Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaneman
I never said these dogs are the same as any breed, I said they're the same as any breed of the Molosser ancestry. Some people shouldn't have dogs, and some people shouldn't have certain types of dogs.
No bias?  Dude, the name of the website is dogsbite. You basically pulled those stats from an anti-pitbulls site. |
Yeah, I know, I just took the top three articles out of the THOUSANDS of articles on this issue. These are still numbers pulled from the emergency call centers, the animal shelters and etc. The problem with calling media bias on one issue is that it sets you up to receive the same treatment when the media says something you agree with. You can't have it both ways. Either they are ALWAYS biased and wrong or there is some semblance of truth there. FWIW the first time I put up the 67% number, it was from a dog training center that wants to help people properly train their PBs.
You know what? Where's YOUR facts to PROVE that Pit Bulls aren't dangerous? Pointing fingers at other dog bites doesn't make PBs any less vicious. Under that logic, I could prove that rattlesnakes aren't dangerous because Black Mambas bite too. Every time I post a figure or a fact, your response is that it's biased or wrong...Oh yea? Well prove it! I don't contend that my figures are perfect, there aren't any such thing, where are yours? You've shown that you, an expert dog trainer and Cesar Milan, also an expert dog trainer can own a Pit Bull without incident. Why does that mean that they aren't inherently dangerous? Where's your proof? I can post figures from animal shelters and emergency call centers all day that "prove" that PBs account for far more attacks than any other breed AND that absolutely show that they are responsible for more attacks than their numbers should call for. Where are your numbers and facts that say they aren't?