In retaliation to the Pit bull haters,
In retaliation to the Pit bull haters,
Teddy (left), and Sampson (right)
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
My argument never changed; Pitbull breeds cause 60% of attacks/fatalities. You just don't understand what a dog breed is. You still think the dogs outlined in the articles I have linked are just mistaken for Pitbulls when they are pitbulls.
Meanwhile your argument was that cops don't perform DNA testing to confirm what breed of dog is responsible for each attack. You couldn't prove that, and when pressed for information you told me to go find out for myself when it's your own point.
You then provided a link that stated 1 specific dog type is mistaken for other dogs, which had nothing to do with anything; additionally that link explained that multiple dogs fall under the pit bull categorisation (which I doubt you even read yourself).
You then provided a link from the UK (A country that has already banned large pit bulls, which makes me laugh as you are using them to defend Pitbulls), but per your own words it was not relevant to the discussion as it was related to tracking dogs, not confirming which breeds were responsible for attacks; continuing your trend of pointless links.
And then you rambled about all evidence being irrelevant as you could not find a centralised police data base. As if they are an authority on dog breeds in the first place.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dog breed is and what constitutes a Pitbull. And when I provide information to help your understanding you don't even bother to read past the first few lines.
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.
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?
Got any evidence at all to prove any of your points... No?
Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?
Read it and find out, is that so hard? No wonder all your links have been irrelevant, you probably didn't even read your own evidence.
Here I have pulled one graph from that page, you dont even need to read the whole article now. But if you did you would find a break down by year, case, breed and causes for attacks. Along with evidence backing up each case.
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.
Are you seriously asking me what my point is when I have repeated at nauseum. Are you that dense?
Provide evidence for any of the crap you have dribbling about or go away lol. And until then I'm not going to bother to continue engaging you.
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?