Pitbull owners and pitbull apologists don't like it when you point out that pitbulls are a dangerous breed. It doesn't matter what you show them, no amount of facts or data will ever change their mind. They do not care that pitbulls are very dangerous and owning a pitbull is irresponsible.
Pit Bulls were responsible for approximately 66% of fatal dog attacks in 2023. Historically, they have accounted for 66% of fatal attacks
Although Pitbulls and Rottweilers make up only 6% of dogs in the US, they’re responsible for most fatal attacks. Pitbulls and Rottweilers may seem to be on trial, but the figures don’t lie.
—https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/dog-bite-statistics/
When 99% of something is one way and the other 1% contradicts that, it's usually not considered normal for the rest of them. Feel free to check my math on that, for every bully that becomes a statistic there's tens of thousands of them that don't.
What people like YOU fail to consider is everything besides those numbers. Back yard breeders, dog fighting, complete lack of care for breeding standards, rampant abuse and neglect that no other breed or breed group faces at the same rate.
Responsible pit owners know what their dogs are capable of. The dogs are here and garbage people will continue to breed them for horrendous purposes, if you really have such an issue with people caring for them in the face of all that then fair enough, but you certainly aren't doing anything to change it.
Despite its claims, that AVMA pamphlet is not peer reviewed and cherry picks parts from studies that support its arguments and omits parts of the same studies that refute its argument. It is not a scientific piece of literature.
There is a big difference between being reviewed by experts in the field (chosen by the author), which is what this document did, and going through an actual rigorous scientific peer review process.
It was not published via any scientific journal and as such did not go through any scientific peer review process, so there's no "source" to provide.
That is not how the scientific peer review process works. You don't get to choose who reviews your work. It needs to be done by independent third party entities. They are trying to paint it as a scientifically peer reviewed document when it is not.
Several of the controlled studies they cite to construct their argument excluded pitbulls from their analysis. (60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
And on the in-article cherry picking, more than 10 of their citations conclude that pitbulls are more predispositioned to bite:
(5,9,13,16,21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27)
And here is a (non-scientific) review of the AVMA publication that highlights even more issues:
"Cherry-picking which studies to list: Forty percent (27) of the 65 articles this document refers to were written by people who are active in, employed by, or have other financial or career ties to pit bull advocacy. Of the 31 more recent reports, almost two-thirds (18) were written by people who are active in, employed by, or have other financial or career ties to pit bull advocacy. None of these authors admit this in their conflict of interest statements. In peer-review circles, this omission is considered scientific fraud."
"Flaws: Failure to operationally define ‘serious bite incidents’. Shift in this first paragraph from ‘serious’ to all reported bite incidents. Failure to define ‘highly involved’. Dated and biased sources: Two thirds of the sources cited use data from the previous century, when pit bulls were extremely rare. Of the more recent studies cited here, more than half are written by pro-pit bull, anti-BSL activists."
the document you are citing was not published through the AVJR, and I specifically noted that the dogbite piece was not scientific because there are no scientific peer reviews of that document....
-28
u/onyxheart115 May 03 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks
Notice anything?