As someone who has raised and fostered dozens of dogs over the years, actual Pitbull breeds DO tend to have problems with aggression. I had one Pit rescue that absolutely loved people, dogs, and cats, and for a couple of years, it was one of the best dogs I had taken in. Until one day he wasn’t, he snapped and almost killed another foster we had.
I have had about a dozen or so mixed bully breeds and breeds like American Bulldogs, and not a single one ever gave me a moments hesitation. There absolutely is something in the full blood Pit breed that is an issue. I honestly believe we could breed aggression out of the breed, but it would more than likely just need to end up a bully mutt breed instead.
If you bred it out of them people wouldn’t want them anymore. A lot of people want a big scary dog to protect their kids and them and stuff. But it’s the same as a gun which statistically mostly kills the owners lol
Yeah so this is wrong.
My neighbours had a small hunting terrier when i was a kid, forgot the name of the breed. Fucking asshole dog tried to bite me every time she saw me although i went in and out there every day. Also she killed everything that moved, cats, birds, hedgehogs, …
Neighbour was a hunter and those fuckers were bred to follow badgers into their sett and kill them. Badgers can be quite nasty themselves so most animals stay away, but not this breed. Only chance the badger has is to kill the dog, even if half of its nose is bitten off, it doesn’t give a shit.
So I’m a bit sceptical about the whole “aggression is not bred” theory.
Removed by mod
Bred for the size, trained for the aggression. I’ve seen typically passive breeds be overly aggressive in exactly the way that the breed is known for not being.
They’re animals.
If you’re suggesting my neighbours trained her to be aggressive - they didn’t - it was their family dog, they did the standard obedience training (sit, stay…) but no protection training. All their other dogs (german shepherds) were friendly.
Do you know how they treated their dogs? I’m not insinuating anything, I’ve just never dealt with a dog that becomes aggressive and I’ve owned both rotties and pitties.
Well I didn’t watch them 24/7 if that’s the burden of proof now. I guess they treated all their dogs roughly the same though and for some reason the one whose breeding description essentially reads " Psychotic mauler of all that breathes" behaved accordingly.
Removed by mod
Have you ever seen a puppy of a working dog? Pointers will point. The training they receive is what to point, not how. Retrievers will retrieve, herders will herd, trackers will track. But when someone suggests that a dog that has been specifically bred to fight and kill, oh, they were just trained that way. No, they have been specifically selected for aggression and prey drive. It is at best naive and at worst deadly to think that a working dog comes as a blank slate and will only perform actions it has been trained on.
Have you ever seen a puppy of a working dog? Pointers will point. The training they receive is what to point, not how. Retrievers will retrieve, herders will herd, trackers will track.
That’s not how genetics works my guy. None of those things are heritable traits. Being smart, being trainable, those are traits that puppies can inherit. Being a good tracker isn’t. That’s learned behavior. If you’ve seen puppies pointing, retrieving, herding, or tracking, it’s because they learned it from some other dog, animal, or human.
? You don’t think animals naturally know how to do things?
That’s not what I said dude
A bird can naturally know how to build a nest but a dog can’t naturally know how to follow an animal?
Still not comparable to what I said.
So the owners of retrievers what, subconsciously all train them to retrieve because they knew the breed?
This is EXACTLY how genetics works. Research the Belyaev’s domestic fox program. It took about 4 generations of choosing the calmest and friendliest to make a domestic fix on par with our domestic dog breeds.
This is what dog breeding is. Breeding to get a specific dog behaviour was literally 90% of dog breeding … before the weird cosmetic trend started.
im pretty sure aggression is bred in for some dogs for thier purpose of being a gaurd dog, or something as bull baiting. also cats can be unpredictabally aggressive.
It’s literally why they’re called bully breeds.
I think for chihuahuas it’s largely a self-defense thing. They have to be aggressive to compensate for being so small.
I’m 70 years old, have always had cats around, and have never come across an unpredictably aggressive cat. At least not towards people. Some cats don’t like other cats, but that’s very predictable for what are mostly solitary creatures. Cats are not dogs, and it’s a mistake to compare them.
I think some people are just bad at reading cats.
Shhh the entire concept of genetics is a big ol conspiracy that makes people who live in a fantasy where they control everything through behavior and education, since that is the only thing they control, really hurt. If you point out some things are destined (yes I know nature/nurture) they lose control because their fantasy collapses by conflicting world views.
This is probably what pebbles (who wouldn’t hurt a fly ™️ ) thinks anyway
It’s a little of column A, a little of column B
Yes, it’s true that some dog breeds have been bred to be more aggressive- but aggressive can mean many things.
I was roommates with a guy who had a Pit bull. Awesome dog, great with the kids. Never seen her so much as growl at a person. Animals though she did not fuck around with. And that makes sense, they were bred to fight other animals. So while they are aggressive, they aren’t (naturally) aggressive towards humans, though obviously you can train them to be.
I had a different roommate who had a Chihuahua, Chihuahua’s were bred for two things, to be fearless rat hunters and to be burglar alarms. They also have a personality quirk where they typically only bond with very few people, and even then it can take a little while for them to gain your trust. For about the first month after he brought her home she would bark at me every time I entered the room she was in. After she got used to me, she was the sweetest little pup you could imagine. If anyone else came by she just couldn’t handle it. If I picked her up and held her while talking the other person she would eventually calm down some, but she still didn’t like it. You usually just had to put her in a different room. She didn’t nip at them or anything, but if they had tried to pick her up it probably would have been a different story.
Not all Chihuahua’s behave like that, but it’s typical.
I’ve lived with a Doberman who was a total coward (and neurotic the poor thing), and a Rottweiler who was perfectly fine with me, until her owner was out of sight, and then she acted like she had no idea who I was. As a kid we had a German Sheppard who was a total sweetie (the kitten thing was an accident), and I used to own a Chow/Lab mix who literally loved everyone and everything.
The breed plays a big role in their behavior, but so does training/ socialization. People who blame it solely on one thing or the other are just wrong imo. Some dogs will never be perfectly chill, but you can train them not to be assholes.
Aggression is not bred
Our Pomeranian Mix: “I would violently murder all of you in your sleep if only I had thumbs.”
Ofcourse you can breed aggression, its so absurd to claim that you cant.
We have bite statistics. Every year, pit bull and pit mixes far outnumber every other breed for human bite attacks, consistently, and always make up far more than half (to the tune of ~70%) of all total bites, by breed. Every single year.
Yet people ignore statistics and are eager to jump on the pibble defense train. “My little angel would never bite anyone!”
Maybe. But numbers don’t lie. Just stop breeding them. It’s cruel to people, and it’s cruel to the dogs themselves, that the breed continues to be perpetuated. Breed-specific behaviors are visceral and strong, whether you have a retriever, a pointer, a herder, or a throat mangler. The breed behavior can be invoked at any time, relatively easily.
deleted by creator
A friend of my wife and I got a pit bull a couple months ago. She was going on and on about how sweet he is and how he would never hurt anyone. Last week, it mauled her roommate. Nearly took his hand off while he was changing into his work clothes. His career is likely over and she’s still defending the dog.
I think that dog is legally required to be put down no?
I have no idea. I know the city animal control has it now. She is trying to get him released, though.
I guess it depends on where you live yeah…
Lets hope it doesnt get to hurt anyone again.
And even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story - not because it doesn’t add to the discussion, buy because it doesn’t suit their narrative.
I hope the roommate is able to find a good surgeon and get the help he needs, that sounds terrible if it could call for a career change.
And even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story
I think you and I have different ideas about what the word “evidence” means. A story told by a random user about something that happened to their friend’s roommate is not really something I consider or weigh heavily when evaluating things. There could be relevant details omitted from the story, or it could be invented whole cloth, in any case, it isn’t statistically significant.
So you’ve never heard the term “anecdotal evidence” then. I said it adds to the discussion and doesn’t deserve downvoting by pitbull white knights, not that it needs to be booked into evidence for the supreme court case to decide the fate of all pit bulls.
-
Yes, I have in fact heard that term, which is exactly why I know that anecdotal evidence is not valid.
-
What does invalid evidence add to the discussion, exactly?
