Ignoring the previous discussion and talking about those new screenshots, the third looks very untrustworthy at first glance.
Emotional images, pitbulls named by name in the header navigation, sounds like a single-purpose activist page. It’s like going to peta expecting honest information about changing to a vegan diet or smthn.
The second image (srsly you could have put links below ffs) I dug up and it’s some kind of property developer, could well be they profit off of fear of dogs or smthn, and going to the actual page they just quote other articles incorrectly anyway. They also misleadingly throw rottweilers into it for some reason, while in the linked article it’s 60% with at least partial pitbull bloodline (note this being incorrectly simplified to “pitbulls”, which is at best sloppy), and 7% rottweiler bloodline, which is just misleading throwing those together without further comment. That also ofc fits the idea that the page just wants to stir up fear for whatever reason.
Both of these pages are, frankly, trash. Do yourself a favor and remove them as arguments. If your point is correct, those would still make you look so dishonest in arguing it, it makes it look wrong; they are worse than not citing anything.
Now painfully scraping out the wiki article (Fatal dog attacks in the United States) -fucking link your shit man-, that article seems unproblematic at first glance.
Going into the actual sources now, the 60% thing linked earlier refers to “fuicelle & lee” which is not a paper to the best of my search ability, and is only ever mentioned on other pages copying the exact same paragraph around, … so yeah that’s sketchy.
The wikipedia thing I just hope is accurate (I’ll take lt as accurate without checking here), but you gotta note it is a low sample size, half the percentage your other stuff claims (28%), and from seemingly only 2 specific locations.
I’d sure be interested if you can find any other statistics that don’t just evaporate when you look for a source tho.
Starting another topic, what if you had clear statistics that a lot of dog damage is done by pitbulls? That doesn’t instantly get you to proving the issue is with pitbulls. It’s ye olde correlation isn’t causation problem.
One example: Imagine insecure people compensating with pitbulls due to their brand image. Then those people tend to suck as dog owners so you get cases of horrible mistraining. Now if you were to ban pitbulls, or make their ownership “non-badass” via say cage or muzzle requirements, the badass dog brand would shift and those people would mistrain other dogs, the statistics would change to a new breed and the deaths would not decrease. Because in that chain of causation the core issue is the group of owners, and you merely measure the average type of dog those problematic owners get.
This is a hypothetical naturally, but that’s why a simple “x % of deaths are caused by y dogs” isn’t enough.
Before you argue allegiances, I don’t like dogs, especially not ones with jumpy or agressive character. I also don’t have experience with dogs.
Your arguments and my checking of them was the first actual argument on favor of pitbulls I have seen in a long time, I could still be convinced pretty easily that there is some issue with the breed.
I should be the prime target audience for you to convince. Uninformed, heard anecdotes about pitbulls bad, absolutely no inherent favor or attachment to the breed (they just don’t look good sorry dog people). I should be trivially easy to convince, so please work on your argument.
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
The second one is a law review, which is not a relevant paper (and I think not a paper at all but I’m not a law student). So it’d only be worth anything if a witness had suffient credentials, and no alternate motive, and then it’d still lack peer review, academic oversight, …
The paper needs to be on-topic, I can’t expect a biology paper to get art history right. Usually papers constrain themselves to topics they know for that reason, but for a law review I can see why that isn’t possible.
Papers also make their statements more directly, so you would find a more clear statement about breeds and attacks. The fact this is missing should give you some warning signs.
You did well then digging out the third source, which is fine again. You should have just skipped the second one entirely, since it’s not primary anyway, just citing.
This third might be what wikipedia was using, numbers look familiar.
Fourth source looks fine.
It is about a different topic, agression not violence, but you use it relevantly.
While checking the first source I saw the full results section, containing “Prior to 1980, the majority of dog bites reported in peer-reviewed literature were attributed to the German Shepherd breed (68.4%). From 1981–2000 German Shepherds still accounted for the largest minority of breeds identified (20.1%), with mixed breeds (19.6%) and Pit Bull type breeds (14.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minorities. Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%) […]” continuing with your quote.
It is interesting to note that German Shepherds apparently used to take the same statistical position you are arguing pitbulls hold in the present.
Ok now. You mentioned “Notably you’ll notice that a ban […] was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).”.
That is mostly meaningless for our purposes, i.e. determining what factor dog breed plays in dog-human harm.
Firstly, it’s a ratio, so speaking of reduction is incorrect. Reduction refers to numbers, so you need to consider the total amount. If the total number of dog attacks remained stable, then this would be accurate.
analogy
A simple example for this problem: If most people were driving small cars, most pedestrian deaths would be caused by small cars. If you then ban small cars, the pedestrian fatalities caused by small cars should go down. As both a ratio and in absolute terms. However the total number of pedestrian fatalities by all cars should go up, since people would mostly be pushed into large cars, that kill more people per driving hour, while hours driven by car shouldn’t be overly affected.
