|
The problem with what you quote, and what others quote, is that these studies range from simple compilations of bite statistics, which make no attempt to understand the factors underlying the statistics, to those that consider some of the factors and admit that their are other things that are ignored. Consider also that some of the statistics are unreliable. It is estimated by those that study this problems that breeds are misidentified nearly one third of the time in these incidents and that reliable numbers of individual breed populations don't exist.
Feel free to read the study you posted above. I have and it recognizes some of the shortcomings in their study, allowing that there are additional factors that they did not consider.
There are studies that go further and break down the possible contributing factors to a much greater degree and those studies have concluded two things. Breed is not a significant characteristic, being far out-weighed by a slew of other factors. And, not surprisingly given the above, breed-specific legislation to reduce the incidence of dog bites has not been found to make a significant difference.
I have repeatedly suggested that you read the more detailed studies. If you don't read the study, at least read the conclusions presented in the abstract.
For the umpteenth time, I don't disagree that pit bulls are responsible for more than their share of problems. Where we differ is that you put forth the genetics as the dominate causal factor and I consider other factors related to their owners and environment are the larger problem. Eliminate pit bulls, without affecting the other factors, and you'll just more the problem to another breed.
It's pretty simple, really.
|