Quote:
Originally Posted by dwever
1. Problem is, in this case, the studies tend to speak with one voice pointing their statistical finger at one breed. Interestingly, the resulting articles defending pit bulls have not as much disputed the numbers so much as they have tried to attribute the numbers to the actions of their owners. In other words, pit bull advocates have pushed back with a nature nurture argument - it's not in the dog's nature, it is rather, how they have been nurtured (see numerous examples of this argument on this thread). Others have argued back that the numbers are just too overwhelming not to have nature as part of the problem. The other way pit bull advocates have tried to push back is breed misidentification or generalization - too much is being lumped together as pit bulls. Again, others have written taking that in to scientific consideration, it is arguable that the numbers are just too overwhelming to change outcomes in any meaningful way.
2. The meaning of "bias" is broad including one, that bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another; and, two, that the bias held is in some way unfair, to the group who is experiencing the prejudice and is being treated unfairly in some way(s). I would submit what's being discussed here is exactly the latter part of the definition. Is the breed a victim of unfair intolerance or does the breed deserve the unique concerns for safety some people want to apply to it?
3. In a study spanning 32 years, pit bulls are number 1 in attacks doing bodily harm at 3,397, and deaths at 295. The astounding thing about that compilation study is that not only did pit bulls account for the majority of deaths and injuries over all other breeds by a wide margin, the margin is so shockingly wide that pit bulls accounted for more deaths and injuries over the next nine breeds in the top-ten list COMBINED, and even then by a great margin. If those records and their compilation are accurate, it's hard to see how it is breed bashing. For additional detail on the study see post #19.
Yeah, I know, I was supposed to be done.
|
"Studies" are meaningless because ALL dog attacks are not reported and of those that are, they are not reported consistently and uniformly. Most of it is just regurgitated media reports.
I've conducted a life long study of dogs of all kinds, been bitten by a few and understand that there are an extremely few unsalvagable dogs. I am not suggesting that anybody has an obligation to suffer an actual savage dog attack. I am suggesting that my American Staffordshire Terrier is in more jeopardy from some uneducated, hysterical citizen overreacting to his exuberant personality than anything else.
Once again - go get some real world experience with these dogs before you decide the entire breed is some kind of menace to society.
Full Disclosure: About 20 years ago I hated all those "bully breeds". Now I can't get enough of them. I understand where you're coming from.