manifold
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #281
Speaking on those statistics:
If 0.008% of pit bulls are attackers, I would assume:
-Of the 0.008% who attack, there's likely many caused by the emotional immaturity of the owner or of the attacked. Meaning - the data is skewed higher because of abusive owners or kids who grab eyeballs. Most likely. I think it's safe to assume that in a caring home with none of the aforementioned behavior, pit bulls are even SAFER than 99.992%, but LESS SAFE for the emotionally immature.
I'm not debating the fact that a 2yr old is more likely to be "asking for it" than a 10 year old.
I'm saying I'd be no more accepting of the potential consequences of a pit bull attack for a 10 year old than I am for a 2yr old, regardless of the probability of an attack occurring.
But if you're comfortable owning a pit bull once your kid reaches age 10, have at it Wild Bill, just beware of aces and eights.![]()
The potential is close to 0.
There are so many more voluntary things people subject themselves and their kids to that are more dangerous, that it's disingenuous to characterize a relatively low risk behavior (pit bull ownership) as "dangerous" because of the sensationalized stories of those fallen to said tiny risk - ESPECIALLY when it's likely that a lot of those attacks have a lot more going on with them then just an unprovoked innocent dog turned wild.