Hey, Gulfecho. I see your Google-fu is strong.
Did you, perhaps, cut and paste "sources" from
this forum?
A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.
Doesn't tell the whole story. Allow me to provide the context from the abstract that pit bull restrictionists seem to have difficulty including.
A total of 168 children were enrolled; the mean age was 8 years. Males outnumbered females 1.5:1. Most (61%) injuries occurred in or around the home and involved dogs known to the patient (77%). Types of injuries included abrasions (33%), punctures (29%), and lacerations (38%). Thirteen bites had associated complications; nine developed infection. Twelve (7%) children required admission to the hospital. More than 12 different purebreeds or crossbreeds were identified as perpetrators, including German shepherds (n = 35), pit bulls (n = 33), rottweilers (n = 9), and Dobermans (n = 7). Most (54%) animals were contained (ie, leashed, fenced, in-house) at the time of injury. Fewer (46%) were provoked prior to biting. Significantly more pit bull injuries (94% vs 43%,
P < .001) were the consequence of unprovoked attacks and involved freely roaming animals (67% vs 41%,
P < .01). (
Source)
So what can we gather from this context? Only 7% of the study group required inpatient care (i.e. major corrective surgery), and the "unprovoked attacks" involved freely roaming animals.
What it doesn't tell us is how many of the "Pit Bull attacks" required inpatient care, how many of them involved dogs known to the patient, and so on. Unfortunately, the actual study is behind a paywall, so these questions are left unanswered.
What is more telling, however, is the conclusion reached by the study:
It is recommended that families with young children be the target of pet safety education and that measures be sought that would lead to early identification of a potentially dangerous dog and restrict ownership.
What? No breed-specific legislation? No mandatory microchipping and carrying of insurance? Do they not care for the children?!
Consequentially, this perfectly illustrates the difference between respected members of the scientific community and nutjob restrictionists. The former realizes that no one number tells the whole story, where the latter will "cherry pick" numbers that support their agendas while diminishing or outright ignoring the others. (See: Confirmation Bias)
A medical literature review of animal-related fatalities, citing the 1979-1988 JAMA study... reported that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks
You mean
this study which states the following in its abstract?
The authors of this study gathered information concerning the number of people killed by dog bites in the US from 1979 through 1988 and the breeds of dogs involved. Data were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and a computer search of news stories. In the ten-year period, 157 people died, 70 percent of whom were children under age ten. Infants were almost 370 times as likely to die compared to adults aged 30-49. Pit bulls were responsible for 42 of 101 deaths for which dog breed was known, which was three times the rate for German shepherds, the second most common breed involved. The increase in pit bull attacks was quite dramatic, from 20 percent of deaths in 1979-1980 to 62 percent in 1987-1988. The pit bulls were almost twice as likely to be strays than other breeds of dogs. While recent publicity may have overemphasized the involvement of pit bulls, the authors maintained that pit bulls appeared to inflict 42 percent of the fatal injuries. Since well under 42 percent of dogs in the US are pit bulls, they are clearly a real danger.
Notice there's that tabulation of news stories, again.
I'll hazard a guess that the Media and not the National Center for Health Statistics was the source of the "42%" figure.
Still, considering the "danger" involved, "something must be done" about those dangerous Pit Bulls RIGHT NOW! What do the authors suggest?!
To prevent dog bites, the authors recommend tighter control of strays and public education aimed at dog owners and potential victims. Special attention should be given to informing parents that infants left alone with a dog could be fatally injured.
Again, this is the difference between respected members of the scientific community and activists.
Look, Gulfecho... So far, you've cited anti-Pit Bull organizations with "goals" that sound like something right out of the Everytown for Gun Safety playbook, except with "guns" replaced by "Pit Bulls." You've also cited "sources" posted on another forum that omit signifigant context and cherry-pick numbers that support the premise. So yeah, you could tell me the sky was blue and I'd be very skeptical of you. I don't put much stock in the statements of people who resort to intellectual dishonesty.
