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?