[Deleted]

I’ll leave you with one final idea.  I realize it’s a difficult argument because it’s difficult to argue that any death, particularly a child, is a reasonable risk, but I consider the best argument against bans on pit bulls to be the small number of deaths they cause.   One big surprise was how few fatal dog attacks there are.  Pit bulls only cause 5 child deaths a year.  That means in at least 45 of the 50 states there are no deaths at all.  All other breeds combined cause 10.  Should we pass laws against all dogs, to save these 15 children?  Why not?  

I wonder how many children dogs save a year? I know that my dog saved my 2 nieces and a nephew from going out to play in a yard with a she-bear and two cubs...so thats possibly 3 in one day and probably at least one.

My pack in Kingcome chased a grizzly away from me when I unknowingly got too close to its plum tree.

The dogs that are commonly listed as those with most fatal attacks are the largest and most capable of those attacks. Although chihuahua bites are very comomon, I don't even see them because they are rarely bad enough for me to sew up.

Which further highlights the issues with the CDC statistics - they're based on reported dog bites.  The damage done by other dogs may not require 1) a trip to the doctor, or 2) a police report.  However, they've bitten.  They just don't get "counted".  Thus the numbers are very easily misleading if you are trying to calculate probabilities based on them.

And this "calculation" is self-evidently invalid:

Pit bulls only cause 5 child deaths a year. That means in at least 45 of the 50 states there are no deaths at all.

As for

Should we pass laws against all dogs, to save these 15 children? Why not?

The "why not" is more than evident in the anti-BSL discussions all over this board and the internet as a whole.  If you have something new to contribute, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Statements like ‘Have you read the book "How to Lie With Statistics" ' illustrate this perfectly.  These were the first words in the first reply to my post.  I was not Lying With Statistics, and suggesting I did is insulting. 

No one was suggesting that you were lying.  The book is about how someone (not you) can use data and come up with statistics that are false, misleading, or even ridiculous. 

I did my best to find the most credible statistics I could in the time available. The poster had absolutely no basis for this opening volley. She just didn't like the facts I presented.

Bingo!!  You think you presented facts and you did not.  You presented statistics and that is not the same thing as presenting facts.  Until you understand that (read the book!), this whole discussion is pointless.
 
My undergrad degree was in math.  Please believe me when I say that statistics are only as good as the data collected, the collection methods, and the mathematical techniques used to evaluate the data.  A flaw in any of the three areas can invalidate the stats.  In this case, the data is very subjective (breed identity) and the collection methods are haphazard.
 
If all U.S. localities collected the proper data in the same way and verified the breed involved, then with good statistical techniques we might be able to come up with some statistics that could be called "facts". 

Hmmm I kind of figured that this person was a troll, but I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt-as I usually do.  It definitely seems that "stirring the pot" was the only thing this thread was meant to do.  It's sad because an interesting dialogue could have resulted from delving into the statistical analysis. 

No great loss however.

I would much rather see a statistical analysis of number of reported bites per breed.  That would show us a more accurate picture of which dogs are more inclined to bite.  (I think the winner the last two years was the Golden Retriever-followed by the GSD.  Pittie, I don't think even made the top 10.)  I'll see if I can find out.

For anyone that wants to check the  [sm=feedtroll.gif] resource material it is [linkhttp://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0047723/m0047723.asp]HERE[/link].
 
 
And for clarification, the person that asked about the book, was not necessarily inferring that you were lying with statistics-rather that the statistics themselves were lying or incomplete.  As it is those stats were gathered only from the Humane Society US, and from Death Certificates.  Hardly comprehensive data, would you not agree?
 
 

Cars in California alone kill more kids than ALL dogs in the US in any given year.  Why not ban all cars while we are at it?  The kids in question would still be alive if the cars were banned.  Your agrument is fatally flawed.

OK, I don't care who gathered that info or how they got it, but in my experience pit bulls are insanely popular and make up WAY more than 6%.

 
agreed. I went to our local shelter with a friend the other day, and i would say that 35 out of 50 dogs were pits...there were probably 5 mixes, the rest looked purebred. It was already stated that all the dogs aren't registered, so there is no way to count all of them. As far as liscensing dogs go, i've actually suggested to a few of my friends that they liscense their purebred pits under amstaffs to save some possible trouble. But, i know sometimes amstaffs are lumped into "pit bulls" along with other breeds. IF these so called pit attacks are really APBTS, amstaffs, staffordshire bull, bull terrier, and american bulldogs...well, that's not fair anyway! That's like saying german shepherds, malamutes, huskies, etc are all the same.

[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]