Submitted by weebchildren t3_ycqj2e in Connecticut
[deleted] t1_ito1tj9 wrote
Reply to comment by pittiedaddy in Renting With Pitbull by weebchildren
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments