This is definitely the fairest point in favor of pit bulls. That being said, even rampant misidentification toward pit bulls wouldn’t be enough to offset 51% – a straight majority – of identified dogs being the perpetrators when 70% of victims knew the dog. At worst, assuming it somehow did, that would suggest “dogs that most people would perceive as pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs not perceived as pit bulls”.
In fact, shelters have been found in areas with breed-specific legislation to intentionally misidentify them to make them more adoptable. I’d be totally unsurprised if that applies to places generally where there’s immense stigma around them.
Counterpoint, people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
And being familiar with the dog doesn’t improve that likelihood they know what the breed is by a whole lot. The only reason I knew what the breed of my last couple of dogs were is because of genetic testing. And one of them was half pit, and I would absolutely have never guessed. He was half pit, half golden retriever and looked nothing like either breed.
people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
That’s why I pointed out that 70% knew the dog, because otherwise I’d agree. People can inadvertently imagine a lot of details recalling when they were attacked. Most of those 70% likely aren’t going to be changing their minds about what a dog they already know is because the dog bit them. “Now that I think about it, my neighbor’s Saint Bernard is strangely pit-like…”
That’s why I mentioned that I would have misidentified my own dogs if asked for their breed. There are lots of dogs with wide heads and muscular builds. And if people don’t know the breed, they will frequently just say its a pit because that’s what they are familiar with. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Again, I’m not saying the evidence is wrong, I just want much more stringent analysis and evidence in order to justify the hate and push to ban a subset of dogs.
This is definitely the fairest point in favor of pit bulls. That being said, even rampant misidentification toward pit bulls wouldn’t be enough to offset 51% – a straight majority – of identified dogs being the perpetrators when 70% of victims knew the dog. At worst, assuming it somehow did, that would suggest “dogs that most people would perceive as pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs not perceived as pit bulls”.
In fact, shelters have been found in areas with breed-specific legislation to intentionally misidentify them to make them more adoptable. I’d be totally unsurprised if that applies to places generally where there’s immense stigma around them.
Counterpoint, people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
And being familiar with the dog doesn’t improve that likelihood they know what the breed is by a whole lot. The only reason I knew what the breed of my last couple of dogs were is because of genetic testing. And one of them was half pit, and I would absolutely have never guessed. He was half pit, half golden retriever and looked nothing like either breed.
That’s why I pointed out that 70% knew the dog, because otherwise I’d agree. People can inadvertently imagine a lot of details recalling when they were attacked. Most of those 70% likely aren’t going to be changing their minds about what a dog they already know is because the dog bit them. “Now that I think about it, my neighbor’s Saint Bernard is strangely pit-like…”
That’s why I mentioned that I would have misidentified my own dogs if asked for their breed. There are lots of dogs with wide heads and muscular builds. And if people don’t know the breed, they will frequently just say its a pit because that’s what they are familiar with. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Again, I’m not saying the evidence is wrong, I just want much more stringent analysis and evidence in order to justify the hate and push to ban a subset of dogs.