The home secretary is seeking "urgent advice" about banning American XL Bully dogs as footage shows one of the animals attacking an 11-year-old girl and a man in Birmingham. Suella Braverman has said the animals are a "clear and lethal" danger after the video of the attack in Bordesley Green emerged on the social media platform TikTok. West Midlands Police are investigating after two men, who were bitten and left with injuries to their shoulders and arms, were taken to hospital to be treated for their injuries after the incident on Saturday.
Source?
deleted by creator
This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.
And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this
Not exactly. Studies on this are hard to accurately. In breif, people suck at id breeds, and mort studoes only ask the peraon what breed bit you
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7F4OfDSvPU&pp=ygUYcmViZWNjYSB3YXRzb24gZG9nIGJyZWVk
Thanks for telling me the same thing people have been parroting for an eternity. Check out Occam’s razor
What wrong with the counter studies
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.
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.
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.
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.
If research is determining otherwise then what would it take to convince you to accept this?
For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:
The problem is that an advisory group trying to push legislation is much more likely to cherry pick and misrepresent their citations.
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
It’s not well cited because in over half of dog injuries the breed is unknown.
Also, two thirds of dogs identified as pitbulls by veterinarian staff have zero pitbull DNA.