[ansel12]

As the United States and many other nations deal with the issue of pit bulls and collect the data on their killing, maiming and disfiguring rate, you can call the UN to tell them that you need to explain that they are all wrong and don’t know what “pitbulls” are.

[Scoutmaster]

Nonsense. I'd simply read the US report to see what breeds were considered 'pit bulls' in the report. I would never have to tell them they were wrong because they will define the term for purposes of their report, and for purposes of the US report "pit bulls" will mean whatever the US defines it to mean. And there WILL be a definition in the report.

Even dogbites.org gives its own definition of 'pit bull' (three breeds and mixes of those three breeds) for purposes of its reporting and collecting data.

The UN report will be like the US report, except the definition of 'pit bull' may include breeds like the Tosa Inu. For purposes of the UN report, I'll accept its definition.

[Scoutmaster]

Look, my whole point here is that:

1. Something must be done about the 'pit bull' problem in the U.S.

2. Lower-case 'pit bull' does not have a standard definition. Case in point. Ten people are killed by ten dogs of the following breeds:

7 - American Pit Bull Terriers (or mixes)
2 - Staffordshire Terriers (or mixes)
1 - American Staffordshire Terrier

Dogbites.org says that's ten deaths by 'pit bulls.'

But if we used the same numbers and said those breeds were in an ASPCA shelter and asked them how many 'pit bulls' they had, the answer would be eight (8). The ASPC does not include Staffordshire Terriers in the definition of 'pit bull.'

3. To solve the problem, let's get rid of American Pit Bull Terriers and then decide what else we get rid of, by breed, by physical description, or both. But don't just say 'pit bulls.'