-
There are people in this thread who are arguing for legislation restricting ownership of pitbulls. We are in the court of public opinion, which may be less formal than the supreme court, but still has the capacity to influence public policy. So it seems reasonable to apply a very basic standard of evidence, above that of stuff that random people claim happen to their friend’s roommate.
-
So you’ve never heard the term “anecdotal evidence” then.
As I recall, it is generally brought up to point out how worthless it is in any particular debate.
But, go on…
Yeah Lemmy would be a great place if nobody ever discussed a personal story about how they were affected by a topic being discussed.
Your comment ignores all context of the thread, congrats.
even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story - not because it doesn’t add to the discussion, buy because it doesn’t suit their narrative.
Not really commenting on the claims made in this argument, but this is anecdotal evidence. Meaning that someone who claims all pitbulls are sweet and docile because of their personal experience is just as valid of an argument as someone saying all pitbulls are bad because of their personal experience.
I don’t really care about pitbulls one way or the other, but I find it worrying that a lot of the times the debates against the breed follow similar argument structures to those utilized by racist pulling up FBI crime stats about black people.
Personal evidence is anecdotal, I never said it wasn’t? There is nothing wrong with someone sharing a personal story to add to the discussion was my point… Which I thought I made clearly.
Ah yes, ‘being cautious about dog breds bred over a hundred years of more for violent traits is much the same argument as being cautious about black people’ false equivalence again.
Personal evidence is anecdotal, I never said it wasn’t? There is nothing wrong with someone sharing a personal story to add to the discussion was my point… Which I thought I made clearly.
Right, but you were dismaying people who refute your anecdotes “because it doesn’t fit their narrative”, which is a perfectly valid thing to do with anecdotal evidence, as it is itself an attempt to build a narrative.
being cautious about dog breds bred over a hundred years of more for violent traits is much the same argument as being cautious about black people*’ false equivalence again.
Racist would often say the similar things about black people in America. Slavery lasted well over a hundred years and slave owners would often have slaves who were brought up to be prize fighters.
There’s always a tool that wants to be faux intelligent and inject a racist flavor into every discussion…
No, I wasn’t. I was pointing out how pathetic it is that people downvote comments that they don’t like because it doesn’t fit their narrative - downvotes are for comments that don’t add to the discussion, and personal stories are absolutely valid.
Am I writing in a coded language that’s hard to decipher?
This is not a thread of statisticians. This is a thread of people sharing experiences about dogs. Expect people stories aka “anecdotal”.
My contributions are not anecdotal
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
Then also expect people to dismiss that anecdotal evidence as irrelevant
The word you’re looking for is anecdote
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
Yea and black people commit more crime. Some statistics aren’t telling you the truth.
-
Black people aren’t bred for crime.
-
All domestic dog breeds enjoy the same material conditions as other breeds. Pit bulls aren’t living with poverty, scarcity, lack of opportunity, and systemic injustice compared to other dogs.
I don’t think MotoAsh was ever comparing people to dog breeds.
As I understood, they were using that comment as an example of how statistics can provid a skewed view about a certain topic.
To your comment though, pit bulls do tend to see different living conditions to some other breeds. Irresponsible ownership is a real problem for pit bulls.
They are strong and hard to train. I don’t think they should all be put down, but I do agree that not just anyone should raise one.
Good job completely and utterly failing to understamd how i was pointing at your racism towards dogs, not claiming racism towards humans… YOU are the one assuming bad things of animals you do not understand.
-
People aren’t dogs you cabbage
Nowhere was I making that statement, you spoiled raddish. I was making that comment because the same train of “thought” is why racist pieces of shit claim they don’t like black people in their neighborhoods/etc.
It’s not black peoples’ fault they live in worse conditions with more problems and poverty that drive them to literally, statistically, commit more crime. It’s not that black people are intrinsically bad, you cabbage.
With humans, there is literally no genetical study that could suggest this. Also, black people have existed for millenniums, and have by nature developed something called empathy
However, dogs are just not as genetically advanced. Them not being totally hostile is something that developed a couple thousand years ago when humans started domesticating them (and that’s something you can look up from non Eugenics based papers.)
So the same way we can make people into monsters, we can also make dogs into those, but way easier. And with Pitbulls, you can do those super easily since they just haven’t evolved because breeders bred them that way
I understand the bite statistics but you have to keep in mind how those are reported too.
