# Of Mountain Lions and Pit Bulls **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 10, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682 "2009-01-10T17:00:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/161 "2009-01-13T17:59:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Do you know dogs, like, at all ? I am not sure if this is along the same lines but I have a brussels griffon. I’ve had dogs before but this little guy started to be a nightmare. My dogs have a doggy door to get out on the patio and another doggy door to go out into their runner to do their business and hang out in the sun. This little guy, from almost day one, would some how (and we have yet to figure out how) catch birds..bring them into the patio and/or the house and dismember them. It also happened with moles. When I spoke to my vet about this he said that these toy dogs were bred to control pests in barns and it is something that they do instinctively. My thought is if a toy dog can be a ratter when they have never seen a rat, why isn’t it possible that a pitbull would have the fight instinct? Of course I have no idea and really no strong opinion on the pitbull subject. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/162 "2009-01-13T18:00:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > No, contrary to other breeds that are neither bred to attack or not attack. So, your position is that pit bulls have been specifically bred not to attack humans because their handlers didn’t want to be bitten, but that for instance shepherds weren’t because… because their handlers didn’t mind being bitten? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/163 "2009-01-13T18:17:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > So, your position is that pit bulls have been specifically bred not to attack humans because their handlers didn’t want to be bitten, but that for instance shepherds weren’t because… because their handlers didn’t mind being bitten? Well, there are dogs specifically bred as guard dogs who would have to attack or restrain humans. Not their owners, obviously, but people–not other dogs. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/164 "2009-01-13T18:18:24Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Contrarily to other dog breeds that are bred to attack humans, presumably? Yes, actually. Pit Bulls have had Human Aggressiveness bred out of them, opposed to German Shepherds who have had an innate human aggressiveness (although the more correct term would be territorial defensiveness, I believe) bred into them. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/165 "2009-01-13T18:21:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > So, your position is that pit bulls have been specifically bred not to attack humans because their handlers didn’t want to be bitten, but that for instance shepherds weren’t because… because their handlers didn’t mind being bitten? Different set of priorities - weighted breeding if you will. In shepherd dogs, non-aggressivity towards cattle, the ability to herd them well and the ability to see off wolves would probably have ranked higher on the list of desirable traits. Obedience is a combat dog’s first and foremost sought after trait. Note that this is a partial WAG - I’d be happy to ask my sister if you want me to. She’s more of a cattle vet than a dog specialist, but she should know enough about dog breeding for the purpose of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/166 "2009-01-13T18:24:35Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > So? 69% for the pit bulls alone, and 31% for all other dogs combined? No, not 69% for Pit Bulls alone. The 69% refers to pit bull _type_ dogs, which refers to every dog that some idiot _thinks could be a pit bull_. I couldn’t begin to count how many times a dog was pointed out to me as a pit bull and wasn’t. I’m not an expert, but I usually can tell a bulldog from a pit bull but I’ve known several people who couldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/167 "2009-01-13T18:24:38Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > So, your position is that pit bulls have been specifically bred not to attack humans because their handlers didn’t want to be bitten, but that for instance shepherds weren’t because… because their handlers didn’t mind being bitten? I take no position on shepherds. I suppose that human aggressive dogs were selected against in the breeding program, but I really don’t know. What does that have to do with anything? The Pit Bull haters are very fond of claiming that they are necessarily dangerous because they have been bred to fight, but strangely deny that breeding matters when it is pointed out that they have been bred not to be aggressive to humans. Goose sauce, gander sauce, you know? Did you read the article I linked to? How do you explain it with respect to Pits being inherently dangerous? How can someone take a dog that is inherently dangerous, mistreat and abuse it with the sole purpose of turning it into a killing machine, and then have those dogs become rehabilitated and integrated into human families? It makes no sense. The only conclusion is that they are not inherently aggressive towards humans. I have a Jack Russell Terrier. They have