This here isn’t even considering driver mentality, it’s merely a consequence of not factoring in usage rates (or breed populations for dogs).
analogy 2
Now for the other effect, take suicides. If you consider suicides per rail mile, you could find train infrastructure particularly prone to suicides. But if you then ban trains you will see a decrease in rails suicides but a corresponding increase in say bridge suicides, so all of a sudden a different infrastructure becomes equally problematic, because the ground cause here is mental health of people, not suicide-enabling infrastructure.
This would be the analog to problematic owners finding a different breed or animal to make problematic, making breed bans a hopeless case of whack-amole.
If that were the case though, it would be precisely not the point you wanted, since it would mean banning pitbulls did nothing for the underlying problem: dog-human harm (not pitbull-human harm).
I saw the third article have a discussion on more useful metrics for judging pitbulls, but ima just roll my own rq:
As mentioned above the next step would be seeing if limiting pitbulls reduces dog attacks in total, not just pitbull attacks. That would cover cases like problematic owners shifting breeds.
An even more general one, one the article makes, is factoring in total dog ownership. That also checks if maybe reduczions are just people having less dogs in general.
Basically you’d want the same you have for for example large medical studies, factoring in many quantities and doing a multi-variable correlation analysis to hopefully determine all the various independent correlations and have a better chance at establishing causes.
After that you could see further. You may for example reach the conclusion that the only way is either adressing owners, or banning all large dogs, which if the case should change your strategy for action. If in that case you had already banned pitbulls you’d have shot yourself in the foot, since them people would be sick of it, the motivation would be used up, and you’d have to more than start over for the next breed or the actual wider methods.
On the other hand if it is indeed mostly a breed issue you would have far better arguments for getting breed-specific regulations.
The 4th source is a good start for establishing hypotheses if pitbulls are shown to be a problematic breed. You would need another metric like harm potential for the strenth, bit damage, etc. of dogs, since an agression rating led by chihuahuas is perhaps not the most useful here. Then you can multiply agression and harm potential for an estimate of natural inclination to endanger humans.
I haven’t looked deeper into the paper as to how “aggression” was measured, that method would also have to be airtight against training, so probably measured for dogs trained in a controlled environment etc…
If you do find a controlled link between such a harm potential rating and actual human harm using the methods of the last section, then that would immediately show both problem and solution. You would have a method by which to rate any new breeds or vatiations and could write regulations to target that. So even if someone creates new breeds to target the aggressive dog market, the regulations would cover that without any new changes. And similarly you could breed pitbulls to be more passive and get that variation exempt from limitations. That should probably cover most peoples interests in this debate.
It is not much better. Note that one of the sources of the one commenting explicitly states
In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).
Which is the commenters purpose in referencing that study. The study explicitly says it does not support their opinion.
Yeah, I do explain the same further down, didn’t see the need to specifically highlight that. Much better doesn’t mean good, just a lot better than the first attempt that had almost nothing of substance and was actively off-putting.
Using a paper to make a point it doesn’t support is better than not using papers and citing sketchy factoids.
Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.
Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.
None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.
Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
You say “alright”, like you are responding to what I’m saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying
As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs
As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:
In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).
and that is their emphasis.
You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.
Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I’m not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.
And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.
Are you saying this just because you are angry, or your actual rational conclusion? Because my claim was that the infograph used a bullshit source, and I doubted the figure due to it. Then you provided another source from another org, AVMA, stating a different number, proving that the graph was bull. Not only that, that source organisation, AVMA, was also the same that I used to claim that “Dog bite org” looked shady.
What claim do you want me to source? That “dog bite org” appears to be bull? That is basically the only attempt at a claim I have made. Well, AVMA is my source then. You linked them. Read them.
The question was for the source of the image, not the general point. You can restate your point with new sources, but then say that.
The og image provides what looks like a source, and ofc it could be that wikipedia etc. also cite that, or “dog bite org” cites one of them (and thus the image isn’t sourced correctly), however your screenshots don’t even match the 66% figure, all giving different values, so clearly they are not the source or using the same source as the image.
Alright, wanna play that game? Here come the sources then, idiot:
I could keep going.
You’ve provided: absolutely jackshit
Ignoring the previous discussion and talking about those new screenshots, the third looks very untrustworthy at first glance.
Emotional images, pitbulls named by name in the header navigation, sounds like a single-purpose activist page. It’s like going to peta expecting honest information about changing to a vegan diet or smthn.
