Edit: I don’t know who’s downvoting the truth because it’s inconvenient, but I sure hope a Pitbull doesn’t catch you with your head in the sand 🙄.
Edit 2: funny how you can easily compare the people who deny reality in the comments below with MAGA, seeing as both groups look at data and choose to ignore it.
Edit 3 because people don’t believe a single source apparently:
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
I’m not sure what to believe, but i heard that “pitbull” isn’t really a breed of dog, and rather a label applied to any dog that was trained to fight. So fighting dogs fight. No surprise there. But this certainly makes it sound like it’s not the dogs to blame for the injuries, but the POS humans who trained them to fight.
First of all, pitbulls are a breed of dog. Don’t be ignorant and look it up.
Second of all, ofc we don’t blame the dogs, non-sapient beings who don’t even know what blame is 🙄🙄🙄.
But the same way you don’t blame a gun and still leave it out of reach of children, you need to muzzle and cage dangerous dogs who were bred for fighting. Simple as.
Edit: I hope the children of people who downvoted me have plenty of access to guns and pitbulls, since clearly I’m wrong in your eyes 😊.
Edit 2: Oh and if you disagree and report me for violence, you’re a hypocrite. Since those are the things I’m saying to keep away from anyone to begin with.
The American pitbull is a breed, though there are others.
The dogs are notorious for their violence and literally were bred to fight. If you think a Labrador retriever is naturally a good retriever because it’s been bred for those traits it’s not exactly hard to see how a dog bred for generations to literally kill for sport might be problematic.
The problem is the misuse of statistics. I want to see a chart that looks at number of child attacks based on if the dog was trained to attack people or defend a home. From there, look at breed.
People buy and train pitbulls for protection. It’s called a confounding factor.
If you look at just the result but not the cause you miss the point. That’s how people use statistics to lie. That’s why you’re getting shit.
I’ve provided one so far, but who the fuck are you again? That’s right, no one. You’ve contributed nothing to this conversation except asking the one who provided a source for another source.
This “data” may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady…
DogsBite.org accuses several organizations of being “co-opted by the ‘pit bull lobby’, a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters.”
“The site’s founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as ‘science whores,’ which alone is enough to discredit her claims.”
In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org’s claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading.
When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.
Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.
Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.
None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.
Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
I’m not going to engage with this poster specifically since they seem to be trolling, but if anyone else cares I did some research.
The image they posted is from a site called World Animal Foundation, and their information comes from only one source: dogsbite.org (incorrectly spelled Dog Bite org above).
dogsbite.org’s primary concern is self-disclosed as being the gathering of data of fatal dog attacks in an effort to increase knowledge of what they consider to be dangerous breeds with what they say is the intention of advocating for victims.
This means the organization is not focused primarily on non-biased academic research. They’re interested in proving a theory that they believe to be true, primarily, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
Their methodology involves primarily scanning a vast amount of media outlets for dog attacks with some supplemental coverage. Their identification methods seem to primarily be photos and social media. They do not mention DNA or professional veterinary verification.
I would determine the organization’s data is compromised by several forms of bias, including reporting bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, and observer bias. You can find a brief overview of biases in the link below.
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
First off, the infographic you posted doesn’t even spell the name of the propagandasite it cites properly (dogsbite[dot]org). Just because it’s a .org doesn’t grant it instant legitimacy. It’s one woman (Colleen Lynn) with a vendetta. (You don’t still believe the disproven and later retracted “study” about vaccines causing autism now, do you?)
Second, engage in some critical thinking. (I know, you weren’t bred to do so - but it isn’t your fault!). Do many people keep these several dog breeds for home and family protection, and do they similarly neglect and fail to train their dogs? To use your own irresponsible analogy where several breeds of dogs = guns, yes, many people own guns and don’t follow proper safety practices with them. And we’ve also decided as a society that even with many undereducated people doing stupid things with guns that education is part of a larger solution. Please educate yourself further, unless you’re just here to stir up trouble.
So far you’ve just called people trolls and kept posting the same link, it seems without even reading the comments you’re responding to thoroughy.
The charity you’ve linked, world animal foundation seems to be a respectable charity. The problem; and what you’re being critisized for; is the source of the statistic they use, which you keep quoting.
Another article from world animal foundation paints a picture of pitbulls as not significantly more aggressive than other breeds if you ignore the statistics provided by dogsbite.org, which I hope at this is no longer considered a legitimate source [1, 2 ].
If you can list any sources not originally from dogsbite.org or quoting them, I’d be happy to read through those and reconsider my position.
He’s just projecting that he’s the troll. He literally doesn’t want to hear about any nuance, and the extended list of other sources go straight over his head.
If the account isn’t a bot then they’re living a sad life
That’s not a pitbull, it’s a Cane corso or another type of mastiff. That people so frequently misidentify various breeds as “pit bulls” is one of the factors that makes the statistics you cite unreliable. Even “pit bull” isn’t a specific breed designation. Any breed or mix with a boxy head and deep chest is likely to be mistaken for a pit bull.
Pitbulls need a muzzle and a cage.
Edit: I don’t know who’s downvoting the truth because it’s inconvenient, but I sure hope a Pitbull doesn’t catch you with your head in the sand 🙄.
Edit 2: funny how you can easily compare the people who deny reality in the comments below with MAGA, seeing as both groups look at data and choose to ignore it.
Edit 3 because people don’t believe a single source apparently:
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
I’m not sure what to believe, but i heard that “pitbull” isn’t really a breed of dog, and rather a label applied to any dog that was trained to fight. So fighting dogs fight. No surprise there. But this certainly makes it sound like it’s not the dogs to blame for the injuries, but the POS humans who trained them to fight.
First of all, pitbulls are a breed of dog. Don’t be ignorant and look it up.
Second of all, ofc we don’t blame the dogs, non-sapient beings who don’t even know what blame is 🙄🙄🙄.
But the same way you don’t blame a gun and still leave it out of reach of children, you need to muzzle and cage dangerous dogs who were bred for fighting. Simple as.
Edit: I hope the children of people who downvoted me have plenty of access to guns and pitbulls, since clearly I’m wrong in your eyes 😊.
Edit 2: Oh and if you disagree and report me for violence, you’re a hypocrite. Since those are the things I’m saying to keep away from anyone to begin with.
The American pitbull is a breed, though there are others.
The dogs are notorious for their violence and literally were bred to fight. If you think a Labrador retriever is naturally a good retriever because it’s been bred for those traits it’s not exactly hard to see how a dog bred for generations to literally kill for sport might be problematic.
Lol, what is this dumb shit? Obviously you can rank it when pitbulls are consistently the breed with the highest violence and attacks.
The problem is the misuse of statistics. I want to see a chart that looks at number of child attacks based on if the dog was trained to attack people or defend a home. From there, look at breed.
People buy and train pitbulls for protection. It’s called a confounding factor.
If you look at just the result but not the cause you miss the point. That’s how people use statistics to lie. That’s why you’re getting shit.
Ah yes, just ignore the confounding genetic factor while at it. That’s surely a scientific approach to all this. 🙄
You need to get better at this, troll.
Source?
Where’s yours?
I’ve provided one so far, but who the fuck are you again? That’s right, no one. You’ve contributed nothing to this conversation except asking the one who provided a source for another source.
So fuck off, baiter.
You provided a source showing genetics is a confounding factor to your original graph?
Do you not know what confounding means?
You have not provided one proving your point either. So it seems I’m the only one required to, because you’re a hypocritical troll.
Oh they’re confounded alright.
This “data” may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady…
When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.
You’re not even on the right website, troll.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
Can you then elaborate on the little reference tag – I assume it is a reference – to “Dog Bite org”?
Alright, wanna play that game? Here come the sources then, idiot:
I could keep going.
You’ve provided: absolutely jackshit
Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.
Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.
None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.
I’ve provided a source. You doubting me puts the burden of proving me wrong on YOU.
Wanting me to do all the work is typical troll fashion, when you’ve given nothing to back your point that DogBite is an invalid source.
So keep trolling. We both know I’ve provided infinitely more than I should have since you’re clearly not arguing in good faith, troll.
Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
I’m not going to engage with this poster specifically since they seem to be trolling, but if anyone else cares I did some research.
The image they posted is from a site called World Animal Foundation, and their information comes from only one source: dogsbite.org (incorrectly spelled Dog Bite org above).
dogsbite.org’s primary concern is self-disclosed as being the gathering of data of fatal dog attacks in an effort to increase knowledge of what they consider to be dangerous breeds with what they say is the intention of advocating for victims.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php
This means the organization is not focused primarily on non-biased academic research. They’re interested in proving a theory that they believe to be true, primarily, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
Their methodology involves primarily scanning a vast amount of media outlets for dog attacks with some supplemental coverage. Their identification methods seem to primarily be photos and social media. They do not mention DNA or professional veterinary verification.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatality-citations-data-collection.php
I would determine the organization’s data is compromised by several forms of bias, including reporting bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, and observer bias. You can find a brief overview of biases in the link below.
https://casp-uk.net/news/different-types-of-research-bias/
Proper data collection should be handled by a third party and the research should also be reviewed by a third party.
An article published by JAVMA in 2000 investigates the issues of expensive DNA testing, and the importance of reliable identification.
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?trk=public_post_comment-text
Another article published in 2022 by the National Canine Research Council concluded that breed was not a good indicator for behavior.
https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/research_library/ancestry-inclusive-dog-genomics-challenges-popular-breed-stereotypes/
**tldr; **
Maybe don’t just blindly trust a single infographic from random strangers on the internet.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
First off, the infographic you posted doesn’t even spell the name of the propaganda site it cites properly (dogsbite[dot]org). Just because it’s a .org doesn’t grant it instant legitimacy. It’s one woman (Colleen Lynn) with a vendetta. (You don’t still believe the disproven and later retracted “study” about vaccines causing autism now, do you?)
Second, engage in some critical thinking. (I know, you weren’t bred to do so - but it isn’t your fault!). Do many people keep these several dog breeds for home and family protection, and do they similarly neglect and fail to train their dogs? To use your own irresponsible analogy where several breeds of dogs = guns, yes, many people own guns and don’t follow proper safety practices with them. And we’ve also decided as a society that even with many undereducated people doing stupid things with guns that education is part of a larger solution. Please educate yourself further, unless you’re just here to stir up trouble.
Wrong website, troll. Educate yourself further.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
So far you’ve just called people trolls and kept posting the same link, it seems without even reading the comments you’re responding to thoroughy.
The charity you’ve linked, world animal foundation seems to be a respectable charity. The problem; and what you’re being critisized for; is the source of the statistic they use, which you keep quoting.
A quick google search shows that that statistic ( from dogsbite.org, as shown on your linked article) does not reflect actual results, as shown by studies from both the american dog breeders association and the national library of medicine.
Another article from world animal foundation paints a picture of pitbulls as not significantly more aggressive than other breeds if you ignore the statistics provided by dogsbite.org, which I hope at this is no longer considered a legitimate source [1, 2 ].
If you can list any sources not originally from dogsbite.org or quoting them, I’d be happy to read through those and reconsider my position.
EDITS: formatting
He’s just projecting that he’s the troll. He literally doesn’t want to hear about any nuance, and the extended list of other sources go straight over his head.
If the account isn’t a bot then they’re living a sad life
Congrats on being entirely useless to this conversation.
Oh shut up.
That’s not a pitbull, it’s a Cane corso or another type of mastiff. That people so frequently misidentify various breeds as “pit bulls” is one of the factors that makes the statistics you cite unreliable. Even “pit bull” isn’t a specific breed designation. Any breed or mix with a boxy head and deep chest is likely to be mistaken for a pit bull.
You’re being downvoted because of your ignorance