Your sources are a personal injury law firm and a victim’s advocate website.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Your first source says 60% of dog fatalities are from dogs with Pits in their bloodline…
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Which further confirms my statement that you do not have true scientific numbers to support your claims. Ambulance chasers are not scientists. I don’t think that needs to be explained to you.
So your argument started out as pits cause 60% of attacks to now being the 5 pit types, the commonly mistaken for Pitts, and mutts comprise 60% of attacks.
These are two separate arguments being made. The first one is false, and the second one probably is true, bit you are presenting it as if it is the first argument.
Your own source, an attorney’s office, is who states that mutts with pit in their genetics are part of that 60% number. This is your own source.
I knew you never looked up my second link.
Regardless of what you think about the validity of my evidence at least I provide links relevant to the discussion. You don’t even know what a dog breed is.
Oh, did you ever find anything to prove your initial point? No, I didn’t think so…
If your argument isn’t that mutts + pit bulls and commonly mistaken for like Cane Corso’s make up 60%, than that is not a source backing up your argument.
Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?
Got any evidence at all to prove any of your points… No?
Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?
Read it and find out, is that so hard? No wonder all your links have been irrelevant, you probably didn’t even read your own evidence.
Here I have pulled one graph from that page, you dont even need to read the whole article now. But if you did you would find a break down by year, case, breed and causes for attacks. Along with evidence backing up each case.
If your argument isn’t that mutts + pit bulls and commonly mistaken for like Cane Corso’s make up 60%, than that is not a source backing up your argument.
Are you seriously asking me what my point is when I have repeated at nauseum. Are you that dense?
Provide evidence for any of the crap you have dribbling about or go away lol. And until then I’m not going to bother to continue engaging you.
I see at the bottom of your graph, it specifically states that “all other dogs” excludes 3 breeds, all 3 breeds known to be commonly mistaken as Pitts.
So… Where are their numbers? Are they in the Pit Bull category as I said they would be?
Your sources are a personal injury law firm and a victim’s advocate website.
Are they taking their numbers from media reports?
Your first source says 60% of dog fatalities are from dogs with Pits in their bloodline…
So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?
Which further confirms my statement that you do not have true scientific numbers to support your claims. Ambulance chasers are not scientists. I don’t think that needs to be explained to you.
Removed by mod
So your argument started out as pits cause 60% of attacks to now being the 5 pit types, the commonly mistaken for Pitts, and mutts comprise 60% of attacks.
These are two separate arguments being made. The first one is false, and the second one probably is true, bit you are presenting it as if it is the first argument.
Removed by mod
Your own source, an attorney’s office, is who states that mutts with pit in their genetics are part of that 60% number.
This is your own source.
I knew you never looked up my second link.
Regardless of what you think about the validity of my evidence at least I provide links relevant to the discussion. You don’t even know what a dog breed is.
Oh, did you ever find anything to prove your initial point? No, I didn’t think so…
If your argument isn’t that mutts + pit bulls and commonly mistaken for like Cane Corso’s make up 60%, than that is not a source backing up your argument.
Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?
Got any evidence at all to prove any of your points… No?
Read it and find out, is that so hard? No wonder all your links have been irrelevant, you probably didn’t even read your own evidence.
Here I have pulled one graph from that page, you dont even need to read the whole article now. But if you did you would find a break down by year, case, breed and causes for attacks. Along with evidence backing up each case.
Are you seriously asking me what my point is when I have repeated at nauseum. Are you that dense?
Provide evidence for any of the crap you have dribbling about or go away lol. And until then I’m not going to bother to continue engaging you.
I see at the bottom of your graph, it specifically states that “all other dogs” excludes 3 breeds, all 3 breeds known to be commonly mistaken as Pitts.
So… Where are their numbers? Are they in the Pit Bull category as I said they would be?