been bred to chase small creatures that run along the ground, and when necessary to pursue them underground. I could no more stop her from chasing squirrels or rabbits, and digging holes in the backyard, then I could jump to the moon. It’s in her nature. If a Pit Bull’s nature is to be human aggressive, how do you explain the SI story? [QUOTE=Who\_me?] No, not 69% for Pit Bulls alone. The 69% refers to pit bull type dogs, which refers to every dog that some idiot thinks could be a pit bull. [/QUOTE] This accounts for the fatal flaw in the Clifton study that the OP and others love to bandy about. It relied on _media accounts_ to ID the animals. Media accounts! It’s laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/168 "2009-01-13T18:27:23Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > So? 69% for the pit bulls alone, and 31% for all other dogs combined? Yes, that’s certainly good enough for me to think that pit bulls are way more dangerous than other dogs and justify a ban. **Stop Using Those Statistics.** It’s been shown, time and time again, that they’re **wrong**. > [@clairobscur](#): > > It would be a point in their favour if somehow you were assuming that in other breeds dogs who can’t be trusted would be allowed to bred. And this doesn’t make sense because all dogs are living around humans, and no owner or handler wants to be bitten by his own dog. They don’t breed **any** dogs for wanton aggression. What they breed them for is disregard for the specie in which they’re attacking. For instance; all dogs are territorial, to an extent. In Pit Bulls, all dogs that show aggression for humans (whether or not it’s territory related) were removed from the gene pool. On the other hand; German Shepherd and other Guard Dog breeds haven’t had this. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And yes, I’ll keep considering that a dog breed that has specifically bred to fight is likely to have undesirable traits, like aggressiveness, high pain threshold, ability to inflict severe damages, etc.. What traits, according to you, would have been selected for fighting dogs? Gentleness, shyness, reluctance to fight and soft bite? Actually, see above. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Any position pushed to the extreme leads to absurd results. Don’t try to catch me with that because it would equally apply to almost any point you could make. For instance, if you’re stating that people speeding on the road should be fined because they’re dangerous, I could make the case that your position “logically requires” banning all cars. Now _ **that’s** _ an argument I’d like to see you try to make. > [@clairobscur](#): > > See…As I said already, the right for people to own a specific breed of dog is an extremely low priority for me. If public authorities decided to ban a breed, I’m going to assume they have a good reason for this (including reasons like police officers having regularly problems with such dogs and their owners because said dogs became a fad amongst unsavoury types and are used as tools in crimes. Doesn’t need to be a large number of unprovoked, random attacks), and not just because somehow, they don’t like dogs. I probably won’t care enough to second guess them. I see the problem now. You’re okay with arbitrary laws, laws that slowly and steadily infringe upon the freedoms of the people of that area. You’re okay with totalitarian state laws, as long as they don’t effect **you.** So, you’d be okay, for instance, if Judaism or Islam was illegal in your local (presuming you’re neither)? You’d be okay if it was illegal to wear bright orange jump suits (presuming you don’t wear it)? There’s a Poem, my friend, there’s a poem. > [@clairobscur](#): > > If, besides that, I notice that in my neighbourhood, such “badass parade dogs” are all over the place, unmuzzled, if I learn that these dogs were a fight breed, hence probably have undesirable traits, if I read statistics that hint at them being responsible for a large percentage of serious attacks, I’m going to support heartily restrictions put on them until _you_ prove, to a very high degree of certainty, that they aren’t, in fact, any more dangerous than a poodle. Basically, contrarily to a human, I assume the breed to be guilty until proven innocent. And the informations I mentioned above hint towards them being probably guilty, or at the very least, possibly so. You assume they have undesirable traits, despite evidence to the contrary. You read biased statistics, that have been shown to be false, yet you believe them, despite evidence to the contrary. You put the burden of proof on the negative side of the argument, asking someone to disprove a false assertion - that’s **another** logical fallacy. I find that the other side of this particular argument is nothing, if not entertaining. Also; as a citizen of the ‘free world’ I find your implication that **anything** , regardless of their origin, is guilty until proven innocent offensive and down right despicable. I think it’s a terrible way to go through life, and I’m damn glad that I’m not subject to your particular brand of (il)logic. ---
**Author:** ![Aholibah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Aholibah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aholibah)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/169 "2009-01-13T18:29:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I don’t care enough about the issue to keep repeating myself. It’s irksome that somebody who repeatedly avers not to care much about this issue nonetheless feels entitled to inflict their lukewarm preferences on their neighbors through support of legislation that restricts those neighbor’s rights. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Replace “majority” by “significant number” if you like. I wasn’t making a statement, and didn’t thought deeply about it when I wrote “majority”. I DON’T like. Not surprisingly, I don’t like arguing with somebody who doesn’t put much thought into their arguments and off-handedly suggests moving the goalposts when they’ve made a completely ridiculous statement. > [@clairobscur](#): > > So? 69% for the pit bulls alone, and 31% for all other dogs combined? Yes, that’s certainly good enough for me to think that pit bulls are way more dangerous than other dogs and justify a ban. If I type really slowly, will you understand better? In this argument, in which we’ve stipulated the hypothetical 69%, we’re talking about 69% of lethal dog bites being inflicted by pit bull-TYPE dogs. That is not a breed. That is a miscellaneous lumping that usually depends on unreliable identifications by unqualified individuals. So 69% of lethal dog bites were inflicted by some amorphous group of dogs. And 31% were inflicted by another amorphous group of dogs. You want the public protected, but you, like most supporters of breed-specific legislation, can’t be arsed to think about what exactly you want it protected FROM. And at the bottom of this is an annual incidence of dog-bite-related fatalities of about 15 to 20. 70% of 20 is 14. 30% of 20 is around 6. This does not seem to me to make the (arguably completely mythical) “pitbull-type dogs” significantly more dangerous than other dogs in general. > [@clairobscur](#): > > It would be a point in their favour if somehow you were assuming that in other breeds dogs who can’t be trusted would be allowed to bred. And this doesn’t make sense because all dogs are living around humans, and no owner or handler wants to be bitten by his own dog. Again with the obtuseness. There are dog breeds that have historically been bred to protect people or property from other PEOPLE. They are more likely to be human-aggressive than dogs which belong to a breed that has historically been bred to fight DOGS. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And yes, I’ll keep considering that a dog breed that has specifically bred to fight is likely to have undesirable traits, like aggressiveness, high pain threshold, ability to inflict severe damages, etc.. What traits, according to you, would have been selected for fighting dogs? Gentleness, shyness, reluctance to fight and soft bite? If you think that shyness is a desirable trait in a dog, you are dangerously deluded. Seek education on this subject, before you get hurt. ---
**Author:** ![Aholibah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Aholibah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aholibah)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/170 "2009-01-13T20:01:02Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’m going to support heartily restrictions put on them until _you_ prove, to a very high degree of certainty, that they aren’t, in fact, any more dangerous than a poodle. So, now we have **clairobscur** ’s standard. Sort of. Which kind of poodle: standard, miniature or toy? And how do we quantify “dangerousness” for comparison purposes? Most dogbite-related fatalities by breed? Most bites, period? Or do we use one or the other of those metrics by rate of breed ownership? I mean, if Standard Poodles (if that’s your choice for the standard, as it were) are way more popular than Samoyeds (for example), then just straight numbers don’t seem very fair – it should be by rate, right? Or do you just go by breed history and physical description – the dog’s size, weight and musculature? If it was bred for combat, protection, or hunting and/or it’s bigger, heavier or more powerful than (whichever variety of) poodle, then it’s out. However you decide to do it, there’s a dangerousness spectrum with your chosen poodle variety in the middle somewhere. And all the dog breeds on one side of that poodle variety are ok, and all the dog breeds on the other side of the poodle are illegal. That’s the standard you propose, then? What do you do with cross-breeds? If my mutt is partly “better than poodle” breed and partly “worse than poodle” breed, is it illegal? Do you operate on a “one-drop” rule? Like the rest of your arguments in this thread, I think your standard is ill-conceived. Ultimately, I really fail to understand the perceived need for breed-specific legislation. If BSL is what you’re going to rely on to protect the public from dangerous dogs, I think you’re going to be disappointed by the number of dog bites you continue to see in your community. There are dangerous dogs in the world. There are people who (intentionally or otherwise) raise dogs that pose a real risk to the public. People whose dogs harm people, livestock, pets or property should be punished. And in many cases, the offending dog should be put down. Those two things are what will help keep the public safe from dangerous dogs. Breed bans aren’t simply unjust (although they are that), they’re also unlikely to be effective. Unless the effect that you want to achieve is to deprive people you don’t like of their dogs. BSL will do that in the short run, I suppose. The people you don’t like will probably get other dogs. And maybe then you’ll like the people, or maybe then you’ll ban those dogs too. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/171 "2009-01-13T21:38:49Z")
> [@Trocisp](#): > > I see the problem now. You’re okay with arbitrary laws, laws that slowly and steadily infringe upon the freedoms of the people of that area. You’re okay with totalitarian state laws, as long as they don’t effect **you.** Absolutely. I’m all for totalitarianism, providing that I don’t have to be around pit bulls. > [@](#): > > Also; as a citizen of the ‘free world’ I find your implication that **anything** , regardless of their origin, is guilty until proven innocent offensive and down right despicable. I think it’s a terrible way to go through life, and I’m damn glad that I’m not subject to your particular brand of (il)logic. Yes, I’m an horrible person. I’ve even killed cockroaches without due process of law. Now, I’ve said all I had to say on this topic. I let you play amongst yourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/172 "2009-01-14T00:39:43Z")
> [@Aholibah](#): > > If I type really slowly, will you understand better? In this argument, in which we’ve stipulated the hypothetical 69%, we’re talking about 69% of lethal dog bites being inflicted by pit bull-TYPE dogs. That is not a breed. That is a miscellaneous lumping that usually depends on unreliable identifications by unqualified individuals. So 69% of lethal dog bites were inflicted by some amorphous group of dogs. And 31% were inflicted by another amorphous group of dogs. You want the public protected, but you, like most supporters of breed-specific legislation, can’t be arsed to think about what exactly you want it protected FROM. It’s even worse than that – the 69% figure represents dogs _identified by the media and personal-injury lawyers_ as pit-bull-_type_ dogs, a meaningless category, and was posted uncited on an internet hate board. That’s the standard you (the generic you, for people who have been using this statistic…not **Aholibah** ) are going to use on a board _dedicated to fighting ignorance_, to ban – _ultimately to kill_ – **my family members?** On an issue _you don’t much care about?_ It wouldn’t be constructive for me to tell you what I think of that crap. I have to keep the well-being of the dogs in mind. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/173 "2009-01-14T06:42:03Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > However, I’m going to tell that I don’t think I’ve seen a pitbull-type dog that didn’t belong to the “dog paraded by a wannabe badass” category. It sounds like you aren’t visiting places where the, er, clientele is all that good. Maybe you should attend a show? You know, better neighborhood and all that. > [@](#): > > So? 69% for the pit bulls alone, and 31% for all other dogs combined? Yes, that’s certainly good enough for me to think that pit bulls are way more dangerous than other dogs and justify a ban. It’s been pointed out several times that you cannot trust these sorts of statistics since witnesses tend to be terrible about being able to accurately identify a dog breed, and the media will almost always call a biter a “pit”. You are calling for the bad of breeds that most likely have extremely little to do with these stats. > [@](#): > > It would be a point in their favour if somehow you were assuming that in other breeds dogs who can’t be trusted would be allowed to bred. And this doesn’t make sense because all dogs are living around humans, and no owner or handler wants to be bitten by his own dog. Actually, a large percentage of dogs in homes living with humans are bred in puppy mills, where no one handles the dogs much at all and temperament is immaterial, or from backyard/accidental breedings where the “breeder” just wants some cute pups or wasn’t paying attention when their six month old bitch came in season for the first time. So, in a very real sense, you cannot assume that any given pup is from parents chosen for their great temperaments. This of course ignores the environmental influence. > [@](#): > > And yes, I’ll keep considering that a dog breed that has specifically bred to fight is likely to have undesirable traits, like aggressiveness, high pain threshold, ability to inflict severe damages, etc.. What traits, according to you, would have been selected for fighting dogs? Gentleness, shyness, reluctance to fight and soft bite? You are aware that not all, not even a majority of the “pit type” breeds are bred for fighting? If you wanted to support a ban on owning dogs directly and recently bred from fighting dogs, that might hold water, but what you and PETA want is to ban all dogs of all breeds that more or less look like they might be of a “fighting” breed. Are you aware of how many breeds that would affect? > [@](#): > > See…As I said already, the right for people to own a specific breed of dog is an extremely low priority for me. If public authorities decided to ban a breed, I’m going to assume they have a good reason for this (including reasons like police officers having regularly problems with such dogs and their owners because said dogs became a fad amongst unsavoury types and are used as tools in crimes. Doesn’t need to be a large number of unprovoked, random attacks), and not just because somehow, they don’t like dogs. I probably won’t care enough to second guess them. Most of us would rather that the government not make lifestyle choices for us. > [@](#): > > Contrarily to other dog breeds that are bred to attack humans, presumably? There are _breeds_ that are bred to attack humans? > [@](#): > > Besides, SUVs aren’t exactly common to begin with, anyway. They certainly are here, as well as the full sized pickup trucks. Private folks who drive these these don’t need them in any way other than they just prefer them over other vehicles that would work just as well and be far less dangerous, wasteful and expensive. If I quote statistics in here that show that SUVs are the most dangerous vehicles on the road, will you want to ban them too? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/174 "2009-01-14T06:58:28Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If I quote statistics in here that show that SUVs are the most dangerous vehicles on the road, will you want to ban them too? If my neighbor’s choice of vehicle results in a significantly increased chance of death or serious injury for me, I think I have a legitimate interest in restricting his “freedom of choice”. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/175 "2009-01-14T08:10:08Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > If my neighbor’s choice of vehicle results in a significantly increased chance of death or serious injury for me, I think I have a legitimate interest in restricting his “freedom of choice”. You think it is his choice of vehicle, or his ability to drive it safely? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/176 "2009-01-14T12:05:38Z")
I’d like to ask a question of any thus-far non-involved member of the public, who hasn’t posted and (preferably) didn’t have an opinion before they read this thread. What’s your opinion now? Are you convinced Pit bull(-type) dogs are the incarnation of Satan? Has either side of this argument made a compelling argument? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/177 "2009-01-14T13:45:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You think it is his choice of vehicle, or his ability to drive it safely? Probably both, but at some level I don’t care, I just want the moron and his land barge off the road. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/178 "2009-01-14T14:16:16Z")
> [@Trocisp](#): > > I’d like to ask a question of any thus-far non-involved member of the public, who hasn’t posted and (preferably) didn’t have an opinion before they read this thread. > > What’s your opinion now? Are you convinced Pit bull(-type) dogs are the incarnation of Satan? Has either side of this argument made a compelling argument? I’ve noticed both sides like to cherry pick facts and studies to fit their arguments but that is normal behavior. I do know the OP is missing out on how to regulate a breed when the typical fighting/attacking “pit bull mix” is not a breed but a mutt. I am convinced that Pit Bull-types are not Hell Dogs but then I don’t even think Wolves are the horrors that some try to make them out to be. I do agree with those who point out that certain breeds like the Chihuahua seem to be more aggressive than any of the larger breeds but most of the time people don’t really care. Part of this is a good size house cat can and will kill a Chihuahua with ease. There is a world of difference between a Chihuahua bite and the bite of a large dog. Despite the occasional 4 stitches required freak bites from the little buggers. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/179 "2009-01-14T15:53:00Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > There are _breeds_ that are bred to attack humans? At one time Mastiffs, a progenitor of Pitbulls were used a war dogs. By Hannibal and Kubla Khan. From [here](http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/mastiffs-breed/A-History-of-the-Mastiff.html) > [@](#): > > When Hannibal, the great Roman leader, crossed the Alps, he took > with him several battalions of trained war mastiffs ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682/180 "2009-01-14T16:39:58Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > At one time Mastiffs, a progenitor of Pitbulls were used a war dogs. By Hannibal and Kubla Khan. > > From [here](http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/mastiffs-breed/A-History-of-the-Mastiff.html) Correction : the romans certainly did us war dogs, and trained them accordingly, but I’m not sure there’s evidence of them being \*bred \*to. Breeding implies careful selection of who gets to hump whom, and a basic grasp of heredity/genetics. I’m not sure the concept was out there back then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-mountain-lions-and-pit-bulls/480682.md?page=10)