# Pitbulls **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969 "2013-05-10T08:22:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/761 "2013-07-17T12:09:42Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > For the record, I didn’t say the Maryland law was a \*good \*law or not. Merely that the Federal Court wasn’t necessarily agreeing with the law in as much as they were refusing to overturn it. > > But playing devil’s advocate here: We have a type of dog that is responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. Banning said dog type would seem to be a reasonable first step. To over-turn the ban, one would think that you’d need to prove that the dogs weren’t actually responsible for the fatal dog attacks. > > So far, the only arguments I’ve heard are 1) The dogs were mis-identified! Prove they were pit types!, 2) There’s no scientific evidence that the breed is inherently dangerous, and actually the breed is actually very gentle and loving! and 3) It’s not the dog, it’s the crappy owners! > > Well, regarding 1), I still haven’t seen any cites for rampant mis-identification. > > Point 2) doesn’t mean jack and is completely irrelevant since it essentialy concedes the fact that the dogs were in fact responsbile for the deaths. > > And point 3), as I said above: If you guys want to say that pit bulls are dangerous because of the owners, fine by me. I’ll just assume that pit bull owners are far more likely to be shitty owners and thus are far more likely to own shitty dogs. And I’ll continue to keep my family far, far away from you and your shitty dogs. Yeah, heaven forbid that we use accurate data in determining which dogs are actually responsible for the attacks in this country. People in this thread are claiming that certain breeds of dog are genetically predisposed to violenece, yet they have no idea what the genetic makeup of the guilty parties are. That’s called stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/762 "2013-07-17T15:44:38Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > People in this thread are claiming that certain breeds of dog are genetically predisposed to violenece, yet they have no idea what the genetic makeup of the guilty parties are. That’s called stupidity. I don’t know about the ‘people’ in this thread, but I’m claiming that certain breeds of dogs are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks. If you want to ignore that inconvenient little fact, you can go on sticking your head in the sand with your ‘we don’t know what the complete genetic make up is! prove they were pits!’ screeches; go right ahead. Stupidity, indeed. You can claim they’re not genetically predisposed to violence all you want - hell, we could even concede you’re right. \*You still haven’t explained why they’re responsible for so many of the deaths when kids get chewed to death, or why I shouldn’t continue to go out of my way to give you and your dogs a wide, wide berth. \* ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/763 "2013-07-17T15:47:41Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I don’t know about the ‘people’ in this thread, but I’m claiming that certain breeds of dogs are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks. Please provide evidence for this claim. Include methodology used to identify the breed of dog. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/764 "2013-07-17T15:50:40Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Please provide evidence for this claim. Include methodology used to identify the breed of dog. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/765 "2013-07-18T01:33:20Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > 1. We have a type of dog that is responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. Banning said dog type would seem to be a reasonable first step. To over-turn the ban, one would think that you’d need to prove that the dogs weren’t actually responsible for the fatal dog attacks. > > 2. So far, the only arguments I’ve heard are 1) The dogs were mis-identified! Prove they were pit types!, 2) There’s no scientific evidence that the breed is inherently dangerous, and actually the breed is actually very gentle and loving! and 3) It’s not the dog, it’s the crappy owners! > > 3. And point 3), as I said above: If you guys want to say that pit bulls are dangerous because of the owners, fine by me. I’ll just assume that pit bull owners are far more likely to be shitty owners and thus are far more likely to own shitty dogs. And I’ll continue to keep my family far, far away from you and your shitty dogs. 1. No that’s not a reasonable ‘first step’ subject to establishing the accuracy of the premise you state, especially defining what is meant by ‘breed’ either in the bite statistics or in any proposed law, since ‘pit bull’ is not a breed. Does it mean pure breed APBT’s, does it mean some ‘blood quantum’ of that breed or the closely related AST? (the SBT often rounds out the three breeds which might