That's already evidenced by the deaths
It's assumed on your part, and as already established, other breeds are more likely to seriously injure than kill.
it's not like people either die from an attack or have mild injuries, in the most serious of cases where people could potentially die some will be saved by medical intervention and others will sadly die... that's dependent on the expertise of medical staff, how quickly an ambulance can arrive etc...
Pit Bull types are more likely to kill in an attack. That's the issue people have with them.
Other breeds are generally responsible for a higher rate of serious injury, regardless of whatever expertise you're now wittering on about.
That's completely muddled, those things aren't mutually exclusive, quite the opposite; that a dog breed has been killing people doesn't negate that it seriously injures people too!
No-one said they were exclusive. I don't know where you came up with that idea.
Yes, a breed can also injure, but the issue raised was that Pit Bull types rarely just injure, being far more likely to kill compared to other breeds. Now you're asserting otherwise.
Note again, you still defelct from backing up your assertion re: mongrels...
Oh, it's indicative, of course...
mate, you are half the problem of the thread too, so dont go pointing fingers solely at
@dowie.
I don't always have to be right, though, which is where Dowie gets his panties in a twist. Doubly so in this thread, because he's also wrong and has to ignore the evidence of others in order to maintain his illusion of his opinoin being the only thing that matters.
Why push people to a higher standard? Have you stepped outside and seen the type of public this gov brings up through education etc?
Because people should take responsibility for their own actions, and because otherwise we'll have to ban everything any time a few people do something stupid with it... Given the number of road deaths per year, cars will be the first to go.
You can't blame the government for this.
Majority do not want to be to "higher standards", whatever that means, truthfully it means you want people to act and think like your self.
Oh, in that case, let them own whatever dog they want. Any deaths will be the fault of the government....!!
I'm glad you believe I act and think to a far higher standard than you, but really it's just common sense and common courtesy.
Now imagine, countering sensible suggestions and legal action to reduce the death of a number of humans because you believe they are not to the same "high standards" as yourself and if they were, the problems would not exist. There's a name for this...
The suggestions are
not sensible, though, as they do not factor in the actual causes of the problem, nor do they do anything to actually solve the issue.
Those "high standards" you're getting so flappy about are actually the opinions of Police, lawyers, vets, animal handlers and a plethora of similar industry professionals, though, all of whom have a far greater grasp of the issue.
I'd love to hear your name for this, though... and why you think their expertise is so irrelevant that you'd dismiss it.
) the chavs than the XL Bully's but that's unfortunately not possible. Anyone who claims there was no elevated danger around these types of dogs and their culture is in denial imo.
