“Find one expert that says it’s all the pit bull breed’s fault.
All? You just admitted that they concede that it is primarily that breed that accounts for a lion’s share of maimings and fatalities.
Your “experts” supported MY position.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, and I am beginning to think you have comprehension issues. They agree that pit bulls and rottweilers are responsible for a much larger number of fatalities than other breeds, but go on to say not only that the average hasn’t risen, but there’s no way to know for sure that the numbers are correct for the breeds anyway, given the countless issues in correctly identifying breed, media misrepresentation, over-reporting, and not to mention the 90 or so missing fatalities where breed cannot be accounted for, and therefore cannot be used in the study. However, they DO NOT BLAME SPECIFIC BREEDS for this, and their results show that the average number of fatalities has not risen due to increases in the popularity of these breeds. They also show plenty of evidence that irresponsible ownership is the most common reason for dog attacks, found in attacks involving all breeds, which is their entire conclusion, and the biggest reason for them NOT approving of breed specific legislation.
Unless you have some hidden study I am not aware of that you would like to post, I suggest you go back and read the studies you seem so sure of. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are simply taking whatever I write and trying to use my often flawed and lazy writing skills to make it appear I am saying something I am not. Anyone can go back through and see what we both have written, and so far all you have done is try to pick apart little details and make them into other things. You have offered nothing, and it’s getting pretty obvious now that you don’t have anything TO offer.
Exactly MY point.
However, they DO NOT BLAME SPECIFIC BREEDS for this
You just admitted that they did.
Lemme know if you win the argument that you're having with yourself.