You delusional types are actually more danger to society than runamok pit bulls, because of the way you manipulate information, for the purposes of disinforming people--all to feed your agenda, which is to convince us (and yourself, no doubt), that pits are just sweet little creatures.
You cite a study, BUT DON'T MENTION THE KEY FINDINGS! Let me quote the study that YOU dug up when I asked for FACTS:
"During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF [dog bite-related fatalities] during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of those deaths."
You say I am no gentleman for calling someone a member of the pit bull apologist brigade (of which, it's now clear, you are the commander). Sorry, when people knowingly tell outright lies in order to decieve people, I am unable to be a gentleman. You are an intellectually dishonest poltroon...uh, but just in my opinion, of course.
You didn't mention the ONE death in the study caused by a labrador retriever attacking a person. Isn't that the crux of your argument? That pit bulls don't cause ALL dog-related deaths?
My argument (and that of every other person on this and past pit bull threads here on FR in which we come up against liars) is: MOST deaths, and MOST serious maulings and maimings from dogs...come from pit bulls.
Time you admitted it. Just say, Hey, I own a pit bull and I don't care what the truth is about them.
That, we can respect.
"You delusional nanny-statists types are actually more danger to society than runamok pit bulls, because of the way you manipulate information, for the purposes of disinforming people--all to feed your agenda, which is to convince us (and yourself, no doubt), that all pits are just the spawn of Satan and that you hold some illusional higher moral ground."
You claim I am I liar, prove it or prove yourself one as you have already proved yourself a fool.
You asked me, "Present one fact that refutes the FACT that pit bulls are statistically the most dangerous dog in America" and I showed that in the last years of the study 93-98 that this was not the case.
What conclusion can be drawn from the study? Yes that "pit bulls" account for a significant percentage of all fatalities but also that the percentage varies over time.
Is it the case in in 2005? I don't know, but with the increase of low-life gangsta/drug dealing culture and its adherents misuse of the breed and the general increase in popularity of the breed it would not surprise me if they were on the top of list.
I'm old enough to remember when "pit bulls" were not even on the radar, when GS and Dobes were the "bad" dogs.
In fact if you look to the Lab case it comes from a study from 1975-80 where stats showed...
"the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15)."
I do not hide the facts but rather look at them and seek to find ways to solve the problem without resorting to hyperbole and putting all owners of a particular breed or their dogs into one socialist-sized box.
The crux of my argument if you need to hear it again is that ALL dog related fatalities and maulings are serious and a comprehensive response must be found that takes into account ALL dog related fatalities and maulings.
The proper conservative way to deal with it is by demanding personal responsibility and accountablity.
You got a problem with that?