legitimately be called, if loosely, ‘pit bulls’ from any knowledgeable standpoint, but are small dogs, often under 30#, which opens up a huge consistency issue in a law which bans SBT’s but doesn’t affect say Akita’s, a completely unrelated dog typically over 100#, highly territorial and pretty commonly involved in bite incidents per dog, but not a common type of dog, but OTOH SBT’s are not a very common breed either). Or does it mean essentially unrelated dogs which ‘sort of look like pit bulls’? In practice the ‘family’ of relatively related breeds can always be expanded, but then the ‘genetic’ argument becomes more and more far fetched. And in practice some pro BSL ‘statisticians’ will collect and defend stats which say include for example Boxers under the same general category to which they’d expanded ‘pit bull’ (large terrier/mastiff/molosser types). But do any actual BSL’s ban Boxers? No. Because it’s been proved Boxers are not really ‘nasty dogs’ like ‘pit bulls’ (but say Dogo Argentino’s are?, less closely related to ABPT’s more often included)? No. It’s all arbitrary political bullsh\*t when it gets to the point of defining the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ in BSL’s. And then the issue of how dogs are managed is just silly to ignore. 90% of serious dog bite incidents involve unaltered male dogs per the CDC. That’s quite a strange coincidence for such an owner management factor to be so prominent if ‘breed’ is really the main driver of dog bites. 1. ‘All I’ve heard’ is not a good substitute for refuting relevant arguments. If certain types of owners are really the problem, there is nothing to stop them creating the same dangers with any type of strong dogs, assuming some law banning the pseudo-breed ‘pit bull’ (as it’s variously defined in places with BSL’s) could actually be enforced, big if. But even if, that’s a very major hole in the effectiveness of BSL’s if owner behavior is really the driver. So I don’t see the logic in dismissing that argument about owner behavior, at all. And another related strange coincidence is how no animal science, relevant general science (like the CDC) or veterinary science organization supports BSL. On lower grade discussions around the web than this august forum, the pro-BSL comeback to that is usually ‘the animal/veterinary science community is all bought off by the pit bull owners’. But that’s a childishly idiotic argument I’m sure you wouldn’t make. So why is it? 1. Yes you said it before but as before it’s kind of juking around now frankly back and forth between this and ‘devil’s advocate’. As I said before, if you don’t like ‘pit bulls’, I don’t care. You need no proof of anything to have an opinion which ‘breed’ you like, or if you like dogs at all. But, if it’s a matter of BSL, different story. In that case the burden of proof should be a lot higher as to any of the issues like statistics, underlying scientific evidence of propensity for human aggression. And as in an (overdue) recent federal court challenge to BSL in Alabama, besides the general idiocy and ineffectiveness of BSL, there’s a valid constitutional issue in any law which outlaws something without properly defining it. What’s a ‘pit bull’ for the purpose of such a law? How is one to know if they are violating such a law? And if it’s just up to local bureaucrats to define the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ arbitrarily, that’s a due process issue. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/766 "2013-07-18T01:40:35Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > 1. We have a type of dog that is responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. Banning said dog type would seem to be a reasonable first step. To over-turn the ban, one would think that you’d need to prove that the dogs weren’t actually responsible for the fatal dog attacks. > > 2. So far, the only arguments I’ve heard are 1) The dogs were mis-identified! Prove they were pit types!, 2) There’s no scientific evidence that the breed is inherently dangerous, and actually the breed is actually very gentle and loving! and 3) It’s not the dog, it’s the crappy owners! > > 3. And point 3), as I said above: If you guys want to say that pit bulls are dangerous because of the owners, fine by me. I’ll just assume that pit bull owners are far more likely to be shitty owners and thus are far more likely to own shitty dogs. And I’ll continue to keep my family far, far away from you and your shitty dogs. 1. No that’s not a reasonable ‘first step’ subject to establishing the accuracy of the premise you state, especially defining what is meant by ‘breed’ either in the bite statistics or in any proposed law, since ‘pit bull’ is not a breed. Does it mean pure breed APBT’s, does it mean some ‘blood quantum’ of that breed or the closely related AST? (the SBT often rounds out the three breeds which might legitimately be called, if loosely, ‘pit bulls’ from any knowledgeable standpoint, but are small dogs, often