No one is reporting their neighbor’s chihuahua taking a bite at their boot. Bites from smaller breeds mostly go unreported.
It does give a point as to why pit bulls and other large breeds are dangerous though. Whether they are more common or not, they certainly are far, far more serious when it happens.
Responsible ownership has always been an issue with pitbulls, as irresponsible people tend to adopt and breed them.
Maybe. But numbers don’t lie
This is only said by people who’ve never actually taken a class about statistics.
Numbers may not lie, but they also don’t make assertions. People suck at interpreting data and that fact is constantly utilized to mislead people.
I’m not saying this to defend pitbulls, just that bite statistics don’t really tell us anything about innate aggression in dog breeds. Just like FBI statistics don’t tell us about innate criminality in ethnicity.
Those bite statistics don’t make any attempt to rule out misleading variables. It could be that pitt bull bites are reported more often because of the extent of harm they cause. It could be that people who gravitate towards breeds who are thought to be more aggressive are wanting and are training for aggression.
Statistics is hard, and can generally be used to shape opinions on just about anything.
This. It’s not neccessarily the breed itself. Look at who is likely to own the breed and what they are likely to do with it.
Yeah that’s the point, chihuahuas are assholes too with wrong owners but due its size its not gonna maul children.
I rather give an dumb toddler a spoon than a tec9
We also don’t really have bite statistics. Almost every citation I see for the data that gets posted over and over again traces back to one of two sources. One was a paper done in the 90s which both asserts that its methodology is inadequate to infer breed related risk and inexplicably combines rottweilers and pitbulls into a single category, a point which never gets carried through into other discussions. The other is that dogsbite site which openly states it is an advocacy site seeking the elimination of pit bulls and frequently gets its “data” from facebook stalking victims of dog bites for pictures of dogs they spent time around recently and then attempting to guess the breed involved from said picture. This is some real clown level shit, especially if you’ve ever read reports about even veterinarians trying to guess the breeds of mixed dogs that are their patients.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
This massively differs per country. Pitbull bites are generally nastier than other bites so they’re overreported. It’s also partially the public image of pitbulls being nasty dogs that gets them reported more often.
Historically the “most dangerous breed” has changed quite a bit. For a while Great Danes were the worst, then it was Dogo Argentinis, Malinois, German Shepherd, Akitas, Labradors, Jack Russells, etc…
In France for example pitbulls only rank 12th for most bite incidents.
Research on it has been mixed, with studies focusing on nature finding that the breed matters surprisingly little when it comes to aggression. It seems more likely that there’s a certain group of owners that handle their dogs irresponsibly, which tend to popularize specific breeds. This seems more likely because places that banned ‘dangerous’ breeds don’t see a decrease in bite attacks; the owners of the dangerous breeds mostly get new dogs, which then just bite people again.
How many American Pitbulls are there in France?
Very few of course. Other dog breeds are known to bite a lot in France. You can still own a pitbull but you require training and you need to muzzle them in public.
Still, there are approximately 35k pitbulls in France. Few compared to the total of course.
In France, German Shepherds cause 18% of dog bite attacks, 16% for Labradors. Generally bigger dogs -> more reported bite attacks, with some exceptions here and there where popular breeds end up higher.
Still, most studies don’t find a direct connection between a dogs nature and their inclination to attack, or a weak one at best. There is of course a link between the breed and the severity of the attack however.
This is because pitbulls are a restricted breed and France. So either people don’t have them, or they get the vet to say it’s some other breed (more often than not)
Point being that different dog breeds are listed at the top of being most dangerous in France.
You’re still allowed to own a pitbull in France, but you do require a training and need to muzzle them in public (but not at home).
Yes, when pitbull ownership is restricted, pitbulls fall from the number one spot for most dangerous
Obviously. Point being that these owners take different dogs which then rise in the ranking to take the pitbulls place.
Yes, and to the original point you used french rankings to attempt to make, the ranking of pitbulls is not because they are treated better or just culturally aren’t regarded as dangerous, it is because they are restricted legally.
