Submitted by weebchildren t3_ycqj2e in Connecticut
pittiedaddy t1_ito19jc wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Renting With Pitbull by weebchildren
>Insurance data indicates the Pitbulls and Rottweilers account for only 25% of dog bite claims. Which is also in agreement with the Ohio State University's Study that shows that Pitbulls account for approximately 22.5% of the most damaging reported bites. Pitbulls account for ~20% of the dog population by best estimates. Showing that pitbull bites are proportional to their population. In fact, their Breed Risk Rate is in line with other dogs breeds out there that are considered great family dogs. So how do pitbulls account for more than half of all dog bites? Agenda pushing misinformation by groups dedicated to hating a breed.
>Additionally, data from the American Veterinary Medical Association has concluded that no controlled studies have shown Pitbull-type dogs to be disproportionally aggressive.
>Lastly, Studies have shown that Errors in Identifying Pitbulls Link 2 happen approximately 60% of the time with shelter staff that spend a lot of time around dogs, so reports in the media about dog breeds are highly inaccurate and hardly count as a reputable source for a dogs breed.
>Oh you only see videos of pitbulls attacking? Not surprised. There is a group on this site that dedicates itself to reposting old archived videos to keep brainwashing people into fearing an event that happens 25 to 40 times a year with a breed that has a population around 20 million. Save us your anecdotal evidence of outliers.
[deleted] t1_ito1tj9 wrote
I don’t watch videos of animal attacks, and you’re missing the key statistic. Yes, lots of dogs bite, but pits alone are responsible for over 2/3 of fatal dog attacks, despite being a fraction of the dog population.
Sorry friend, nothing you are going to say is going to change the fact that my kid is less likely to be mauled to death by 50 labs compared to 1 pit. What’s the fascination with holding on to one failed breed? I like pits too, but why take the risk?
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itpvo2y wrote
>I don’t watch videos of animal attacks, and you’re missing the key statistic. Yes, lots of dogs bite, but pits alone are responsible for over 2/3 of fatal dog attacks, despite being a fraction of the dog population.
Yes you're missing the actual key point, which is that in OVER HALF OF THOSE FATAL ALL DOG ATTACKS THE BREED INFORMATION IS NOT RECORDED.
>Sorry friend, nothing you are going to say is going to change
Yes we can see that you're dumb, unwilling to accept information that that wholly contradicts your anti-science bullshit.
[deleted] t1_itpwrbq wrote
Anti-science lol. And no, the breed is recorded. In 2019 there were about 50 fatal dog attacks in the US. 33 were from pure pits, and another 6 were from mixed breeds, which are almost always partial pits.
No clue what you’re talking about. Dogsbite.org sources their information very thoroughly. Can you show me a different source that says more than half the fatal attacks in the US are unknown breeds? Browsing through different data sources that seem reliable and they all show the same thing. Where are you getting that fact from?
In contrast, labs and lab mixes result in under 1 death per year average, despite being the #1 dog breed in America by a huge margin.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq29n2 wrote
Those statistics are BS. They come from a group called dogsbite.org which is a lobbying group with the stated agenda of eradicating pit bulls specifically. It's a bit like citing a study written by the KKK when discussing what races of people are more violent. They're not a exactly a neutral, objective or even remotely scientific source for anything. Their reports have substantial and intentional problems with their methodology and are little more than misinformation.
[deleted] t1_itq2pcw wrote
Ok, so please provide other statistics. Both my research and anecdotal experience clearly show me that pitts are more dangerous than all other breeds combined. Can you provide information saying otherwise?
Also, the comparing the KKK to dog breeds is silly. We created pitts through selective breeding. They are not a natural animal. That has nothing to do with people hating black Americans for their skin color. We DID select the most violent pitts to breed, the ones that were best at fighting, strongest jaws etc. Of course they are more violent - we literally made them this way.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq3bor wrote
The lack of reputable research into this topic does not make dogsbite.org's methodology any less flawed or their reports any more accurate. They're full of poor methodology, unfounded assumptions and unaccounted for variables making them scientifically useless.
[deleted] t1_itq5olq wrote
Ok, so every data source agrees that pitts are responsible for the majority of dog deaths in the US. This is backed up by my close friend who has treated thousands of animal attacks at a SF pediatric hospital. Want to guess which breed of dog she will never buy after treating 16 years of bleeding or dead kids?
So data shows they are dangerous. Anecdotally they are dangerous. And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it? Pass. It’s a breed we created, we can let it die off.
Pan1cs180 t1_itq6wmr wrote
> And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it?
These specific reports from dogsbite.org are full of poor extremely methodology, unfounded assumptions and intentionally unaccounted for variables, and for those reasons it should absolutely be ignored, yes.
The goal of the authors was not to determine what breed of dog is responsible for the most fatalities, it was to prove that pitbulls are the breed of dog responsible for the most fatalities. They aren't starting from a null hypothesis in order to find out something they don't know. They're starting with the 'truth' and trying to find reasons that support that truth. If it doesn't support it, its not valid and the experiment fails. This makes their reports scientifically useless.
[deleted] t1_itq7bhv wrote
Lol ok
Pan1cs180 t1_itq7i79 wrote
I understand you have no response and I accept your concession.
[deleted] t1_itq95u4 wrote
Na, just don’t really care that much. You’re massively invested in pitts for some reason, and I just want a safer society. I’ll let you do you.
Thankfully pitts are on the decline in the US and abroad. Hopefully in a couple generations we let our mistake breed die off.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt32p0 wrote
This is what every think tank does. They work backwards from the result they want.
RunnyDischarge t1_itpvi6p wrote
​
https://www.coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Top Three Breeds Responsible for Fatal Dog Attacks
Pitbull – 185 deaths
Pitbull Mix – 41 deaths
Rotweiller – 26 deaths
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Top 10 Most Fatal Dog Breeds Table
Breed Deaths % of Total
Pit bull 284 65.6%
Rottweiler 45 10.4%
German shepherd 20 4.6%
Mixed-breed 17 3.9%
American bulldog 15 3.5%
Mastiff/Bullmastiff 14 3.2%
Husky 13 3.0%
Unknown/unreleased 11 2.5%
Labrador retriever 9 2.1%
Boxer 7 1.6%
https://www.warriorsforjustice.com/dog-biting-statistics-by-breed/
RunnyDischarge t1_itqx142 wrote
love the downvotes for facts. Pit bull owners are the Flat Earthers of the dog world.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt20i7 wrote
Actually it's y'all. Misunderstanding statistics and research, misquoting data, who sound like flat earthers.
It's like you've never heard of "selection bias" or never took a class that included research fundamentals.
In half of all attacks the breed is unknown.
Of course the worst attacks will be over-reported.
People who play the lottery are bad with money.
It's a selection bias. The conclusion you're drawing (that pitbulls are dangerous) is not what research on the number of dog bites measures.
Doesn't that register with you? That you're not drawing a right conclusion from your data?
Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning?
RunnyDischarge t1_ituf0yw wrote
Flat Earthers, y’all
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itt3bvl wrote
The downvotes are because you're quoting a tally and saying it is evidence of propensity.
You can't use a thermometer as a clock.
RunnyDischarge t1_itueyqb wrote
Lol, like I said, Flat Earthers
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_itvk6f2 wrote
How do you figure? Counting the number of events doesn't tell you anything about the cause of the events.
This is basic research skills.
Not complicated but for some reason you can't grasp it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments