That's hardly quoting selectively. That's a disclaimer on the research they used to reach thier conclusions. That supports the argument that a pitbull is not always a pitbull. Again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwinn
"Conclusions-Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. (emphasis mine) Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's bred with certainty, situtional [sic] and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bit injuries to humans and public policy concerning dangerous dogs."
|
Or is this the "selective" quote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwinn
|
Again, this is saying that it is leaving doubts to thier own conclusions, which are the same as yours, that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.
I'm not sure what posting two specific examples are for. I could post several examples, including one where a golden retriever literally ate a woman's face in France (the face transplant lady? I may have the breed wrong, but it wasn't a pitbull) and an example of where a pom ripped out a baby's throat. I could also point you to the story of where police just north of me shot a border collie who attacked a woman, and probably would have killed her had someone not intervened.
I could go on and tell you several stories of dogs that have attacked me, or were aggressive to me. I could tell many more stories of pit bulls who were gentle pets, more gentle that any other dog I've ever seen (my own seven year old part pit, who's the fifth dog I have with, and who is in a house with a 2 1/2 year old and a 3 month old, is the most gentle dog I have ever been with, out of different breeds, including a husky, and a couple of lab crosses). I guarantee that I could come up with a lot more stories of pits who have lived long full lives and never hurt anyone than you could come up with about pits who've attacked or mauled. Why? Because the number of pits who are or have been loving family pets disproportionatly outnumber the vicious ones.
Toronto had estimated they had several thousand pit bulls in the city. Yet the number that have attacked was less than 1%. For a dog that's "vicious" and "prone to attack", that's what statisticians would call "statistically insignificant". Does that mean that deaths due to pit bulls or any other breed should be ignored? No, not at all. Quite the opposite. What it means is that attacking people is not a natural tendancy for these animals. It also means that we need to focus our energies on what the real issue is. Otherwise, 10-15 years from now, we'll be back at the same table arguing the same thing, only it will be a different breed that's up for being banned, just as it was for rottweillers 15 years ago, dobermans in the '80's and german shepards before that.