And people who hold to their personal anecdotal experience over broader statistics aren’t really too much worth attempting to reason with.
I think that you may be wrong here.
Years of actual experience in the field is in most cases superior to statistics, especially statistics generated by folks with an axe to grind. "Figures lie, and liars figure," remember?
FReepers are highly suspicious of the gun statistics cited by the Brady Bunch, ABC, and others anxious to infringe on gun rights. And it often (if not always) turns out that the so-called statistics have been doctored (e.g. counting 20 year old gangbangers as 'children') or are outright fraudulent (as in the case of the Emory history professor who wound up being fired for falsifying his data).
We usually are more inclined to listen to experienced shooters, former military, and other folks who have actual experience with firearms, rather than just uncritically swallow possibly skewed 'statistics' whole.
But even though news outlets have (as in this case) often falsely identified dogs as "pit bulls" in order to whip up a frenzy (or sell papers), too many people want to take the statistics as gospel truth, and ignore folks who have years of experience with actual dog training.
Why?