The Bully was essentially created as an attempt to evade Britain's current dog ban by crossing everyone’s favorite furred child mauler, the American pit bull (a breed already banned on the island) with other breeds, such as various kinds of mastiffs, to create a technically different, and thus legal breed.
The only problem?
The new hybrid breed turned out to be an even more vicious and aggressive monster than its ancestors. A fact which has resulted in a significant jump in maulings and fatalities in England over the course of only a few years. After a string of horrifying, and well publicized instances in which Bully dogs mauled several individuals to death, decision makers at West Minister decided they had enough and began the process to ban the breed.
Conservative commentator Matt Walsh jumped into the fray in the wake of the news, pointing out the obvious: that the argument to ban pit bulls and various related breeds is utterly ‘bulletproof.’
Walsh is right, and the massive amount of clueless criticism he received from pro-pit bull buffoons, who unsurprisingly tend to skew left-wing, only tended to prove many of his points.
As Walsh discussed, the case for banning pit bulls is both ironclad and straightforward.
Pit bulls are inherently dangerous on the most basic level possible: a genetic one.
The dogs were bred over generations for their aggression, indifference to pain, and fighting ability to make them better at mauling and killing other living things. This is an indisputable fact. They are predisposed to attack humans, including small children, and other dogs. In addition, they are also far more likely to cause significant injury and death when they do attack. Out of the 430 fatalities caused by dogs between 2010 and 2021, an almost unbelievable 60 percent were caused by pit bulls or pit bulls mixes (to say nothing of the immense amount of non-fatal, yet still vicious, attacks pit bulls also inflict on their victims regularly). Their only real competition, Rottweilers, came in a distant third, being responsible for seven percent of all fatalities.
The most troubling fact of all is that young children were the most likely victims to be targeted by pit bull attacks. Of the 430 fatal dog attacks recorded between 2010 and 2021 around a third of them were children younger than four years old.
Furthermore, the arguments put forward by pit bull apologists are paper thin and are easily debunked.
The most common being the line that the breed itself isn’t to blame, but rather it is the owner that makes a dog vicious or not.
An idea which is completely fictitious, if a dog’s aggression and likelihood to attack were tied to ownership and not genetics we would see far more dog attacks and fatalities from non-pit bull dog breeds (which tend to be significantly more popular). In addition, one would have to be incredibly ignorant to not understand that dog behavior is significantly influenced by particular breed genetics, something purposefully developed by breeders over many decades.
Another foolish objection that is commonly heard is that a ban on pit bulls would be the equivalent to a ban on guns, constituting an unacceptable infringement on personal freedom.
However this is obviously a false equivalency, the primary difference being that gun ownership is explicitly written into the U.S. Constitution while pit bull ownership isn’t. What's more, at the point where you're likening a pet to a weapon, you've basically conceded the entire argument.
And those making this argument should concede it, because like cooking meth in your mother's basement, or trying to breed tigers in your backyard, pit bulls are inherently dangerous creatures whose ownership can and should be banned.
It’s well past time for Americans to start demanding their elected representatives take the same actions as the U.K. and ban these genetic abominations from continuing to threaten our society’s most vulnerable.
After all, anything ‘Cuck Island’ can do, we can do better.
