Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

That argument is simply an attempt to evade the statistics.

 

Even if there is an error factor involved in identifying breeds, how much would that error be? 5%. 10% ????

 

That does not alter the fact that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

That argument is simply an attempt to evade the statistics.

 

Even if there is an error factor involved in identifying breeds, how much would that error be? 5%. 10% ????

 

That does not alter the fact that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed.

 

Evasion? No, not quite. It's a pretty clear statement which shows with clarity that your statistics are, in fact, quite meaningless.

 

You also appear not to be reading the posts actually submitted in this thread, as the one immediately prior to yours discussed the issue of breed.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

This is science. As a person who likes to think in a scientific way, you will be aware of the fact that each statistic that is derived, no matter what the issue, carries a certain error factor. So when we are speaking statistically, we may say that a measurement is X. What we mean, of course, is that the result is X plus or minus the error factor. This is something you are well aware of.

 

Official statistics show that, over a 20 year period, 35% of all humans deaths by dog attack were caused by Pit Bulls. I accept that there is an error. However, for the statistic to be meaningless, the error must be huge.

 

You have suggested, in effect, that the main cause of this error is misidentification of breed. You have offered no real evidence, just assuming that the official gatherers of data are incompetent when it comes to ascertaining dog breed. Bear in mind that in most cases of fatal dog attack, the dog is rounded up and killed. To fail to know the breed from a defined dog corpse is an unbelievably major lapse of competence.

 

So what is the actual error? I suggested 5 to 10%. The second breed that kills next largest number of people was Rottweiler. At about 20%. Are you suggesting that the officials involved in gathering statistics are so damned incompetent that they allow an error of more than 60%????

[iNow]

You just aren't getting it.

 

Error factors are not the same as a completely invalid definition of the subject being measured.

 

 

Let's say I told you that 70% of people like the color purple. But then, when asked to define purple, I provided you the wavelengths of orange, yellow, and red. It means my 70% is meaningless.

 

Is this sinking in yet?

[ParanoiA]

What is the invalid definition? The title of Pit Bull? SkepticLance seems to be making perfect sense here. I'm not sure what the wavelengths of orange, yellow and red represent.

 

From the link:

 

The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta found that pit bulls were involved in 70, or 35 percent, of the 199 fatal dog attacks that occurred in the United States from 1979 to 1996.

 

So, the CDC is reporting this, according to the Boston Globe. Are you suggesting the CDC is grossly incompetent at their research?

[iNow]

So, the CDC is reporting this, according to the Boston Globe. Are you suggesting the CDC is grossly incompetent at their research?

 

You presumably are referring to this link:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

 

 

In the Procedures section, they explicitly state:

 

Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts

 

This means that breed based judgments on the part of a) the reporter, and b) the people interviewed for the report must be relied upon to accurately catagorize the dog as a pitbull. I suggest that errors abound due to these methods.

 

Further, the Humane Society records which they referenced...

 

by use of The Humane Society of the United States’ registry databank.

 

 

Again here, you must rely on people submitting the information to that registry to do so accurately. When I registered my dog to the registry, my data was not validated by the Humane Society itself, it was simply input based on my uninformed answer to the question on their registry form. It's a form, it asks for breed, and the owner can put whatever they think is correct, despite their lack of correct definition or training. I could have said my dog was a bull mastiff, and that's how it would have been entered into the Humane Society registry, even though my dog is an italian greyhound.

 

 

My point, and this has already been substantiated multiple times in this very thread, is that the misidentification of a dog as a pit bull calls that study into question. It is based on biased self-reported definitions of dog breed and news articles which rely on untrained people who call any muscular dog with four legs a pit bull.

 

As a general rule, I have enormous confidence in the CDC and their research methods, however, this specific study is, in fact, of little use when trying to calculate attack numbers split by breed due to it's "grossly incompetent" methods and techniques of breed identification which I've described here (as have others throughout this thread).

 

Am I speaking Swahili here?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So can we conclude that dogs people tend to call "pit bulls" are dangerous?

[ParanoiA]

Ok, so the answer is an implied yes, they're grossly incompetent at their research, at least in this case. Now, back to SkepticLance's error proposition...how far off do you think this will really get? 5%? 10%? 60%?

