This is leftist bullshit. This general breed, ie the bully dog, has an almost purely anglosaxon European and White American lineage with a massive place in the American consciousness pre-WWII. The Nigs flourished through the later half of the century and as their 'culture' began to proudly debase itself, so grew their fixation with these animals because of their aggressive characteristics. The negro disproportionately bought, neglected, bred, and abused them en masse. The amount of violent, unprovoked, attacks by Pitbulls is more sensationalized than those committed by the fucking AR-15, by half. The entire internet is awash with anti-bully propaganda no different than found when searching other politicized topics. Why? Because that's what effete leftist do when they're upset. They actively, loudly, angrily, demonize whatever hurts their faggot hearts. Just look at the cities that have BDS... What's worse is dimwitted wanna-be autist edgelords on Chan who think they're based simply because they're ignorantly talking insane shit built from the most uncritically topical of associations. No free society, no intelligent people, would seek to ban or destroy an apex example of domesticated working dogs because the worst, least capable elements of society have abused them. These dogs are next level animals in every way, but by the numbers they're not remotely dangerous to humans. If you want a training wheels animal, buy a Golden Retriever, that's your choice. But to willfully side with the violently effeminate against a decided masculine breed and to ignore the fullness of history and fact just to make a bullshit claim... It is the ultimate in smooth brained thinking. If anything, those opposed to the left, those opposed to everything being banned, cancelled, made illegal - should be eager to retake the public image of the breed and draw a firm distinction between what violent, unintelligent, abusive, and opportunistic negros have done to these creatures and what they're actually like. I've owned dogs my entire life and none even remotely compare to the AmStaff and Dogo's I've known; they're something else entirely. This article is a good contextual position to hold. It addresses the positive and the negative dispassionately. https://barkpost.com/good/pit-bulls-history-of-americas-dog/ “…Between 1965 and 2001, there have been 60 lethal dog-attacks in the United States involving a Pit Bull. Compared to most breeds, that figure is indeed quite high. There were only 14 lethal attacks involving Dobermans, for instance. But taking into account the overall populations of each breed measured, the rate of aggression among Pit Bulls is comparatively quite normal. Even low. During that 36-year period, only 0.0012 percent of the estimated Pit Bull population was involved in a fatal attack. Compare that to the purebred Chow Chow, which has a fatal-attack rate of 0.005 percent, and consistently ranks as the least child-friendly dog breed on the market. Why don’t media reports of attacks involving Chows eclipse those involving Pit Bulls? Because there are only 240,000 registered Chow Chows currently residing in the United States. And frankly, the broad-skulled, wide-mouthed Pit Bull makes for a more convincing monster than the comically puffy Chow.”