Well, these posts have been very informative. Just to clarify, I’m not the one who lost a cat. That was another woman who replied. My post was prompted partly by a pre-exisiting curiousity into the reason people gravitate to pitbulls given their danger.
When I say “danger,” I mean two factors that combine here. One is the likelihood of attack vs other dogs. The other is the severity of the injury if they attack. Any dog owner who loves their dog is going to say their breed is harmless, loving, and the only possible harm is if they ‘just lick you to death.’ Pit owners are no different. Whether pits attack more or not, that’s a matter we can debate all day and never come to an agreement on.
What concerns me is the how disporportiontely severe a pit attack is vs most, if not all, other breeds. Physically, they’re compact, extremely muscular with tremendous jaw strength. More than just physical traits, they were bred for gamness to fight until death. In addition, their attack characteristics were specifically those that were most lethal, hence the ripping/shaking style of attack and never letting go of their target. They are not bad dogs, but they’re not just dangerous if they bite – they’re dangerous in a way most other dogs are not. We may not agree on the pit bull’s propensity to attack, but I would be stunned we cannot agree on the disproportionate lethality/serious injury potential of pits vs other breeds.
Also, just want to make this clear: higher income/iq etc are generally indicate smarter people. Smart people generally weigh risks better than others. People that are better at weighing risks generally don’t pick the option with the greater risk, ie a pet that if it bites, will harm a person or animal far more so than another breed. Seems like an unnecessary risk. Smart people generally do not take unnecessary risks. Do you see why smart people generally do not own pits now.
As to the doctor/lawyer/scientists owning pits, the same “smart people” logic applies. It’s nice to see a couple doctor examples as exceptions to the norm, but specifically, I’d like to see how many MDs own pits. Taking a wild guess here, but I’m gonna say its just a *tad* less than the general population, given their aversion to taking unnecessary risks with human life. And maybe the best indicator of this group is lawyers. They dissect the risk and liability meticulously for a living in cases far more complex than this pit bull issue. I’d like to see the percentage of them that own pits.
Finally, just google “pitbull owners” and go click on “images.” Scroll down the whole page. You seriously think other dogs have maimed people when you do the same search on them? Or is google images a conspiracy too? If nothing else, those scars/injuries just might start connecting to my point about the severity of their attack compared to other dogs. Long post, I’m good.