Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjohan
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.
|
stats are fucked when you look at them like that. Lets just imagine we had a button to eliminate the 3 breeds he mentions.
Now lets redo the same stats you just mentioned, suprise suprise there would be 3 new breeds of dogs up there..
and if you eliminated those 3 breeds there would be 3 new breeds at the top of the list.
and so on and so on until there are no dogs left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjohan
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.
|
i have my doubts about this guy, he is claiming if other dogs "go bad" you will "not" be killed, thats just plain false, as it has and does happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjohan
If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--
|
i dont know what this guy is smoking but how did he come to that conclusion
Its very rare to be killed or maimed by a dog especially a pitbull , so "often" is probably a silly word to use.
if you gave 100 labradors to crack dealers, then gave 100 pitbulls to ballerina's, then took stats 50 years later, i guarantee you the labs would be far more dangerous statistically, all these "stats" are useless if you look at the problem so vaguely