The second image (srsly you could have put links below ffs) I dug up and it’s some kind of property developer, could well be they profit off of fear of dogs or smthn, and going to the actual page they just quote other articles incorrectly anyway. They also misleadingly throw rottweilers into it for some reason, while in the linked article it’s 60% with at least partial pitbull bloodline (note this being incorrectly simplified to “pitbulls”, which is at best sloppy), and 7% rottweiler bloodline, which is just misleading throwing those together without further comment. That also ofc fits the idea that the page just wants to stir up fear for whatever reason.
Both of these pages are, frankly, trash. Do yourself a favor and remove them as arguments. If your point is correct, those would still make you look so dishonest in arguing it, it makes it look wrong; they are worse than not citing anything.
Now painfully scraping out the wiki article (Fatal dog attacks in the United States) -fucking link your shit man-, that article seems unproblematic at first glance.
Going into the actual sources now, the 60% thing linked earlier refers to “fuicelle & lee” which is not a paper to the best of my search ability, and is only ever mentioned on other pages copying the exact same paragraph around, … so yeah that’s sketchy.
The wikipedia thing I just hope is accurate (I’ll take lt as accurate without checking here), but you gotta note it is a low sample size, half the percentage your other stuff claims (28%), and from seemingly only 2 specific locations.
I’d sure be interested if you can find any other statistics that don’t just evaporate when you look for a source tho.
Starting another topic, what if you had clear statistics that a lot of dog damage is done by pitbulls? That doesn’t instantly get you to proving the issue is with pitbulls. It’s ye olde correlation isn’t causation problem.
One example: Imagine insecure people compensating with pitbulls due to their brand image. Then those people tend to suck as dog owners so you get cases of horrible mistraining. Now if you were to ban pitbulls, or make their ownership “non-badass” via say cage or muzzle requirements, the badass dog brand would shift and those people would mistrain other dogs, the statistics would change to a new breed and the deaths would not decrease. Because in that chain of causation the core issue is the group of owners, and you merely measure the average type of dog those problematic owners get.
This is a hypothetical naturally, but that’s why a simple “x % of deaths are caused by y dogs” isn’t enough.
Before you argue allegiances, I don’t like dogs, especially not ones with jumpy or agressive character. I also don’t have experience with dogs.
Your arguments and my checking of them was the first actual argument on favor of pitbulls I have seen in a long time, I could still be convinced pretty easily that there is some issue with the breed.
I should be the prime target audience for you to convince. Uninformed, heard anecdotes about pitbulls bad, absolutely no inherent favor or attachment to the breed (they just don’t look good sorry dog people). I should be trivially easy to convince, so please work on your argument.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
That’s better.
Your first source is good, no issues there.
The second one is a law review, which is not a relevant paper (and I think not a paper at all but I’m not a law student). So it’d only be worth anything if a witness had suffient credentials, and no alternate motive, and then it’d still lack peer review, academic oversight, …
The paper needs to be on-topic, I can’t expect a biology paper to get art history right. Usually papers constrain themselves to topics they know for that reason, but for a law review I can see why that isn’t possible.
Papers also make their statements more directly, so you would find a more clear statement about breeds and attacks. The fact this is missing should give you some warning signs.
You did well then digging out the third source, which is fine again. You should have just skipped the second one entirely, since it’s not primary anyway, just citing.
This third might be what wikipedia was using, numbers look familiar.
Fourth source looks fine.
It is about a different topic, agression not violence, but you use it relevantly.
While checking the first source I saw the full results section, containing “Prior to 1980, the majority of dog bites reported in peer-reviewed literature were attributed to the German Shepherd breed (68.4%). From 1981–2000 German Shepherds still accounted for the largest minority of breeds identified (20.1%), with mixed breeds (19.6%) and Pit Bull type breeds (14.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minorities. Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%) […]” continuing with your quote.
It is interesting to note that German Shepherds apparently used to take the same statistical position you are arguing pitbulls hold in the present.
Ok now. You mentioned “Notably you’ll notice that a ban […] was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).”.
That is mostly meaningless for our purposes, i.e. determining what factor dog breed plays in dog-human harm.
Firstly, it’s a ratio, so speaking of reduction is incorrect. Reduction refers to numbers, so you need to consider the total amount. If the total number of dog attacks remained stable, then this would be accurate.
analogy
A simple example for this problem: If most people were driving small cars, most pedestrian deaths would be caused by small cars. If you then ban small cars, the pedestrian fatalities caused by small cars should go down. As both a ratio and in absolute terms. However the total number of pedestrian fatalities by all cars should go up, since people would mostly be pushed into large cars, that kill more people per driving hour, while hours driven by car shouldn’t be overly affected.