under 30#, which opens up a huge consistency issue in a law which bans SBT’s but doesn’t affect say Akita’s, a completely unrelated dog typically over 100#, highly territorial and pretty commonly involved in bite incidents per dog, but not a common type of dog, but OTOH SBT’s are not a very common breed either). Or does it mean essentially unrelated dogs which ‘sort of look like pit bulls’? In practice the ‘family’ of relatively related breeds can always be expanded, but then the ‘genetic’ argument becomes more and more far fetched. And in practice some pro BSL ‘statisticians’ will collect and defend stats which say include for example Boxers under the same general category to which they’d expanded ‘pit bull’ (large terrier/mastiff/molosser types). But do any actual BSL’s ban Boxers? No, because it’s been proved they are not really like ‘pit bulls’ (but say Dogo Argentino’s are?, less closely related to ABPT’s more often included) No. It’s all arbitrary political bullsh\*t when it gets to the point of defining this non-breed of ‘pit bull’. And then the issue of how dogs are managed is just silly to ignore. 90% of serious dog bite incidents involve unaltered male dogs per the CDC. That’s quite a strange coincidence for such an owner management factor to be so prominent if ‘breed’ is really the main driver of dog bites. 1. ‘All I’ve heard’ is not a good substitute for actually refuting relevant arguments. If certain types of owners are really the problem, there is nothing to stop them creating the same dangers with any type of strong dogs, assuming some law banning the pseudo-breed ‘pit bull’ (as it’s variously defined in places with BSL’s) could actually be enforced, big if. Anyway even assuming so, that’s a very major hole in the effectiveness of BSL’s if owner behavior is really the driver. So I don’t see the logic in dismissing that argument about owner behavior, at all. And another related strange coincidence is how no animal science, general science (like the CDC) or veterinary science organization supports BSL. On lower grade discussions around the web than this august forum, the pro-BSL comeback to that is usually ‘the animal/veterinary science community is all bought off by the pit bull owners’. But that’s a childishly idiotic argument I’m sure you wouldn’t make. So why is it? 1. Yes you said it before but as before it’s kind of juking around now frankly back and forth between this and ‘devil’s advocate’. As I said before, if you don’t like ‘pit bulls’, I don’t care. You need no proof of anything to have an opinion which ‘breed’ you like, or if you like dogs at all. But, if it’s a matter of BSL, different story. In that case the burden of proof should be a lot higher as to any of the issues like statistics, underlying scientific evidence of propensity for human aggression. And as in an (overdue) recent federal court challenge to BSL in Alabama, besides the general idiocy and ineffectiveness of BSL, there’s a valid constitutional issue in any law which outlaws something without properly defining it. What’s a ‘pit bull’ for the purpose of such a law? How is one to know if they are violating such a law? And if it’s just up to local bureaucrats to define the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ arbitrarily, that’s a due process issue. ---
**Author:** ![cougar58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cougar58](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cougar58)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/767 "2013-07-18T12:06:12Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > 1. No that’s not a reasonable ‘first step’ subject to establishing the accuracy of the premise you state, especially defining what is meant by ‘breed’ either in the bite statistics or in any proposed law, since ‘pit bull’ is not a breed. Does it mean pure breed APBT’s, does it mean some ‘blood quantum’ of that breed or the closely related AST? (the SBT often rounds out the three breeds which might legitimately be called, if loosely, ‘pit bulls’ from any knowledgeable standpoint, but are small dogs, often under 30#, which opens up a huge consistency issue in a law which bans SBT’s but doesn’t affect say Akita’s, a completely unrelated dog typically over 100#, highly territorial and pretty commonly involved in bite incidents per dog, but not a common type of dog, but OTOH SBT’s are not a very common breed either). > > Or does it mean essentially unrelated dogs which ‘sort of look like pit bulls’? In practice the ‘family’ of relatively related breeds can always be expanded, but then the ‘genetic’ argument becomes more and more far fetched. And in practice some pro BSL ‘statisticians’ will collect and defend stats which say include for example Boxers under the same general category to which they’d expanded ‘pit bull’ (large terrier/mastiff/molosser types). But do any actual BSL’s ban Boxers? No, because it’s been proved they are not really like ‘pit bulls’ (but say Dogo Argentino’s are?, less closely related to ABPT’s more often included) No. It’s all arbitrary political bullsh\*t when it gets to the point of defining this non-breed of ‘pit bull’. > > And then the issue of how dogs are managed is just silly to ignore. 