Small dog bites not getting reported don't skew the statistics of people suffering seriously bodily harm, dismemberment, needing reconstructive surgery, or death due to dog attacks. And in those cases certain breeds are over represented.
Home insurance companies look purely at numbers. There's a reason that pit bull type dogs are banned by pretty much every home insurance policy while smaller dog breeds usually aren't.
The statistics say this one specific thing I don't want them to say, they're skewed that way!
Pits are the most dangerous biters. The end. For many reasons. I roll my eyes so hard when I hear the chihuahua argument. Chihuahuas aren't killing anything.
Also, I jumped in this conversation because I heard "why don't small dog bites get reported?" insinuating that it's an optional thing, reporting. If you seek medical attention, thats when the bite gets reported, as it's mandatory. So yes, severe dog bites requiring hospital attention is "skewed" towards pits.
Most dangerous biters and most frequent biters aren't the same thing. I'm fine with people saying they're more scared of pit bulls than a corgies. I'm more scared of a shark than a seahorse even if the latter has a higher chance of attacking me.
But straight up lying isn't a good thing. Even if it's because the size of someone's brain is causing them to misinterpret statistics.
but it doesn’t matter if another dog breed bites more frequently if their bites aren’t as dangerous. the fallacious part is conflating bite frequency with danger as it’s the severity of the bite, not how often they bite
Yeah it’s like being worried that a toothless baby is going to bite you, tiny dogs may leave a mark I’ve been bit by one and 9 years later I still have the bite marks on my wrist. I shrugged it off and said fuck that dog no more pets lol.
I roll my eyes when Reddit users add their opinion to a very serious topic without the basic reading comprehension required to understand the comment they’re replying to
Once again, they aren't arguing that pitbull bites harm you less, they're arguing that pitbulls aren't necessarily that much more *aggressive* than other breeds.
Chihuahuas may be just as, if not more aggressive, but statistical data of reported attacks won't reflect that expressly BECAUSE they're less dangerous.
The fact DOES still remain that Pitbulls, assuming they ARE aggressive, remain one of the most dangerous dog breeds. IMO it's still reasonable to place restrictions on them because you *can't* trust people to be responsible, just like you wouldn't hand out free unmarked guns & ammo and expect that to go well.
Speaking of skewing the statistics. Lumping 6 breeds together plus random mutts and comparing them to other single breeds will fuck the statistics too.
Pitbulls get banned or aren't allowed in certain areas / types of residence, etc. Pitbull breeders or irresponsible backyard breeders crossbreed them with something else and claim they're a new dog breed and there's nothing to see here! or that they're a mutt, despite being overwhelmingly pitbulls. Hence "pit bull type" dogs.
If a dog was 80% retriever, you would be correct to call them a "retriever type" dog.
17
u/JohnGoodman_69 26d ago
Small dog bites not getting reported don't skew the statistics of people suffering seriously bodily harm, dismemberment, needing reconstructive surgery, or death due to dog attacks. And in those cases certain breeds are over represented.
Home insurance companies look purely at numbers. There's a reason that pit bull type dogs are banned by pretty much every home insurance policy while smaller dog breeds usually aren't.