Ordinarily, I’d just let your rant go and ignore it. But there is something twisted going on here and so you compel me to answer.
Don’t you think it’s irrational to brand all members of a group, or in this case a breed, as bloodthirsty killers? And many thanks for citing an obviously unbiased and objective authority such as DogsBite.org .
Read through many of the other posts on this thread that agree with me. Pit Bulls are a loveable breed. Yet, that doesn’t in any way mean that there aren’t bad individuals of the breed. I’ve had contact with many of them over the years and they in no way match your hysterical depiction of them as mindless killers.
The article says that pits attack 8 times more often than labs - this isn’t a case of a few bad individuals. For 2014, pits are averaging 1 American killed every 9 days and pits just aren’t that numerous - the numbers are and always have been off the charts for that type of dog, which does what it was bred to do.
Rant? I merely disagreed with your assessment of the pit bull breed in a reply of maybe two sentences. Sounds to me like you're the one who's getting emotional here.
As for the link from DogsBite.org, it's a collection of dog bite statistics, which can hardly be called "biased". It's just numbers, and they cover all dog breeds. The results on pit bulls are obviously making you weep (like I knew they would) because they show the truth about this dangerous breed of animal.
You want to insist that the breed is "loveable", but you can't back that up with facts or stats like I just did. And what's this baloney about all the other posts on the thread that agree with you? That's as weak as the global warmists crying, "We have a consensus! The science is settled!"
What utter nonsense.
The breed is dangerous, and ought to be confined to zoos or wildlife preservations.