Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM
It's amazing to me how many intelligent people here pound their fist standing behind meaningless statistics using frequency as the "proof" or "evidence" when they are clueless as to how to properly interpret reality.
There is a distinction between frequency and rate as it relates to a population (or (classification within a sample group) (if that statement didn't make sense to you, stay out of arguments where you cite statistics).
A sample of exactly what I'm saying ....
2 people in Townsville, USA were attacked by a pit bull.
4 people, in that same town were attacked by a shepherd.
There are 10 pit bulls and 1000 shepherds living in Townville.
Which breed of dog represents a higher risk (genetic disposition) toward attacking people.
These threads are merry-go-rounds.
|
https://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-stat...likely-to-kill
Opening statement from the above article states:
As of May 25, 2013, the USA death count from dogs in 2013 is 14. Of these, 13 people were killed by pit bulls. In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)