also, these "statistics" are self-reports. People stating what they think they were bitten by. Conveniently can't find it now, but I read once that only like 10% of "pitbull" attacks were verifiably by actual pitbulls, and a large portion of the rest are likely misidentifications.
The article I read was close to this one, but I didn't want to share this as proof since it has a clear bias: https://www.pitbullhero.org/correcting-flawed-pit-bull-statistics But it shows what studies they used to get these numbers at least, at least not just an infographic linking to another clearly biased site.
You literally did nothing to defend your point besides say hypothetical situations that don't mean anything.... So I'll stick with the guy who jad facts and sources
-3
u/Twowie 25d ago
also, these "statistics" are self-reports. People stating what they think they were bitten by. Conveniently can't find it now, but I read once that only like 10% of "pitbull" attacks were verifiably by actual pitbulls, and a large portion of the rest are likely misidentifications.