90% of serious dog bite incidents involve unaltered male dogs per the CDC. That’s quite a strange coincidence for such an owner management factor to be so prominent if ‘breed’ is really the main driver of dog bites. > > 1. ‘All I’ve heard’ is not a good substitute for actually refuting relevant arguments. If certain types of owners are really the problem, there is nothing to stop them creating the same dangers with any type of strong dogs, assuming some law banning the pseudo-breed ‘pit bull’ (as it’s variously defined in places with BSL’s) could actually be enforced, big if. Anyway even assuming so, that’s a very major hole in the effectiveness of BSL’s if owner behavior is really the driver. So I don’t see the logic in dismissing that argument about owner behavior, at all. > > And another related strange coincidence is how no animal science, general science (like the CDC) or veterinary science organization supports BSL. On lower grade discussions around the web than this august forum, the pro-BSL comeback to that is usually ‘the animal/veterinary science community is all bought off by the pit bull owners’. But that’s a childishly idiotic argument I’m sure you wouldn’t make. So why is it? > > 1. Yes you said it before but as before it’s kind of juking around now frankly back and forth between this and ‘devil’s advocate’. > > As I said before, if you don’t like ‘pit bulls’, I don’t care. You need no proof of anything to have an opinion which ‘breed’ you like, or if you like dogs at all. > > But, if it’s a matter of BSL, different story. In that case the burden of proof should be a lot higher as to any of the issues like statistics, underlying scientific evidence of propensity for human aggression. And as in an (overdue) recent federal court challenge to BSL in Alabama, besides the general idiocy and ineffectiveness of BSL, there’s a valid constitutional issue in any law which outlaws something without properly defining it. What’s a ‘pit bull’ for the purpose of such a law? How is one to know if they are violating such a law? And if it’s just up to local bureaucrats to define the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ arbitrarily, that’s a due process issue. FYI the following Alabama cites ban or regulate pit bulls: Ban: Center Point Clay Fayette Fultondale Gardendale Irondale Lanett Mountain Brook Declared either “dangerous” or “vicious” Albertville Anniston Boaz Gadsden ---
**Author:** ![cougar58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cougar58](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cougar58)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/768 "2013-07-18T12:22:07Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > 1. No that’s not a reasonable ‘first step’ subject to establishing the accuracy of the premise you state, especially defining what is meant by ‘breed’ either in the bite statistics or in any proposed law, since ‘pit bull’ is not a breed. Does it mean pure breed APBT’s, does it mean some ‘blood quantum’ of that breed or the closely related AST? (the SBT often rounds out the three breeds which might legitimately be called, if loosely, ‘pit bulls’ from any knowledgeable standpoint, but are small dogs, often under 30#, which opens up a huge consistency issue in a law which bans SBT’s but doesn’t affect say Akita’s, a completely unrelated dog typically over 100#, highly territorial and pretty commonly involved in bite incidents per dog, but not a common type of dog, but OTOH SBT’s are not a very common breed either). > > Or does it mean essentially unrelated dogs which ‘sort of look like pit bulls’? In practice the ‘family’ of relatively related breeds can always be expanded, but then the ‘genetic’ argument becomes more and more far fetched. And in practice some pro BSL ‘statisticians’ will collect and defend stats which say include for example Boxers under the same general category to which they’d expanded ‘pit bull’ (large terrier/mastiff/molosser types). But do any actual BSL’s ban Boxers? No, because it’s been proved they are not really like ‘pit bulls’ (but say Dogo Argentino’s are?, less closely related to ABPT’s more often included) No. It’s all arbitrary political bullsh\*t when it gets to the point of defining this non-breed of ‘pit bull’. > > And then the issue of how dogs are managed is just silly to ignore. 90% of serious dog bite incidents involve unaltered male dogs per the CDC. That’s quite a strange coincidence for such an owner management factor to be so prominent if ‘breed’ is really the main driver of dog bites. > > 1. ‘All I’ve heard’ is not a good substitute for actually refuting relevant arguments. If certain types of owners are really the problem, there is nothing to stop them creating the same dangers with any type of strong dogs, assuming some law banning the pseudo-breed ‘pit bull’ (as it’s variously defined in places with BSL’s) could actually be enforced, big if. Anyway even assuming so, that’s a very major hole in the effectiveness of BSL’s if owner behavior is really the driver. So I don’t see the logic in dismissing that argument about owner behavior, at all. > > And another related strange coincidence is how no animal science, general science (like the CDC) or veterinary science organization supports BSL. On lower grade discussions around the web than this august forum, the pro-BSL comeback to that is usually ‘the animal/veterinary science community is all bought off by the pit bull owners’. But that’s a childishly idiotic argument I’m sure you wouldn’t make. So why is it? > > 1. Yes you said it before but as before it’s kind of juking around now frankly back and forth between this and ‘devil’s advocate’. > > As I said before, if you don’t like ‘pit bulls’, I don’t care. You need no proof of anything to have an opinion which ‘breed’ you like, or if you like dogs at all. > > But, if it’s a matter of BSL, different story. In that case the burden of proof should be a lot higher as to any of the issues like statistics, underlying scientific evidence of propensity for human aggression. And as in an (overdue) recent federal court challenge to BSL in Alabama, besides the general idiocy and ineffectiveness of BSL, there’s a valid constitutional issue in any law which outlaws something without properly defining it. What’s a ‘pit bull’ for the purpose of such a law? How is one to know if they are violating such a law? And if it’s just up to local bureaucrats to define the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ arbitrarily, that’s a due process issue. Please cite the “federal court challenge in Alabama” Note that State supreme courts are completely distinct from any United States federal courts. Not saying I deny what you are claiming - just asking for a cite ---
**Author:** ![cougar58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cougar58](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cougar58)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/769 "2013-07-18T13:06:24Z")
How much is the science from a well educated Animal Expert worth? Lets examine the resume of one: [http://www.animalbehavior.com/fullcv.html](http://www.animalbehavior.com/fullcv.html) Peter L. Borchelt, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Animal Behavior Consultant Peter’s pit bull ( that he claimed wan’t vicious and in fact he was socializing it for a client) bit another mans peter off, and the victim is awarded exactly $1 million. > **[PIT BULL'S NIP NETS MAN $1M](https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/pit-bull-nip-nets-man-1m-article-1.887924)** > > When an 80-pound male pit bull bit a retired firefighter, he sued. And what's more, he collected - to the tune of $1 million. > Why? > Location, location, location. > A three-man, three-woman jury in Brooklyn awarded $500,000 for past pain and... "A three-man, three-woman jury in Brooklyn awarded $500,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering to Gabriel Febbraio for the urological treatment and psychological injuries he suffered when the hefty canine bit him on the groin, removing the end of his penis. In February 1997, Febbraio had left his mother’s home in Bensonhurst to go jogging, when he realized he forgot his gloves. As he headed back to the house, he encountered Peter Borchelt and the dog on the street. When Febbraio asked him if the dog was friendly, Borchelt assured him it was. But when the ex-fireman, 45, took several more steps, the dog broke free and attacked him. Source for Science? Expert data? I will stay with the insurance actuaries data. They pay for these atrocities, not the PhD Animal Experts or their organizations. Ask the fireman who is now without his hose, how much value he places in science from these “experts”. ---
**Author:** ![cougar58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cougar58](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cougar58)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/770 "2013-07-18T13:25:44Z")
PS before anyone cries to the mods that this is another Cougar off-topic anecdotal example of humor, please note that Peter L. Borchelt, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, in the above post, testified in both the Denver and Toledo pit bull court hearings. So it is very relevant to the OP You just can make this stuff up. By the way, insurance actuarial data is very much considered a science. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/771 "2013-07-18T13:55:52Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > FYI the following Alabama cites ban or regulate pit bulls: > > Ban: > > Center Point > Clay > Fayette > Fultondale > Gardendale > Irondale > Lanett > Mountain Brook > > Declared either “dangerous” or “vicious” > > Albertville > Anniston > Boaz > Gadsden My favorite color is blue. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/772 "2013-07-18T18:51:45Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > By the way, insurance actuarial data is very much considered a science. So is geology. Do you suppose we can use it to determine if pit bulls are neurologically different from other dogs, leading to unpredictable aggression directed at human beings? No? Then how about botany? Meteorology? Physics? Decision theory? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/773 "2013-07-18T19:47:50Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > You just can make this stuff up. Yes, we’ve become familiar with your style of “debate”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/774 "2013-07-18T20:02:08Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So is geology. Do you suppose we can use it to determine if pit bulls are neurologically different from other dogs, leading to unpredictable aggression directed at human beings? No? Then how about botany? Meteorology? Physics? Decision theory? > > :rolleyes: A _better_ question is: Can the science of insurance actuarial data be used to _identify_ which dogs belong to the alleged breed in question? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/775 "2013-07-18T20:15:38Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > A _better_ question is: Can the science of insurance actuarial data be used to _identify_ which dogs belong to the alleged breed in question? It doesn’t matter, because so far there has been zero evidence that there is a genetic difference that leads to unpredictable aggression directed at humans. So long as cougar continues to ignore the difference between genetically determined neurological differences and life experience differences (which is hardly the only gaping flaw in his argument, just the most glaring), his argument is, how you say, ignorant garbage. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/776 "2013-07-18T21:01:11Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > A _better_ question is: Can the science of insurance actuarial data be used to _identify_ which dogs belong to the alleged breed in question? That is a good question. And obviously, the answer is “no”. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/777 "2013-07-19T01:14:15Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > I will stay with the insurance actuaries data. They pay for these atrocities, not the PhD Animal Experts or their organizations. Amusingly enough, my insurance company doesn’t care whether or not I have a pit bull–all dogs of the same size are adjudged equally actuarially risky. Sorry about your anecdote. Again. ---
**Author:** ![Renee\_RL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Renee\_RL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee_RL)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/778 "2013-07-19T19:19:04Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Amusingly enough, my insurance company doesn’t care whether or not I have a pit bull–all dogs of the same size are adjudged equally actuarially risky. Sorry about your anecdote. Again. Yes every stat is wrong…because there are so many sweet pit bulls. All those who kill and maim disproportionate to any other breed are just “anecdotes” ---
**Author:** ![Renee\_RL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Renee\_RL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee_RL)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/779 "2013-07-19T19:20:31Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Yes, we’ve become familiar with your style of “debate”. And I am getting with your style of “debate”…it is called denial style ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/780 "2013-07-20T01:53:10Z")
> [@Prejteach2](#): > > Yes every stat is wrong…because there are so many sweet pit bulls. All those who kill and maim disproportionate to any other breed are just “anecdotes” Amazingly enough, I am only reporting what I was told by my insurance agent concerning my homeowner’s policy and dog breeds. Then again, you’re the person who seems to think a conservative-guess estimate of a ~1 in 200,000 risk of a pit bull-type attacking someone fatally makes them a gigantic danger. I’ll put the same questions to you that I put to **cougar** : First, how can you possibly tell whether pit bull-types are more dangerous than other dogs when there are literally no statistics whatsoever (beyond estimates with a swing of multiple millions) about how many dogs of any given breed type there are extant as pets? Second, why do you explain the stats in terms of “pit bull” viciousness when the CDC shows the strongest correlation in their studies with “male, unneutered” dogs being the most responsible for deaths irrespective of breed? Third, how do you differentiate between a problem in the breed itself and a problem of culture surrounding dog ownership that’s fixed on the breed? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969.md?page=40)