They should just NEVER be trusted or alone with children.

 

I would say that goes for any animal. It's an accident waiting to happen IMO.

I would say that goes for any animal. It's an accident waiting to happen IMO.

Probably correct.

I would say that goes for any animal. It's an accident waiting to happen IMO.

 

It is just damage limitation. I don't know which bite with more frequency, but none bite with more ferocity. I don't get why people take that chance.

Justifiably.

 

You could justify it on Several breeds.

Man, it's a real shame when facts don't back up your biased opinion.

 

71% of fatal dog attacks in 2016 were from Pit Bulls. the other 9 million breeds made up the remainder.

 

SEVENTY ONE FREAKING PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

216 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities - Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org

 

What type of pit bull, you mean the 9.5 million types of dogs with Pit or Bull in them? Would make sense when you are lumping every dog breed into one.

Man, it's a real shame when facts don't back up your biased opinion.

 

71% of fatal dog attacks in 2016 were from Pit Bulls. the other 9 million breeds made up the remainder.

 

SEVENTY ONE FREAKING PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

216 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities - Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org

More people were killed last year by children with guns than by all dogs, not just pit bulls. I assume that you are anti-child, too?

More people were killed last year by children with guns than by all dogs, not just pit bulls. I assume that you are anti-child, too?

No but I do keep my kid away from kids with guns.

 

Also, this is the WORST deflection I've ever seen.

No but I do keep my kid away from kids with guns.

 

Also, this is the WORST deflection I've ever seen.

It's not meant to be a deflection at all. I don't want to have a debate about guns. I want to show that statistics do some terrible skewing of results, as do the percentages that you quoted.

 

In a previous thread, I did the math. I took the lowest number that I could find on total "pit bull" type dogs in the US. I divided it by total number of dog deaths (not just those attributed to a pit bull). Do you know what the number showed? It showed that 0.001% of pit bulls in the US killed someone last year. That is ONE out of 100,000 pit bulls. ONE. If I go with just the number of pit bull deaths and the higher number of pit bull type dogs, then it goes to one in 200,000.

 

I don't suggest anyone own a pit bull type dog if they don't want to. The same goes for golden retrievers (who've also killed people) and poodles. If anyone does decide to own one, I would not leave them alone with small children. Same goes for my golden retriever mix.

 

To tie it back to my deflection, I don't think over hyped statistics should prevent a responsible gun owner like yourself (or myself) from owning guns. The same is true for responsible dog owners that want to own a pit bull.

It's not meant to be a deflection at all. I don't want to have a debate about guns. I want to show that statistics do some terrible skewing of results, as do the percentages that you quoted.

 

In a previous thread, I did the math. I took the lowest number that I could find on total "pit bull" type dogs in the US. I divided it by total number of dog deaths (not just those attributed to a pit bull). Do you know what the number showed? It showed that 0.001% of pit bulls in the US killed someone last year. That is ONE out of 100,000 pit bulls. ONE. If I go with just the number of pit bull deaths and the higher number of pit bull type dogs, then it goes to one in 200,000.

 

I don't suggest anyone own a pit bull type dog if they don't want to. The same goes for golden retrievers (who've also killed people) and poodles. If anyone does decide to own one, I would not leave them alone with small children. Same goes for my golden retriever mix.

 

To tie it back to my deflection, I don't think over hyped statistics should prevent a responsible gun owner like yourself (or myself) from owning guns. The same is true for responsible dog owners that want to own a pit bull.

you are deflecting and skewing the numbers. It's all about the work you want to take. If 1 in 100k pit bulls attack someone then what's the golden retriever number 1 in eleventy billion? I'll take those odds anyday. 1 in 100k means at least one in just the west side of Cincinnati every year. 1 in Infiniti means never.

 

Pit bulls are dangerous. Period. End of story.

It's not meant to be a deflection at all. I don't want to have a debate about guns. I want to show that statistics do some terrible skewing of results, as do the percentages that you quoted.

 

In a previous thread, I did the math. I took the lowest number that I could find on total "pit bull" type dogs in the US. I divided it by total number of dog deaths (not just those attributed to a pit bull). Do you know what the number showed? It showed that 0.001% of pit bulls in the US killed someone last year. That is ONE out of 100,000 pit bulls. ONE. If I go with just the number of pit bull deaths and the higher number of pit bull type dogs, then it goes to one in 200,000.

 

I don't suggest anyone own a pit bull type dog if they don't want to. The same goes for golden retrievers (who've also killed people) and poodles. If anyone does decide to own one, I would not leave them alone with small children. Same goes for my golden retriever mix.

 

To tie it back to my deflection, I don't think over hyped statistics should prevent a responsible gun owner like yourself (or myself) from owning guns. The same is true for responsible dog owners that want to own a pit bull.

Why do we only focus on deaths? What is the % chance if you look at all attacks, not just those that result in death?

Why do we only focus on deaths? What is the % chance if you look at all attacks, not just those that result in death?

 

It's fits the narrative.

It's fits the narrative.

 

The non-fiction narrative

Why do we only focus on deaths? What is the % chance if you look at all attacks, not just those that result in death?

We can do that math, too. All we need is the total number of injuries from pit bulls last year. I can look it up or if someone else wants to and report it, that will be fine.

you are deflecting and skewing the numbers. It's all about the work you want to take. If 1 in 100k pit bulls attack someone then what's the golden retriever number 1 in eleventy billion? I'll take those odds anyday. 1 in 100k means at least one in just the west side of Cincinnati every year. 1 in Infiniti means never.

 

Pit bulls are dangerous. Period. End of story.

How am I deflecting? Am I not discussing pit bulls and deaths that resulted from pit bull inflicted injury? Deflection means NOT discussing the issue. Just because I don't agree with your conclusion does not mean that I am deflecting.

 

I'm certainly NOT denying that more deaths occur from pit bulls than any other breed. I'm of the opinion that all dogs can be dangerous and each one should be judged individually. The behavior of my golden retriever/sheltie mix is such that I don't allow her around children at all. I don't think that she would actually harm one and that it's just herding instinct that causes her aggressive body language when she sees a child, but I'm not willing to risk her hurting anyone's kid to find out. I would never leave any child unsupervised with any dog.

 

But I'm also of putting risks in proper perspective. I'm not going to vilify a whole dog breed for the 1 in 100,000. Heck, I bet more than 1 in 100,000 people with my first name murdered someone last year.

 

I'll be happy to do the math on your golden retriever chances. Just tell me how many golden retrievers there are in the US. I tried to find a respectable answer, but have yet to have success.

We can do that math, too. All we need is the total number of injuries from pit bulls last year. I can look it up or if someone else wants to and report it, that will be fine.

I tried for a bit to find that info but didn't have much luck finding breed specific bite data.