Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Diet_Coke t1_iy6blst wrote

Reply to comment by EJH-RVA in No criminal charges for owner of pit bull that killed 88 year old woman by AphidGenocide

Except it's very clearly not and you've repeatedly failed to provide a decent source on that. I'm glad you know the word statistics, now go learn the words bias and fallacy.

3

LastCallBee t1_iy8bj4u wrote

Is this not correct?

https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/amp

https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2019-06/new-study-identifies-most-damaging-dog-bites-by-breed/

I’d love to be an apologist for pitbulls but I don’t ever see it happening. They are objectively more dangerous animals to own for both owners and other people. Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.

I feel like there are just as many bullshit pit lover studies as there may be skewed pit hater studies regardless. I found a lot of both.

2

Diet_Coke t1_iy8d4xr wrote

The first one looks like garbage, its first citation is a YouGov online poll and then it has several citations of the publisher of Animals 24-7.

Hard to assess how good the second one is because it is a meta study and so it's not super easy to dig into the methodology. I believe any study that's looking at reported breeds is open to error as pitbulls are the most likely breed to be misidentified.

>Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.

I have repeatedly linked this wikipedia list of dog bite fatalities in this thread, you can look at it yourself and see that while there are pitbulls and pitbull mixes, they are not even close to the majority of cases despite being much more prevalent than many of the other dogs on there.

3