No need to be snarky here. It’s just good practice to provide a source when making claims to statistics. “Just Google it” doesn’t validate a position.
Now that you’ve provided a source, we can talk about the information at hand instead of talking out of our asses.
With the source you’re quoting, and in fact the specific sentence in this Wikipedia article, the sources provided for that claim are 3 news articles and a UK government webpage.
That government web page details the way someone can safely and legally have a dog of these breeds.
With the news reporting, even a cursory glance at those news articles show that there could be reasons other than the biology of the breed in play here.
Asks for sources. When gets source, comes up with any excuse including government figures as to why they’re wrong.
You don’t want source, you just don’t to believe it because you always had that believe that all dogs are good, they just got bad owners. Maybe you’re partly right, owners and training plays a big part, but even with that, these dogs are overwhelming involved in incidents and fatal incidents in the UK despite there being horrible dog owners of every breed.
The allowing these dog breeds was a compromise to try and get the legislation through, but most know these dogs are bred for fighting, and are so strong, they are lethal. Even families who cared for the dogs and loved them well, and one accident, and a child is dead. Ooops. Some dog breeds just ain’t safe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom
“Between 2021 and 2023, around half of fatal dog attacks were caused by a single breed, the American Bully XL”
Gee, that was hard to google
No need to be snarky here. It’s just good practice to provide a source when making claims to statistics. “Just Google it” doesn’t validate a position.
Now that you’ve provided a source, we can talk about the information at hand instead of talking out of our asses.
With the source you’re quoting, and in fact the specific sentence in this Wikipedia article, the sources provided for that claim are 3 news articles and a UK government webpage.
That government web page details the way someone can safely and legally have a dog of these breeds.
With the news reporting, even a cursory glance at those news articles show that there could be reasons other than the biology of the breed in play here.
Asks for sources. When gets source, comes up with any excuse including government figures as to why they’re wrong.
You don’t want source, you just don’t to believe it because you always had that believe that all dogs are good, they just got bad owners. Maybe you’re partly right, owners and training plays a big part, but even with that, these dogs are overwhelming involved in incidents and fatal incidents in the UK despite there being horrible dog owners of every breed.
The allowing these dog breeds was a compromise to try and get the legislation through, but most know these dogs are bred for fighting, and are so strong, they are lethal. Even families who cared for the dogs and loved them well, and one accident, and a child is dead. Ooops. Some dog breeds just ain’t safe.
This is basically a forum, people discuss things on forums. There are statistics that you provided and now they’re discussing them.