We do have bite statistics, and the people most qualified to interpret them disagree with you
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
It’s not that pits are more likely to bite, it’s that their bite is way more damaging. If a retriever (bred for a “soft mouth”) bites me, I am way less likely to need medical attention than if a pit bites me. Even biting at lower rates than many other breeds, pits come out on top of medical reports because each bite is more damaging.
Exactly. I mean, dogs are wolves that were bred to be less aggressive and more suitable to be companions to human. Of course it can go the other way.
They literally did the opposite with foxes. Some guy kept breeding the nicest ones until he got a “breed” that wouldn’t want to murder you on sight. I’m pretty sure levels of aggression absolutely are something innate in some animals.
Also he did it both ways. On population selected for nice behavior became dog like. One population selected for aggression. The second population goes insane when someone enters the room trying to attack through the cage door.
“Some guy”
Come on now, let’s not buzzfeed our facts here!
Dmitry Belyayev is the guy, though work continued long after his death
So, indeed, “some guy.”
A specific guy whose name is not a mystery
Thanks for adding the credit where it’s due!
I had just gotten to work and was browsing Lemmy before I had to actually get started so I didn’t spend the time to look up who actually did it lol
The program has been quite successful, although you still have a high-energy animal with a strong odor. I’d still like to have one, tho.
Russian silver fox im pretty sure
Science and the American Veterinary Medical Association would love to have a word with you. But I guess you do love the literal pitbull hate community so who cares what you think on the matter.
It’s both. It’s insane to me someone can watch animals instinctively display insanely complex behaviors untaught (e.g. herding by australian shepards) and the scientific research to reduce aggression in a related species before coming to the conclusion that there is no way whatsoever that nature is a significant component. Oh, and just completely ignore breeds bred for traits and behaviors seemed desirable for every domesticated animal.
Nature has no place at all it’s only nurture. Sure.
Science
Do you have a source for that? Because everything I’ve read says completely the opposite. The ‘science’ I’m aware of says that genetic tendency to aggression is very much a thing, even in humans.
It is a thing, but most controlled studies haven’t found pitbulls to be inherently more aggressive than other breeds, just more dangerous if they happen to attack. Any dog that is poorly socialized will probably attack someone sooner or later, they just weren’t bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pitbulls were. So maybe there is a discussion to be had about “dangerous” breeds, but it’s not a genetics one.
It is a thing, but most controlled studies haven’t found pitbulls to be inherently more aggressive than other breeds, just more dangerous if they happen to attack.
Isn’t that the issue? From what I’ve heard, the big issue isn’t just that they attack, but they lock on and it’s hard to get them to release their target. Like, a small dog can absolutely bite you, but will it kill you? Is it going to rip a limb off? If you give it a good hit, is it still going to be holding on for dear life? You say other dogs just “weren’t bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pit bills were.” That sounds an awful lot like a dog that was bred to be aggressive or, at the very least, cause maximum damage when triggered. That’s something that needs to be considered when adopting or breeding a pet that’s supposed to not just be around people, but in the home.
I think another factor is the owner. Usually people who want agressive murder dog with the same name as the whitest rapper get it for a reason and don’t train the dog.
Its often low income people wearing tracksuits and man purses.
Can you cite any sources?
Really? “Science”? Hahaha
The “nature/nurture” debate is a question of how much influence each has - it’s not a binary question, but a continuum.
And if the AMVA is saying aggression is solely taught, then they lack any credibility whatsoever - that’s an utterly unscientific perspective.
I say this having worked with vets, competed in obedience trials, and trained numerous dogs (with the assistance of very successful trainers). Each dog is different, but there are very clear traits in breeds, achieved by… breeding for those traits.
Learn to read
Removed by mod
Meanwhile, dog breeders over the last century or two:
No, no, no. We specifically bred them with high levels of agression so they’d be more vicious and willing to fighting eachother.
Bullshit if dogs can be breed to do certain stuff they can be breed for aggression. Like pitbulls literally where. My dog herds never been trained or anything but instinctively does it.
And yes lots of small dogs are assholes because of their owners but if they attack nothing bad happens.
I have a pitbull (American pitbull terrier) that is a rescue. He loves people, but is so aggressive towards other animals that I can hardly believe it.