This here isn’t even considering driver mentality, it’s merely a consequence of not factoring in usage rates (or breed populations for dogs).
analogy 2
Now for the other effect, take suicides. If you consider suicides per rail mile, you could find train infrastructure particularly prone to suicides. But if you then ban trains you will see a decrease in rails suicides but a corresponding increase in say bridge suicides, so all of a sudden a different infrastructure becomes equally problematic, because the ground cause here is mental health of people, not suicide-enabling infrastructure.
This would be the analog to problematic owners finding a different breed or animal to make problematic, making breed bans a hopeless case of whack-amole.
If that were the case though, it would be precisely not the point you wanted, since it would mean banning pitbulls did nothing for the underlying problem: dog-human harm (not pitbull-human harm).
I saw the third article have a discussion on more useful metrics for judging pitbulls, but ima just roll my own rq:
As mentioned above the next step would be seeing if limiting pitbulls reduces dog attacks in total, not just pitbull attacks. That would cover cases like problematic owners shifting breeds.
An even more general one, one the article makes, is factoring in total dog ownership. That also checks if maybe reduczions are just people having less dogs in general.
Basically you’d want the same you have for for example large medical studies, factoring in many quantities and doing a multi-variable correlation analysis to hopefully determine all the various independent correlations and have a better chance at establishing causes.
After that you could see further. You may for example reach the conclusion that the only way is either adressing owners, or banning all large dogs, which if the case should change your strategy for action. If in that case you had already banned pitbulls you’d have shot yourself in the foot, since them people would be sick of it, the motivation would be used up, and you’d have to more than start over for the next breed or the actual wider methods.
On the other hand if it is indeed mostly a breed issue you would have far better arguments for getting breed-specific regulations.
The 4th source is a good start for establishing hypotheses if pitbulls are shown to be a problematic breed. You would need another metric like harm potential for the strenth, bit damage, etc. of dogs, since an agression rating led by chihuahuas is perhaps not the most useful here. Then you can multiply agression and harm potential for an estimate of natural inclination to endanger humans.
I haven’t looked deeper into the paper as to how “aggression” was measured, that method would also have to be airtight against training, so probably measured for dogs trained in a controlled environment etc…
If you do find a controlled link between such a harm potential rating and actual human harm using the methods of the last section, then that would immediately show both problem and solution. You would have a method by which to rate any new breeds or vatiations and could write regulations to target that. So even if someone creates new breeds to target the aggressive dog market, the regulations would cover that without any new changes. And similarly you could breed pitbulls to be more passive and get that variation exempt from limitations. That should probably cover most peoples interests in this debate.
It is not much better. Note that one of the sources of the one commenting explicitly states
Which is the commenters purpose in referencing that study. The study explicitly says it does not support their opinion.
Yeah, I do explain the same further down, didn’t see the need to specifically highlight that. Much better doesn’t mean good, just a lot better than the first attempt that had almost nothing of substance and was actively off-putting.
Using a paper to make a point it doesn’t support is better than not using papers and citing sketchy factoids.
Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.
Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.
None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.
I’ve provided a source. You doubting me puts the burden of proving me wrong on YOU.
Wanting me to do all the work is typical troll fashion, when you’ve given nothing to back your point that DogBite is an invalid source.
So keep trolling. We both know I’ve provided infinitely more than I should have since you’re clearly not arguing in good faith, troll.
Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.
Alright.
This is from the NHS:
Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
“Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/
Notably you’ll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).
This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed’s behaviour:
Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior
It says, among other things: “Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of “[s]everal interacting factors” that determine a dog’s likelihood to attack. 21”
Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review
Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
“As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs”
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed
You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I’ve listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.
Here’s one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:
Breed differences in canine aggression
This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf
You say “alright”, like you are responding to what I’m saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying
As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:
and that is their emphasis.
You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.
Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I’m not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.
And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.
Dishonesty is you thinking you have a point while not providing a single source. Get off that high horse.
Cherry picking on top of it all, you’re a clown.
Are you saying this just because you are angry, or your actual rational conclusion? Because my claim was that the infograph used a bullshit source, and I doubted the figure due to it. Then you provided another source from another org, AVMA, stating a different number, proving that the graph was bull. Not only that, that source organisation, AVMA, was also the same that I used to claim that “Dog bite org” looked shady.
What claim do you want me to source? That “dog bite org” appears to be bull? That is basically the only attempt at a claim I have made. Well, AVMA is my source then. You linked them. Read them.
The question was for the source of the image, not the general point. You can restate your point with new sources, but then say that.
The og image provides what looks like a source, and ofc it could be that wikipedia etc. also cite that, or “dog bite org” cites one of them (and thus the image isn’t sourced correctly), however your screenshots don’t even match the 66% figure, all giving different values, so clearly they are not the source or using the same source as the image.