What does that have to do with anything?
I mean, I’m sure it’s a great comfort to the woman that she only received multiple bite wounds instead of having her face ripped off, but seriously, why does it matter? She was viciously attacked by dogs that were known to be dangerous, that had put one of her own dogs in the hospital, that had been through the system and were still allowed to return to an obviously incompetent owner, and you think the big deal here is that it might have been worse if it had been pit bulls?
None of these stories were posted to FreeRepublic, presumably because none of these headlines identify the animal’s breed. They’re all just ‘dog attacks’, not nearly as panic-inducing as ‘pitbull attacks’, apparently. Doesn’t it bother you to get played like that?
It matters in the context of the discussion. As I understand the context, the discussion in not about dog attacks. It is about pit bull attacks. In my view, comparing the boxer attack and a pit bull attack are two different things. The comparison of the woman's injuries is to illustrate the point - it makes no commentary on her injuries.
My view on pit bulls is that they are far more dangerous than other dogs and their attacks much more severe. Yes, it does bother me when people try to say they are all just dog attacks. I think on that you and I agree if I understand your point correctly. To be clear, I am no fan of pit bulls.