 

I think it's a fair argument that some people will label their breed incorrectly. I also think it's a fair argument that it's not significant enough to support any notion that's it's all been a big labeling mistake and Pit Bulls are actually sweet muffins.

 

And then there's the obvious question of what breed are they confusing it with? Presumably, we then have a breed that is not being identified, but is responsible for fatal bites - fatal. And despite the attention given a fatal dog attack, they are apparently not identifying the correct breed, which means the proverbial killer is freely roaming the streets while the Pit Bull goes down for it...

 

I see your skepticism, and agree with it actually, but not enough that those numbers aren't meaningful.

[iNow]

So can we conclude that dogs people tend to call "pit bulls" are dangerous?

 

I would say no, and the data supports my position. Considering the overall huge number of these dogs owned which do not attack, regardless of their official breed, those dogs which do/have attack/ed constitute far less than 1% of the overall population termed as "pit bulls."

 

To conclude that they are dangerous based on such a tiny percentage would be an erroneous and unfounded conclusion.

 

 

 

I see your skepticism, and agree with it actually, but not enough that those numbers aren't meaningful.

 

I concede that it is meaningful. I cannot debate that. I suppose that the issue is that the numbers don't warrant an outright ban, which is what is being proposed.

 

 

I've used this illustration before, but bathtubs cause more infant deaths than dogs, so why not ban bathtubs? Why? Because that's ludicrous.

 

 

Now, a ban on wolverines as pets in a populated area by someone without proper training? Maybe... (just maybe...)

[ParanoiA]

I concede that it is meaningful. I cannot debate that. I suppose that the issue is that the numbers don't warrant an outright ban, which is what is being suggested.

 

And I'm with you on that one. In fact, if 100% of all dog bites were Pit Bull I still wouldn't support a ban of any sort. Animals can't be expected to "obey human laws" in the sense that we presuppose they have the capacity to negotiate such ideas. People are the problem here, not the dogs.

 

Of course, I also concede that those numbers are inflated, to what extent I don't know. Also the popularity of the breed (which was brought up earlier in the thread) coupled with the seemingly innate attraction by irresponsible owners supports the people problem and explains some of those numbers too, I think.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I would say no, and the data supports my position. Considering the overall huge number of these dogs owned which do not attack, regardless of their official breed, those dogs which do/have attack/ed constitute far less than 1% of the overall population termed as "pit bulls."

 

To conclude that they are dangerous based on such a tiny percentage would be an erroneous and unfounded conclusion.

So I guess the issue wasn't what breed they are. It's that they're not really dangerous regardless of what you call them.

[iNow]

So I guess the issue wasn't what breed they are. It's that they're not really dangerous regardless of what you call them.

 

I can't help but agree with that point (although, I would avoid suggesting that they can never be dangerous... just like anything else in our world has the potential to be dangerous), but it seems there are some passionate proponents of an outright ban who feel otherwise.

[SkepticLance]

Here is what wikipedia says.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

 

"[edit] Pit Bulls and dog bite related human fatalities

A study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association in September, 2000 reports that in the 20 years studied (1979 to 1998) "Pit-bull type dogs" and Rottweilers were involved in one half of approximately 300 dog bite related fatalities in the US[3]. Another study of American and Canadian dog bite-related fatalities from September 1982 to November 2006 by Merritt Clifton titled Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, reported much higher numbers of human deaths and maulings by Pit Bulls (1,110). That report cited that Pit Bulls were responsible for 65% of fatal dog attacks. [4] This study also noted: "Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, Pit Bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as they attacked children.""

 

I don't care too much about the politics of this issue. As has been regularly pointed out, lots of things kill more people than pit bulls. For this reason, I really do not care whether they get banned or not.

 

However, I get annoyed at verbal crap. People who try to bend or ignore statistics because they don't like the data, really bug me. I feel the evangelical need to force them into recognising that good data is good data. If you don't like it, you still gotta swallow it.

 

So the term 'pit bull' referes to a TYPE of dog rather than a specific BREED??? So what? That TYPE kills more people than any other.

