>>35595633>The fact that you are trying to use deadliness of pit bulls in their defense is just laughable.It's a defense against the myth that they are somehow more "inherently vicious" than other breeds. No shit a densely-muscled dog is going to pack a harder bite than one without all that muscle. It still stands that the "statistics" contain a lie of omission in that they count injury and death while excluding the overall details of the behavior itself (that behavior being bites).
>Are you assuming that those "demographics" only own pit bulls?Uh, no, as I said before they also tend to own, as YOU just said, the rottweiler breed (which is consistently a runner up behind pit bulls in most bite "studies").
>And It's pretty fucking hard to actually mistake any of those for a pit bull.It could be dark out. The attack could happen so quick you never got a good look at the dog. Adrenaline could affect your memory. Hell, the person could just be plain ignorant and not know what a pit bull should look like (pic related). The human mind is not infallible, this is why eyewitness accounts are considered circumstantial evidence. Unless someone with years of experience handling dogs goes down and verifies the breed of the attacker on both a physical and genetic level to determine the stock, then there is likelihood for error.
And no, county/city pet registries are not proper verification, not unless they have a pedigree certificate on file. Local municipalities vary widely when comes to the verification standards they require, many places you just fill out whatever the fuck you want and it's accepted.
