I need to ask a very simple question. Do you care about actual safety, or do you just want pitbulls banned? Like what is your goal?
Oh I would be okay with all large breeds (let’s say over 50lbs. as being a start) being required licensing. But considering the specific damage caused by pitbulls I would love to see them go first if there’s got to be a first. And “banned” in my case would be force spay/neuter and legalize breeding of them. I’m not a monster that wants to see a witch hunt to murder all currently existing pit bulls. I just want to see a breed that was bred for causing as much damage as possible in a fight not… Other large dogs being kept in a city apartment should also be illegalized as well IMO… but other breeds don’t have the predilection to bite the way pit bulls do.
You say that and then the link you provided did not give me a very good idea about per capita of the breeds… I have no idea how many of any breed there are.
Because I was specifically addressing your “census” comment. I have no issue providing more information to a point if required. There’s a few ways to infer population stats… https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html has some for instance (DNA sites or veterinary data). Or you can grab stats from any number of dog rescues/pounds/etc… These stats won’t ever be perfect singularly. But certainly good enough.
You are being disingenuous… Less than 9% difference across all breeds. A dog is a dog is a dog. Some howl, some don’t. Some are more active. A dog is a dog is a dog.
So in your mind… pitbulls are fine because there’s only a 9% difference in breeds even though they make up 71% of all dog related deaths since 2011? You realize this isn’t just a case of strictly bite numbers. You even pointed it out. Even if pitbulls are LESS likely to bite, but each instance of a bite causes significantly more damage that causes hospitalization/death… This is STILL A PROBLEM. I’d still like to point out that your own source STILL managed to organize the breeds even though it’s only “9%”…
Well it was counting hospitalizations… So it’s safe to say we’re only talking about severe ones…
So instead of addressing the article I posted you ignore it? Again?
The site’s founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as ‘science whores,’ which alone is enough to discredit her claims.
Oh I would be okay with all large breeds (let’s say over 50lbs. as being a start) being required licensing. But considering the specific damage caused by pitbulls I would love to see them go first if there’s got to be a first. And “banned” in my case would be force spay/neuter and legalize breeding of them. I’m not a monster that wants to see a witch hunt to murder all currently existing pit bulls. I just want to see a breed that was bred for causing as much damage as possible in a fight not… Other large dogs being kept in a city apartment should also be illegalized as well IMO… but other breeds don’t have the predilection to bite the way pit bulls do.
Because I was specifically addressing your “census” comment. I have no issue providing more information to a point if required. There’s a few ways to infer population stats… https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html has some for instance (DNA sites or veterinary data). Or you can grab stats from any number of dog rescues/pounds/etc… These stats won’t ever be perfect singularly. But certainly good enough.
So in your mind… pitbulls are fine because there’s only a 9% difference in breeds even though they make up 71% of all dog related deaths since 2011? You realize this isn’t just a case of strictly bite numbers. You even pointed it out. Even if pitbulls are LESS likely to bite, but each instance of a bite causes significantly more damage that causes hospitalization/death… This is STILL A PROBLEM. I’d still like to point out that your own source STILL managed to organize the breeds even though it’s only “9%”…
So instead of addressing the article I posted you ignore it? Again?
Rarely have I seen a hole so deeply dug before
Well your article isn’t a study, it’s a literary review from a very biased source of a Colleen Lynn
In fact if you want to read up on your source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogsbite.org
You can see that she complains about science and ignores expert opinions in the field because they disagree with her.
It’s very telling when her literary review comes to very different conclusions than actual scientists performing studies in the field.
Science whores? And people take her seriously?