In the past I'd say it's a bit of both, though moreso the type of shitheads attracted to 'scary' breeds is also as likely to be shit at training/ socialising them. There's some good evidence though that this particular 'XL' breed has higher rates of inbreeding and has already been selected for agression (not to mention their increased size & power).

Think it's a fair point some are making though that just banning the latest dangerous breed is missing the wood for the trees. There should be serious penalties from any dog attack, for the owner; treat it the same as possession of a dangerous weapon like a gun or zombie knife.

It's bit of both. These morons aren't lining up to buy daschunds.

You need to go one step further - why do people feel the need to own such dogs in the first place? Some people would say the dog is for protection (from who? And why are those people a threat? It's well known that lack of social and communal services lead to young people ending up involved with gangs and violence), others use it as a status symbol (don't even get me started on consumerism, and commodification of natural shit like animals), and in almost all cases there is a lot of toxic masculinity involved.

These are all deep rooted systemic issues that go far beyond both dogs and owners (don't get me wrong - I am not excusing bad dog ownership, and don't think people should be raising violent and aggressive dogs), and they all need addressing to actually resolve the problem, but it's much easier for those in charge to focus on the end result, and make it an individual issue, they don't care about making society better, they just want power and money.

Literally all I'm saying is that the vast majority of pit bulls aren't violent. I fucking said I'm in favor of spaying and neutering the breed out of existence because the few that do become violent are excessively dangerous.

There's a story that a family dog got loose after a car crash. They found the dog a few days later ... herding sheep. No one ever taught the dog to herd sheep.

The problem is that there's no way to tell a bad owner from a good one, which is how we end up in situations like this. I've almost had my throat torn out as I made my way to the bus stop because a very submissive owner couldn't control his dommy gshep, which was lunging and straining at the leash in order to kill me.

I love sheps and have met some extremely good owners, but they are few and far between compared to the jackasses who bring their Rottweilers into bars, where the dog goes absolutely ballistic and starts making kill noises at everyone until the owner has to leave the bar. And that happened last month, lol.

oh oh I read a study answering that.

It depends on behavior. They found high correlation between breed and how many time they turned around before laying down. Certain common trip like sit or come. But not aggressive behavior. They highest correlation for that was back ground. Dog from the streets or abusive backgrounds. Followed by a small correlation with genetics, which is not the same as breed.

Breed did have anything to do with aggression. Also most people can't tell a pitbull from other dogs, and studies that look at dog attacks only rely on the victim just saying what breed attacked them

most people that know how to train dogs have perfectly well behaved dogs, of course they're always going to be animals at the end of the day but we shouldn't be surprised when they act out either

In the case of decent owners probably 50/50. Bad owners more like 10/90 (dog/owner).