5 ms·

1. The statistics are 80% pits and pit breed derivatives. You are welcome to argue against facts and statistics but I wont be joining you. 2. Shifting all the

by seppin 6y ago

1. The statistics are 80% pits and pit breed derivatives. You are welcome to argue against facts and statistics but I wont be joining you. 2. Shifting all the blame onto owners is ignoring the clear trend. If 100% of gun owners were safe and responsible, there would still be gun deaths because of the capacity of a gun to kill someone. Same with Pits. 3. I agree but that's your logic, not mine. You are also shifting focus from Pits attacking other dogs (the point of this thread) to attacking people. Fine, they account for most dog attacks on other dogs and on people. You seem to have your own justifications for why that is, and why it's ok, but those only work on you. Because you want to believe your Pitbull is an angel from heaven and not a well trained, but inherently dangerous animal. https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2020.php https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2020... Entry after entry is pitbull. "Pictured are the two most deadly dog breeds in America: pit bull terriers and rottweilers. Research from DogsBite.org shows that during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2018, canines killed 471 Americans. Pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 76% (358) of these deaths."

michaelmrose 6y ago
Dogsbite is a worthless source. You yourself aren't being consistent in your arguments. First it was pit bulls were responsible for 80% of fatalities and now its pits and rottweilers are responsible for 76. Would you like to settle on "big dogs are the ones that normally manage to kill people" and include 2 or 3 more large breeds? Looking at the link it relies on news paper stories to report that the death happened and then uses the reporters words to correctly identify the breed even though this may actually result in pit bulls being over counted and some fatalities being missed. In fact if you peruse the source its sufficient for an attack to be pit bull related for any given source to refer to the dogs as pit bulls. So if a dozen sources report on the matter and one misidentifies the culprit as a pit bull pit bull kill it is. As an example I found in the first dozen cases a "pit bull kill" wherein nobody saw the person get killed but a neighbor testified that there were problematic dogs in the neighborhood which the neighbor says are pit bulls. I found another which was a literal homicide in which the murderers dog attacked the victim while he was murdering them. It's hard to justify digging through 400 some cases when 1/6th of the first 12 are obviously complete nonsense and the rest are of unknown quality without extensive research not composed of finding newspaper articles and grepping for the word pit in any article about a particular incident. The citations show the article title but not a url to the actual source making identifying just how bad the source in unnecessarily cumbersome but anyone that spends more than 5 minutes studying it ought to come to the conclusion that dogsbite.org is shockingly not even trying to do an unbiased analysis. It's a hit piece serving the interests of a lobbying group of dog haters who in many cases want to steal people's family pets and kill them to address a problem that kills about the same number of people annually as drowning in bath tubs. Usually only having one biased source of truth is an indication that you are hanging out with the flat earth society. I invite you to join the rest of us on the round earth.
- seppin 6y ago
  > Would you like to settle on "big dogs are the ones that normally manage to kill people" and include 2 or 3 more large breeds? Sure, doesn't detract from my point at all. Nitpicking numbers is not a good use of anyone's time. Your entire argument seems to rely solely on attacking the source. Everything I google turns up similar numbers https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/ https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/ https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-studies.php https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-studies.php If you are going to grab your tin foil hat and claim an internet-wide conspiracy against your dog of choice, fine. I don't see any reason to participate.
michaelmrose 6y ago
For your consideration Breed Specific Legislation doesn't work while strategies that focus on other factors does. https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/25/bsl-and-dog-bites/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/25/bsl-and-dog-bites/ > Restricting breed ownership has not reduced the incidence of dog bites. A survey of reported dog bite rates in 36 Canadian municipalities found no difference between jurisdictions with BSL and those without. Likewise, a 2010 Toronto Humane Society survey found no change in dog bites in Ontario in the years before and after Ontario’s BSL. > Calgary, however, saw a five-fold reduction over 20 years – from 10 bites per 10,000 people in 1986 to two in 2006. Rather than banning breeds, Calgary uses strong licensing and enforcement plus dog safety public education campaigns. It would be great if you stopped promoting strategies that don't work and started promoting ones that do.

by seppin 6y ago

michaelmrose 6y ago

Dogsbite is a worthless source. You yourself aren't being consistent in your arguments. First it was pit bulls were responsible for 80% of fatalities and now its pits and rottweilers are responsible for 76. Would you like to settle on "big dogs are the ones that normally manage to kill people" and include 2 or 3 more large breeds? Looking at the link it relies on news paper stories to report that the death happened and then uses the reporters words to correctly identify the breed even though this may actually result in pit bulls being over counted and some fatalities being missed. In fact if you peruse the source its sufficient for an attack to be pit bull related for any given source to refer to the dogs as pit bulls. So if a dozen sources report on the matter and one misidentifies the culprit as a pit bull pit bull kill it is. As an example I found in the first dozen cases a "pit bull kill" wherein nobody saw the person get killed but a neighbor testified that there were problematic dogs in the neighborhood which the neighbor says are pit bulls. I found another which was a literal homicide in which the murderers dog attacked the victim while he was murdering them. It's hard to justify digging through 400 some cases when 1/6th of the first 12 are obviously complete nonsense and the rest are of unknown quality without extensive research not composed of finding newspaper articles and grepping for the word pit in any article about a particular incident. The citations show the article title but not a url to the actual source making identifying just how bad the source in unnecessarily cumbersome but anyone that spends more than 5 minutes studying it ought to come to the conclusion that dogsbite.org is shockingly not even trying to do an unbiased analysis. It's a hit piece serving the interests of a lobbying group of dog haters who in many cases want to steal people's family pets and kill them to address a problem that kills about the same number of people annually as drowning in bath tubs. Usually only having one biased source of truth is an indication that you are hanging out with the flat earth society. I invite you to join the rest of us on the round earth.

seppin 6y ago
> Would you like to settle on "big dogs are the ones that normally manage to kill people" and include 2 or 3 more large breeds? Sure, doesn't detract from my point at all. Nitpicking numbers is not a good use of anyone's time. Your entire argument seems to rely solely on attacking the source. Everything I google turns up similar numbers https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/ https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/ https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-studies.php https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-studies.php If you are going to grab your tin foil hat and claim an internet-wide conspiracy against your dog of choice, fine. I don't see any reason to participate.

michaelmrose 6y ago

For your consideration Breed Specific Legislation doesn't work while strategies that focus on other factors does. https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/25/bsl-and-dog-bites/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/25/bsl-and-dog-bites/ > Restricting breed ownership has not reduced the incidence of dog bites. A survey of reported dog bite rates in 36 Canadian municipalities found no difference between jurisdictions with BSL and those without. Likewise, a 2010 Toronto Humane Society survey found no change in dog bites in Ontario in the years before and after Ontario’s BSL. > Calgary, however, saw a five-fold reduction over 20 years – from 10 bites per 10,000 people in 1986 to two in 2006. Rather than banning breeds, Calgary uses strong licensing and enforcement plus dog safety public education campaigns. It would be great if you stopped promoting strategies that don't work and started promoting ones that do.