Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.

        • Audbol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The National Rifle Association will offer a very well cited claim that strict gun laws increase violent crime. The Violence Policy Center will offer a very well cited claim that the opposite is true. Reality is likely more nuanced.

            The hole in dog breed bite statistics is usually accurate identification of the breed.

            • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d like a good citation on that claim in your second paragraph. I’ve seen that claimed a lot yet I’ve seen nothing to support it.

            • Audbol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe I’m missing something, what does this advocacy group stand to benefit from banning pitbulls? The NRA is backed by weapons manufacturers. This seems to be people who actually see a problem and are taking actions to help protect people.

              • Zak@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                People often hold strong beliefs that are not related to personal gain nor particularly rational. I don’t think their intent is nefarious, but I think it’s likely mistaken.

                • Audbol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If research is determining otherwise then what would it take to convince you to accept this?

                  • Zak@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:

                    1. Statistics about serious injuries to people supported by reliable breed identification. Asking a victim or police officer what breed of dog caused the injury is insufficient.
                    2. At least some some supporting evidence that the breed is inherently more dangerous than other breeds of the same size instead of simply being popular with people who train their dogs to be aggressive.
                    3. Legislation focused on breeding bans, neutering mandates, and a mix of fence/muzzle requirements and temperament testing rather than confiscation or euthanasia individual dogs that have not shown signs of aggression.
              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                They are pushing arguments in favor of eugenics and genocide and have coopted dog-related injuries to push lies about history and genetic science.

                Just go on their site and wherever they mention pitbulls, replace it with “Jews” and you really start to get the flavor of their bullshit.

          • TheSambassador@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem is that an advisory group trying to push legislation is much more likely to cherry pick and misrepresent their citations.

            • Audbol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay but what is the motive for them to do this. You are claiming malice but you aren’t providing a motive for said malice