Reminds me of a perfect illustration of this. The dog owner was a prison inmate serving three lifetime sentences, who was adopted by two attorneys who cared for his two killer dogs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple

It’s almost like parenting. Children from a bad environment are more likely to have problems later. Not very different from dogs. Both try to fit into their environment and take clues for “correct” behavior from there.

That’s as opposed to cats. They always plot to kill you.

The study doesn't have anything to say about dog behavior, and makes no attempt to connect individual dog behavior to environment as far as I can tell.

The connection they're pointing to is that criminal behavior correlates with choosing one of these dog types.

Nah. Cats are fine as long as you keep the food and scritches coming and Do Not. Touch. The Tummy.

"High-Risk" dogs present increased legal liability that owners tend to discount or disregard.

"Disregard for legal liability" is a fairly reasonable description of criminal behavior.

This scientific study merely validates the basic logic involved.

Another cause for disregard for liability:

  - I am broke and nothing to lose

  - My impoverished neighborhood is full of crime and I need protection 

  - Police do not protect and X number of my family are felons as a byproduct of poverty so I cannot keep gun accessible in house

 -  therefore get big scary dogs for protection

High-risk dogs are entirely owner created. People with behavioural issues acquire a breed with a reputation, and proceed to train and encourage that behaviour. It would be shocking if this wasn't correlated with other deviant behaviours.

> High-risk dogs are entirely owner created.

Unfortunately, some dogs do have higher potential for harm than others, even setting aside training. For some, this is due to their bite strength (e.g. Rottweilers, Doberman, and yes, pitbulls.) Some tend to be more skittish/wary of strangers (e.g. guard dogs like Akitas and Dalmations) and act more unpredictably around them.

On the other hand, breeds like Beagles and French Bulldogs seem to very rarely cause serious injury. Even a Pomeranian or Chihuahua, while often wary of strangers, can't typically do much damage...

As in nearly all nature-vs-nurture behavioral discussion, the word "entirely" usually has no place.

Since when is a Chow a high risk dog? Aren't they fluffballs?

They tend to be protective breed like a cute Rotweiler. Seems harsh to label any of these breeds as aggressive when it stems from human behavior or deliberate training to make aggressive.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic - it's a pretty obvious trope to confuse how cute an animal is with how safe it is.

Edit: To be clear, I don't know what the statistics/literature on Chows say. I'm just remarking on "aren't they fluffballs?"

I can't get into the site, I agree with the title except in very rare cases these dogs are useful

Not only is the linked paper correct in that the ownership of of these kinds of animals is a proxy for deviant behaviours but the ownership itself is a deviant behaviour with the owners all too often using their dogs to terrorize their neighbours and assert dominance in their community.

It's really shocking to me that many societies allow people to possess and weaponize intrinsically dangerous animals within city limits.

Like I get why a place like America where little regard is placed on the consequences of the mentally ill or violent owning firearms is overlooked but it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures with little recourse for the people who are chronically victimized by them.

The solution seems straightforward to me: A) Prohibit the ownership of these kinds of animals in urban environments. B) Enact laws that hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves.

If you own a particularly aggressive dog that exhibits a pattern of threatening behaviour and it eventually kills someone, you should be charged with manslaughter. There’s no excuse for allowing preventable violence to occur when the warning signs are so clear.

www.reddit.com/r/banpitbulls

> it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures

Just for reference, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK imposes strict liability (including criminal liability) for dangerous dogs and maintains a list of breeds that are banned. Recently 'XL Bully' dogs were put on that list, but there is controversy regarding the breed-specific limits. It is always easy to look back and say 'that dog and its owner were the source of a series of problems and should have been detained' but turns out that preventing future problems is harder than you would think...

With a .9% serious bite rate, (thats not accounting for the fact that they are most often owned by people who purposefully dont train them)

Do you think we should ban these whereve you live too...?

Cars: (Accidents Involving Injury - 0.56%) Stairs: (Falling Down To Serious Injury - 0.77%) Eating Chicken: (Food Poisoning - 0.96%) Bicycles: (Serious Accidents - 0.87%) Alcohol: (Injuries (Non-Fatal) - 0.67%)

Sources: World Animal Foundation MK Law Group Various studies, e.g., JAMA Study Breed Differences Study DogsBite.org