Your sources are a personal injury law firm and a victim’s advocate website.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Your first source says 60% of dog fatalities are from dogs with Pits in their bloodline…
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Which further confirms my statement that you do not have true scientific numbers to support your claims. Ambulance chasers are not scientists. I don’t think that needs to be explained to you.
Ok so you cannot prove your original point and refuse to even discuss it. Got it.
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Can you define a pure breed pit bull? All dogs are cross bred, its why these umbrella terms exist. And because you can’t confirm a pure bred dog then all statistics about these animals should be dismissed. Additionally you are pinning your entire argument on a lack of a centralised police data base: as if they are the only authority regarding dog breeds.
Such a reductive argument. I also doubt you read both my links considering how quickly you replied. My second one provides yearly breakdowns with incident listings and the source confirming breed, gender and causes for the attacks.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Maybe read what was provided to you and find out for yourself.
So your argument started out as pits cause 60% of attacks to now being the 5 pit types, the commonly mistaken for Pitts, and mutts comprise 60% of attacks.
These are two separate arguments being made. The first one is false, and the second one probably is true, bit you are presenting it as if it is the first argument.
Your own source, an attorney’s office, is who states that mutts with pit in their genetics are part of that 60% number. This is your own source.
I knew you never looked up my second link.
Regardless of what you think about the validity of my evidence at least I provide links relevant to the discussion. You don’t even know what a dog breed is.
Oh, did you ever find anything to prove your initial point? No, I didn’t think so…
If your argument isn’t that mutts + pit bulls and commonly mistaken for like Cane Corso’s make up 60%, than that is not a source backing up your argument.
Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?
I see at the bottom of your graph, it specifically states that “all other dogs” excludes 3 breeds, all 3 breeds known to be commonly mistaken as Pitts.
So… Where are their numbers? Are they in the Pit Bull category as I said they would be?
Your sources are a personal injury law firm and a victim’s advocate website.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Your first source says 60% of dog fatalities are from dogs with Pits in their bloodline…
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Which further confirms my statement that you do not have true scientific numbers to support your claims. Ambulance chasers are not scientists. I don’t think that needs to be explained to you.
Ok so you cannot prove your original point and refuse to even discuss it. Got it.
Can you define a pure breed pit bull? All dogs are cross bred, its why these umbrella terms exist. And because you can’t confirm a pure bred dog then all statistics about these animals should be dismissed. Additionally you are pinning your entire argument on a lack of a centralised police data base: as if they are the only authority regarding dog breeds.
Such a reductive argument. I also doubt you read both my links considering how quickly you replied. My second one provides yearly breakdowns with incident listings and the source confirming breed, gender and causes for the attacks.
Maybe read what was provided to you and find out for yourself.
So your argument started out as pits cause 60% of attacks to now being the 5 pit types, the commonly mistaken for Pitts, and mutts comprise 60% of attacks.
These are two separate arguments being made. The first one is false, and the second one probably is true, bit you are presenting it as if it is the first argument.
Removed by mod
Your own source, an attorney’s office, is who states that mutts with pit in their genetics are part of that 60% number.
This is your own source.
I knew you never looked up my second link.
Regardless of what you think about the validity of my evidence at least I provide links relevant to the discussion. You don’t even know what a dog breed is.
Oh, did you ever find anything to prove your initial point? No, I didn’t think so…
If your argument isn’t that mutts + pit bulls and commonly mistaken for like Cane Corso’s make up 60%, than that is not a source backing up your argument.
Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?
Removed by mod
I see at the bottom of your graph, it specifically states that “all other dogs” excludes 3 breeds, all 3 breeds known to be commonly mistaken as Pitts.
So… Where are their numbers? Are they in the Pit Bull category as I said they would be?