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.

Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        213·
        1 year ago

        This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.

        • Audbol@lemmy.world
          412·
          1 year ago

          And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            13·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              1·
              1 year ago

              I’d like a good citation on that claim in your second paragraph. I’ve seen that claimed a lot yet I’ve seen nothing to support it.

            • Audbol@lemmy.world
              34·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Zak@lemmy.world
                7·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Audbol@lemmy.world
                  13·
                  1 year ago

                  If research is determining otherwise then what would it take to convince you to accept this?

                  • Zak@lemmy.world
                    4·
                    1 year ago

                    For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:

                    1. Statistics about serious injuries to people supported by reliable breed identification. Asking a victim or police officer what breed of dog caused the injury is insufficient.
                    2. At least some some supporting evidence that the breed is inherently more dangerous than other breeds of the same size instead of simply being popular with people who train their dogs to be aggressive.
                    3. Legislation focused on breeding bans, neutering mandates, and a mix of fence/muzzle requirements and temperament testing rather than confiscation or euthanasia individual dogs that have not shown signs of aggression.
            • Audbol@lemmy.world
              25·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for telling me the same thing people have been parroting for an eternity. Check out Occam’s razor