After having one for years now, I believe there should be some sort of training or licensing requirement before someone can own one. The combination of innate aggression and power is truly dangerous
I can never walk my dog off-leash, I can never hand my dog to someone inexperienced. I love my dog, but responsible ownership is much more burdensome than any other dog I’ve had.
Honestly all pets should have a liscence, that includes going through at least some certification for them since there isn’t a reason to own one.
I assume you would mean that there would be like tiers of license for more normal pets, and then a stricter license for Pitbulls or Mastiffs or whatever. What sort of competence do you want people to demonstrate before getting a pet like a Cat or Golden Retriever?
Must present evidence of sitting through something like the reccomended introductory lecture kennels and trainers do. It usually composes of: what the animals like, how to take care of them, how to entertain them, their health problems and costs.
Any good owner is going to do it anyway.
Yep, adopted a pit bull several years back and had to re-home it after it attacked my border collie twice and if I wasn’t nearby he would have killed her.
Got him as a puppy, raised him the exact same way we did the collie. He would just…snap randomly and go into attack mode. I also couldn’t believe it. He was great with people though. Other pets and animals was a totally different story.
I can totally confirm with my own experience with our rescue pit as well. He’s a good dog in the house and with our family, but he’s triggered so easily when out in our fenced yard by any other dogs out for a walk. Years ago we made so many attempts to acclimate him to other dogs through training, etc. and nothing worked. We can’t even walk him on a leash because he pulls so hard and chokes himself no matter what we do. But he’s happy to be a house/yard dog and feel like we’ve given him a good life.
Sadly the remaining 95% owners of pitbulls “love them so much” they’d start literal riots if that becomes law. Because you know they wouldn’t be able to pass the training, or even sit through it.
I don’t think they would riot, they would probably just get pitbulls from breeders that didn’t check for licenses.
But I agree with the gist, there are a lot of bad dog parents, and people get pitbulls for bad reasons. I want there to be an avenue to punish owners & breeders who do not take proper precautions.
Pitbulls attract some of the worst owners. Some people purposely get these dogs BECAUSE they are aggressive.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is true but it’s part of what makes chihuahuas awesome. My ex had a chihuahua that we raised from a puppy. We were totally nice and he was still psycho. He would attack me if I woke him up too early in the morning. I had to pick him up in a huge pillow as defense. He would go bananas trying to attack strangers but it’s only because he was “defending” himself and our pack. The worst part of breaking up is missing that dude. Awesome dog.
Also lots of chihuahuas are totally chill.
In a hypothetical situation where every dog breed is banned except for Chihuahuas, would the amount of deadly dog attacks be:
- More
- Less
- Equal
If dog breeds weren’t a factor, the correct answer could only be “equal”. But nobody in their right mind would make that claim.
Thus breed is a factor.
Yeah those little rat dogs got it in for everyone
Fun fact about dog bite studies. People go to the hospital and just say “a pitbull bite me”. The doctors write that down and can’t really do anything else to verify. Then those medical reports are used in studies about dog bites and dog attacks. Meaning we have ne reliable data on dog breeds and attacks.
Cough. Bullshit. Cough.
Burden of proof is on you homie.
You think doctors and nurses are out running around neighborhoods tracking down dogs? Or do you think people bring the dog with them, like venomous snakes in a movie?
If there’s a designated agency that reliably tracks dog bite statistics with breed data, link it. Send it to the AVMA too because they also say there are no reliable breed based bite statistics.
They provide no sources to back up the following which is contrary to the statistics provided by pretty much every other journalistic source.
It is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds because the data reported is often unreliable. This is because:
The breed of a biting dog is often not known or is reported inaccurately. The actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they don't result in serious injury. The number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed. Statistics often do not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal. Breed popularity changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable. However a review of the research that attempts to quantify the relation between breed and bite risk finds the connection to be weak or absent, while responsible ownership variables such as socialization, neutering and proper containment of dogs are much more strongly indicated as important risk factors.The part you quoted literally contains a link to a review which examines the evidence available for the relationship between breed and bite risk, you absolute spoon.
Aggression is bred. I don’t see this as funny.
Ah yes, those pesky chihuahuas and their bite force of 235 PSI and 60% fatal attack rate 🙃
Aggression and danger are often inversely correlated.
