Why are pitbulls banned in some US states along with the UK , and ........

BELGIUM(breed-specific restrictions),BRAZIL (proposed breed-specific restrictions/bans, CANADA, DENMARK , FINLAND, FRANCE, HOLLAND, NORWAY, NEW ZEALAND, POLAND, PUERTO RICO, SWEDEN

I take it all these countries are also wrong and have a DDA act that is a nonsense.

And just out of curiosity, how many other breeds are banned in as many countries???

and Australia

quite simply yes i think they are wrong. Ok there have been big problems with pitbulls but they are from human error and banning the breed simply does not solve the problem.

in most if not all of those states the term pitbull includes staffys.
Are they dangerous?

Show my error, then. It shouldn't be so hard if your keen eye has so easily spotted it.

You claimed (nonsensically) that Pits had a higher pass rate than other breeds because more pits were tested than other breeds.

You are wrong.

So - the challenge remains, for those who maintain that the pit is more aggressive than other breeds, to explain why they pass more regularly than other breeds.

Fancy another try?


I didn't allude to Golden Retreivers. You may be confused about more than just the question at hand.

For similar reasons to the ban here.

It is more politically attractive (cheaper) than alternatives and it gives an impression to the electorate that their representatives are taking a strong stance.

Perhaps some legislators genuinely misunderstood the issue although I suspect most were fully aware that it is ineffective. No more than a political placebo.

Eventually the inherent injustices and obvious ineffectiveness will build to a level where the placebo no longer satisfies and other measures will be sort. Slovenia has turned away from proposed BSL laws. Italy and Holland have repealed their BSL laws after finding they don't work. Some cultures are slower to admit mistakes than others. I fear the culture in Westminster means they will cling to their mistakes for a fair while yet.

I think everybody, this thread has reached the end of the line. There is never going to be any aggreement between the pro's and anti's even if we debated this subject to doomsday. So have a nice day everyone. Bye for now, my very last comment on this saga.

Maybe he realised his error

It depends what you mean by 'more aggressive'. If you mean are they individually aggressive on a daily basis, then, no I don't think they are the most aggressive breed by a long way.

But if 'most aggressive' means doing most serious harm to humans, judging from various American stastics, I would say yes they are.

This can still be consistent with them passing temperament tests. From what I've read, a very high proportion (I think it was two thirds, but I need to go and check that) of the serious attacks by pitbulls are from dogs who have shown NO previous sign of any aggression, they have effectively just 'flipped'.

Pitbulls only make up about 5% of the dog population in America, but are responsible for over 50% of human deaths and nearly 40% of serious attacks (since 1982).

I think their strength and courage (if that is the right word) has a lot to do with it - i.e. when they do decide to attack, the results are pretty devastating because they are so strong and because they will not back down/give up.

I don't know how many people on Dogsey have actually witnessed a dog seriously trying to attack a human (as oppose to warning bites). I have and it is one of the reasons why I can't see myself ever owning a dog that I am not physically capable of overpowering should I ever need to.

However, having said all that, I do want to put a bit of perspective on it. There are apparently over 77 million dogs in the USA (therefore approx 3.8 million pit bulls). Total number of pitbull serious attacks/deaths over a 14 year period was 1,110, so call that an average of 79 per year.
79 serious attacks from 3.8 million is a pretty small number, and therefore arguably not dangerous... more Americans accidently suffocated/strangled in bed than died/suffered a serious injury from a pitbull.

I would class pitbulls as one of the most dangerous breeds, but I don't know that the danger from them is sufficient to justify them being completely banned.

Would that be because they consider thm more of a danger than most breeds

A very good post, and the highlighted may just be why these dogs are considered to be more of a danger than any other breed.


The facts are there are to many countries who have banned them, they ALL cant be been enforced by total numpties of Governments.

Maybe , just maybe there is a legit reason behind so many banning them.