Agreed.

Edit: don’t know if I accidentally responded to your second post before, but my second long response was to MinisawTully.

Amazing how you and the person you responded to are the ones making complete sense and of course you’re getting downvoted. The stereotype surrounding Pitbulls influences people to buy them for that purpose too, so it’s a constant cycle, reinforcing the stereotype; are Pits inherently extremely violent (more so than other dogs) or is it mainly nurture? I would argue even if they needed more attention and special training, it’s much the same for many breeds of dogs or dogs in general. Dalmatians and Golden Retrievers can be so crazy/aggressive. Banning Pits would just up their value and cause more harm.

You’re missing the point. Pits are likely to bite due to the environment they often get put in BECAUSE people have used them for this purpose. Therefore, the people who are more likely to breed/adopt Pitbulls are more likely to be bad actors. The issue isn’t whether or not they are more likely to be aggressive than other dogs. Statistically it’s true. The issue is whether or not they should be bred out because they’re “inherently” violent. The root of the problem is humans, not the dogs. Are you a veterinarian or do you work in medical care for animals? The two people I responded to said they study/work in veterinary care.

Your main argument is, “Pitbull bad.” That doesn’t solve the issue without causing unneeded suffering. It simply states the consequence of how they are nurtured in this world. Of course there aren’t as many Dalmatians attacking, as someone else has said they aren’t as common. What about German Shepherds? Rottweilers? Hybrids? A German Shepherd has a stronger bite than a Pitbull, which is why they’re commonly used in law enforcement.