I didn’t say they were bred for human aggression. I said dog aggression is in the breed standard. It’s stated in the UKC standard you linked above. Although, I’ll concede that it doesn’t say they should be dog aggressive, just that they are.

Where is this study showing animal aggression comes from owner behavior? That contradicts the APBT breed standard, which clearly states that animal aggression should exist in the breed. 🤔

This medical study says otherwise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/

Or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950?via%3Dihub

There are many studies that prove pit bulls pose a greater danger than other breeds. Spreading misinformation that claims they’re just like any other breed is what’s getting people and pets hurt.

AFF is hardly a credible source of information. They will support your narrative though. 🤦‍♀️

Except it’s almost always a pit bull. Statistics.

Except she was mauled by a pit bull. I’m not sure what you’re debating here. Are you suggesting it was actually a golden doodle?

OK, I’m done here. It was a pit bull. Because it’s almost always a pit bull. Your distraction deflection attempts won’t ever change that.

So the two pit bulls who were purchased as 8-week old puppies, were raised as family dogs and then mauled and killed their owners two babies recently in Tenn., what trauma caused them to do that?

Your comment speculating about the pit bull’s “likely history of trauma” suggests otherwise.

I judge a site by their content, not their Wikipedia page.

That’s not at all true, but it’s a common claim in the pro-pit bull community. Every instance they report is sourced and includes linked articles. You should check your facts before spreading lies and mis-information. The fact remains, someone is dead because her neighbor owned a pit bull who mauled her. It was a pit bull because it’s almost always a pit bull. Full stop.

If you want to research, DogsBite.org is a great place to start.

Those breeds are why I said almost any other breed. Pit bulls are responsible for more human fatalities and serious injuries from dog attacks than all other breeds combined. When these things happen, it’s almost always a pit bull. They shouldn’t be allowed in neighborhoods.

I think you know exactly what I mean when I say this was statistically predictable. If the woman had almost any other breed of dog, this wouldn’t have happened. But she had a pit bull and now someone is dead as a result.

I read the article and still do not understand why she declined to charge the dog’s owner. Someone is dead now as a direct result of the owner’s choices and actions. Had she chosen a normal breed of dog, her neighbor would be alive right now. The dangers of pit bulls are statistically predictable, so why should there be no accountability when the consequences are deadly? Mrs. Brooks didn’t choose for her neighbor to bring a pit bull into the neighborhood, yet she paid the ultimate price for it. How is that fair?