General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Academic Impostor Behind the Pit Bull Hysteria [View all]baldguy
(36,649 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 7, 2014, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)
And since that is the advertised objective of BSL, it has failed.
And did you even notice that your chart makes no sense? Just look at 2001: The breed labeled "Pit Bull Terrier" accounted for 34% of dogs, right behind it is "All pit bull breeds" which they list as "includes the four breeds affected by the ban: pit bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier" for 24%, then below is "Staffordshire Bull terrier" at 16%.
Don't you think "All pit bull breeds" at 24% would include "Pit Bull Terrier" at 34% plus "Staffordshire Bull terrier" at 16% plus whatever percent is made up by "American pit bull terrier" and "American Staffordshire terrier"? Your chart says it does.
Sorry, but 24 ≠ 34 + 16 + whatever. Your numbers just don't add up. That's one indication of bullshit propaganda from Rob Ford's cronies in Animal Services.
Now, when you ask the people who don't have a political axe to grind, like the Toronto Humane Society, you'd find that there were 4000-5000 dog bites per year before BSL, and about 4000-5000 dog bites per year after BSL, at least up to 2009:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/toronto-humane-society/ths-study-finds-breed-specific-legislation-has-not-reduced-dog-bites/384465083730

And if we accept the article you've posted as gospel truth (which I don't), it seems that dog bites actually INCREASED to 9219 in 2013 after the ban has been in place for 8 yrs.
BSLs always fail, because the assumptions they're based on are lies, and as such BSLs bring more harm to people when enacted.