Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM
Now lets examine this part:
"In a study done by Karen Delise it was found that pit bull & pit bull mixes accounted for only 21% of all human fatalities."
THEN they say:
"Mixed breeds accounted for 16% nonspecific breeds accounted for 15%."
So they know that pit bulls and their respected mixes are the largest percentage yet they spin it to seem like it's "only 21%."
Kinda strange that this study has no mention of any specific breed other than pit bulls.
Looks to me like somebody set out to prove that pit bulls are not as harmful as many might believe but at the end of the study, pit bulls were still found to have the highest percentage of human fatalities.
From the very source the video mentions:
http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/t_judge.htm |
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:
If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
You can't argue with results.