse as breeders continue to select for increased strength & aggression, traits considered desirable by the criminals & lowlifes that now drive the demand for purebred pit bulls. The CDC suspects that there is a gross misattribution of fatal dog attacks to pit bulls, but now this seems unlikely. In fact, pit bulls that have a reputation for being unaggressive, including the ones that I've personally met, are unlikely to be purebred, and are most probably mutts that merely resemble the breed, if not the descendants of an ever-shrinking lineage that has avoided the vile trends that now plague the modern pit bull.

For me, this has all been very disheartening to discover. When I see the face of a pit bull, I'm reminded of the jolly dogs I used to play with as a kid, not the modern monsters responsible for a growing body count. It was very easy for me to disbelieve, and I'm sure many of the folks who are quick to defend the breed feel the same way...

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is no shortage of data which refutes this, and that's not even mentioning the methodological errors that studies which both support & refute the perceived dangers of pit bulls tend to have.

As someone else mentioned, fatal dog attacks overall are rare, accounting for 30 to 50 deaths per year in the US. For comparison, lightning kills on average 28 people per year in the US. Even when making the contentious assumption that pit bulls are responsible for most fatal dog attacks, such fatal attacks are still unlikely to happen.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Pit bulls can certainly be dangerous as a breed, but when compared to other dog breeds of comparable size, strength, & temperament, their reputation for being exceptionally violent & attacking “in a frenzy” is not only undeserved, it obscures the real danger of a trait that is (afaik) unique to most (but not all) pit bulls: they don't make overtly threatening gestures before attacking like other dogs do, and the subtle cues they do show are often missed, giving the impression that the ensuing attack is sudden & impulsive. While this trait alone does make the breed more dangerous & requires special consideration from owners, all the ignorance & fearmongering about pit bulls only serves to needlessly multiply this danger more and further polarlizes the issue.

I'd say the continuing existence & tolerance (and, in some places, full legality & acceptance) of dogfighting is the real issue, as the people involved are the ones who train/torture dogs until they become the vicious monsters that make headlines. Sadly, it is far easier to blame & persecute all the dogs from a few irreputable breeds than it is to uproot the entrenched criminal & inhumane activity that actively strives to make those breeds as dangerous as they're reputed to be.

If you take enough at once, you'll start to feel really giddy & sociable for about 5 hours, and that works well for parties. It's kinda like mollies but without the synesthesia. It's an awesome feeling. In fact, it's too awesome: there's a serious risk of getting addicted to a dose that's well above what's considered therapeutically safe & useful.

Furthermore, the comedown is a 48-hour nightmare of perpetual executive dysfunction, followed by a week or two of increased tolerance, which might make you wonder why you ever decided to do something so fucking stupid in the first place with meds that you actually need in order to properly function.

I fully understand taking it for recreational use, but I don't recommend it.

That's extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I've come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I've never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you've gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don't entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don't agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary... perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.

I didn't believe it at first, but it seems my doubt was misplaced.

You would think that a supposed professional dog trainer, who allegedly was aware that his dog was aggressive and had a history of biting other dogs, wouldn't just let such a dog wander around unattended. I guess he was too proud to admit he couldn't correct this dog's behavior.

Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who's close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.

Where is all this pit bull hate coming from? They're not anymore dangerous to people than other breeds of similar size, yet they get such a disproportionate amount of blame. I'm not sure why.

Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don't see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.

Could you please provide those stats? Skimming thru the Wikipedia article on pit bulls, it seems there's no clear evidence that pit bulls are significantly more dangerous that other dog breeds of similar size.

Thus why the source should be questioned... it's TMZ, all trashy celebrity gossip. I doubt this incident even happened.

You're citing a tabloid, not exactly a reliable source...