 

Pit bulls, whether type or breed, kill more people than any other breed, in lots of countries, including here in NZ. The exception is Britain, where they were banned in the 1990's.

[iNow]

However, I get annoyed at verbal crap. People who try to bend or ignore statistics because they don't like the data, really bug me. I feel the evangelical need to force them into recognising that good data is good data. If you don't like it, you still gotta swallow it.

Rather funny you should say this, as you appear to be doing the same thing... suggesting that the numbers are truly staggering... all 300 fatatlities in 20 years... gosh... it's an epidemic. Why aren't the authorities reacting?

 

 

Nobody is ignoring data, my friend. We are simply trying to show you that your statistics are biased, the methods flawed, and even if there were greater confidence in your data the numbers do not justify the actions being proposed.

 

 

As has been regularly pointed out, lots of things kill more people than pit bulls. For this reason, I really do not care whether they get banned or not.

Well, I'm glad to hear that. Unfortunately, your posts here have indicated otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess we're done here now.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know about being done here...seems obvious we need to do something about bath tubs.

 

Of course, there's a statistical problem there too, as I wonder how many bath tub fatalities were actually shower stalls...

[insane_alien]

I don't know about being done here...seems obvious we need to do something about bath tubs.

 

i think you'll find that there are many many more bathtubs than pitbulls. and also, i challenge you to find a case where a bathtub viciously mauled and killed anyone.

[iNow]

This guy didn't seem to do too well:

 

 

 

 

And, to be frank, I'm not too comfortable where the below is heading:

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

i think you'll find that there are many many more bathtubs than pitbulls.

 

I'm sure that's adjusted for.

 

and also, i challenge you to find a case where a bathtub viciously mauled and killed anyone.

 

Isn't that what they usually do? Hit people really hard, sometimes break some bones, and sometimes knock them unconscious and maybe drown them.

[falcon9393]

pit bulls are only as bad as you make them if trained wrong ya they are probly gonna bite you my cousin has 2 of them they arent mean well at least to me :]

[insane_alien]

I'm sure that's adjusted for.

 

sure is not evidence that it is the case.

 

Isn't that what they usually do? Hit people really hard, sometimes break some bones, and sometimes knock them unconscious and maybe drown them.

 

peoples own clumsiness is not a bathtub attack. the bathtub didn't hit anybody or break any bones or knock anyone unconcious or drown anybody.

 

the water did the drowning gravity, and the people hit the bathtub and the people broke their bones and knocked them selves out on the bathtub.

 

bathtubs don't kill people, people kill people.... with bathtubs.

[ParanoiA]

All the more reason to go with a shower stall instead, and it leaves more room in the bathroom for other things...

[SkepticLance]

I have a firm proposition to put.

 

Human beings NEVER commit murder. My evidence is that I know a couple of hundred people quite well, and none of them have ever murdered anyone.

 

Anyone see the flaw in that logic?

 

Pit bulls are gentle and friendly, and are not dangerous. My evidence is that I know a few pit bulls and they are all friendly and tame.

 

Anyone see the flaw in that logic?

[iNow]

I have a firm proposition to put.

 

Human beings NEVER commit murder. My evidence is that I know a couple of hundred people quite well, and none of them have ever murdered anyone.

 

Anyone see the flaw in that logic?

 

Pit bulls are gentle and friendly, and are not dangerous. My evidence is that I know a few pit bulls and they are all friendly and tame.

 

Anyone see the flaw in that logic?

 

Yes, I do see a flaw in that logic. It sure is a good thing I wasn't using that same logic as you implied that I did with your post.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Why do you have to take it personally? My post was not aimed at you.

[Mr Skeptic]

peoples own clumsiness is not a bathtub attack. the bathtub didn't hit anybody or break any bones or knock anyone unconcious or drown anybody.

 

the water did the drowning gravity, and the people hit the bathtub and the people broke their bones and knocked them selves out on the bathtub.

 

bathtubs don't kill people, people kill people.... with bathtubs.

 

What about people who are really stupid around dogs and get bitten? People frequently play a large role in getting bitten by a dog, either by aggravating the dog in the first place, or doing something silly like running.