OK - one last post and then I’m done because you clearly want to believe that all bully breeds (though I’m not sure you even know what is included in that group) are Satan incarnate. Frankly, there are NO valid stats to indicate which “breed” of dogs bite more. Why? Because the so-called “data” is based (yes, even among medical personnel) largely on self-reported i.d. — i.e. the dog was identified based on how someone thought it looked. Such “id” is, of course, invalid and preposterous as most DNA analyses will show — and do all the time. What IS valid, and HAS been shown to be the case is that the media RARELY identify the breed of dog accurately. Indeed, it is not in their interests to do so. This is an important point because the medical personnel and websites dedicated to show how “evil” a certain breed or breeds of dog(s) are in comparison to others rely on media reports for their —ahem— “statistics”. Given that there was no DNA analysis done on the dogs to confirm whether or not the “type” was actually within the group under discussion, and given that most dog bites go unreported and are not serious enough to warrant a hospital visit and that the bites under consideration were self-selected and not taken in a random sampling, and given that no other factors were taken into consideration (such as being intact, chaining, being untrained), and you have a whopper of a skewed view of “bully breeds” run amok. And don’t think for one second that medical personnel or insurance companies are “experts” when it comes to dog identification. They are relying on the same agenda-driven nonsense — courtesy of the media reports. As for your view that the pictures posted of bully breeds loving on their owners takes place “seconds before the dog rips the owner’s face off” you have no basis for that statement, but you do show your—bias. ‘Nuff said.
Yeah, I’ve read your kind of propaganda before. ‘Nuff said.