re: Pitbull attacks, child dies

quote:

---

More or less than 100,000?

Is that better? Will you answer it now, or will you dance around it?

---

Good lord, the number of pits is not the point. The total population of pits is not what makes them a dangerous breed. The fact they account for 2/3 of all fatal dog attacks yearly is what makes them dangerous. Speaking of dancing, you've been dancing around that fact for the past several pages.

quote:

---

German shepherds are used as police/army dogs because of their ability to withstand, their intelligence and attacking power. You're putting a mid level brain, but with more attacking power over that of a german shepherd?

That "list" I was referring to, is the one where you had pits at the top of that "list". You saying a pit is the most dangerous means it's obviously a 2nd and 3rd and so on, creating that "list".


Like I said earlier, when comparing dogs, you compare: Nose
Speed
Ability to withstand
Strength
Bite power
and so much more. It's like comparing guns where you compare fire power, range etc. Whichever wins "most" of those comparisons, is the most overall dangerous dog.

---

Like your friend, you're ignoring the only number that matters... the number of people killed every year by breed. By your line of thinking it could be argued that wild hyenas and lions are more dangerous than pits so therefore there's no problem with the breed.


As for the "list" where I had the pit on top, that list was not one I just made up. That list is the very real list of total fatal dog attacks by breed over the years 2013 - 2011. That list shows that not only is the pit #1 in the number of people it's killed, there's not really even a close #2. That's not my "list" that I just made up. That's real list based on real verifiable facts.

I haven't danced around it.
Now, according to the America Humane Society, there are between 70 to 78 million dogs in the US. Dogbites.org showed that the pit makes up about 3.3% of the US dog population. On the low end, that would put about 2.3 million pits in the US. So that would put the percentage well lower than the .2% I was using. There are some facts for you. So, in closing you have only showed that pit bulls have killed more than any other dog. This does not mean they should be banned or are bad dogs. Less than .2% of the population of pits have killed, but you are making it out like 99% of them have. You have a better chance of getting killed by another person than you do buy a pit.

Alright, you have a point.


Say the Great White kills 75 a year, and the Hammerhead kills 78 a year. Does that make the Hammerhead more dangerous than the Great White? No.

quote:

---

Say the Great White kills 75 a year, and the Hammerhead kills 78 a year. Does that make the Hammerhead more dangerous than the Great White? No.

---

Actually it does. When more people die from cause A than cause B, that means cause A is inherently more dangerous.

No reason to keep on. He even said the only important number is the number of deaths by a pit. He is one of those people that are easily lead to believe anything. I understand from his posts that he doesn't like the breed, but he uses 1 thing to base his opinion on. A lot of people are like that. The number of deaths by a pit is so small compared to the number of pits in the world. People like him want to believe that it means they are a bad breed and all. It really shows that the problem isn't the dog, but the owners, situations, and environments.

I was going to say something like that, but figured I'd save it for later.
What he's doing is like teaching a kid right from wrong. When they get in trouble for talking in class, and they then say, "Well Joe was talking too but he didn't get in trouble". He'll catch on eventually.

quote:

---

Some humans are more aggressive and violent than others, just like dogs.

---

What you mean some humans?? "What you mean you people voice"

quote:

---

ou go from pit bulls in which you clearly know a minimal amount about to downing my intelligence?

---

i could do no more harm to how your intellect is perceived here than what you've already done.

quote:

---

Actually it does. When more people die from cause A than cause B, that means cause A is inherently more dangerous. 

---

Going through your posts, you need to account how many dogs are classified as pits vs other dogs in general and in any cases, like fatal attacks. It most certainly matters in the data analysis.

This is essentially a repacked epidemiology question... Does factor X (being a pit) greatly influence the occurrence of an effect (a fatality)? Whether it does and to what degree you assess it to be the cases depends on the population sizes.