# The "Pit Bull" Myth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682 "2009-11-23T19:55:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 153
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/153 "2009-11-26T20:30:52Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > No more dangerous than, say, boxers, shepherds, great danes, dobermans, rottweilers, borzoi, various and sundry cur breeds, briards, akitas, shar-pei, chows, rhodesian ridgebacks, American bulldogs, any of the pastoral flock guardian breeds, and so on and so forth. They fall into a class of “medium to large working breed dogs” which necessitate more active management than sedentary breeds or, say, sporting and companion breeds which were selected for soft temperaments and close companionship. Okay. So, you agree that not all dogs are equally dangerous. That the ones you mention above probably, on average, cause more of a problem than others not on your list. I agree. But I see this is the initial way to slice it. After that, if one breed (any one of them) is bred to fight, selectively encouraging those traits that make it better at killing—both physically and tempermentally—that breed would be become MORE dangerous than if not so bred, wouldn’t it. And, therefore, MORE dangerous than those other dogs. Right? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682)._