Pit bull advocates are known to lie through their teeth with no sense of shame or guilt. This lying contributes to the pit bull problem; unsuspecting owners get a "nice" pit bull, only to later be killed by their own dog.
I found a site that is no different - it is full of blatant lies. What I wonder is why people believe this bullshit even when faced with the facts. Here's a breakdown on a couple of the lies on bulladelphia.org.
Lie #1: "No spayed/neutered, indoor pit bull has ever killed a person."
It doesn't take much digging around to find cases of loved, spayed/neutered indoor pit bulls killing people. Like Tina Marie Canterbury.
October 2, 2007 | Middleburg, FL
Tina Marie Canterbury, 42-years old, was killed by her two red-nosed pit bulls. She had raised both dogs, Rebel and Thor, since they were pups. Both had been neutered and lived indoors. According to her cousin, Bill Canterbuy, the dogs often slept with her at night. Tina had been taking out the trash when the dogs attacked. Her son attempted to rescue her and was also bitten. Authorities eventually shot and killed both dogs. Animal Crimes Detective Annie Henderson said,"This was a responsible owner. These animals never had any history of any type of aggression."
Dirty lie exposed.
"According to studies by the CDC, a person is more likely to be killed…
- by a family member
- by a falling coconut
- in a bedroom slipper-related accident
- choking on a marble
- drowning in a 5-gallon bucket
- getting struck by lightning
…than by a pit bull."
These "studies" were never performed. I emailed the website and asked them politely if they could send me a direct link to the source of the material, but all they could provide was the front page. How do I know these studies weren't performed? Besides n extensive search of the CDC's website, I took the liberty to ask the CDC whether or not the studies were conducted. Their response when asked if the scenarios listed by bulladelphia.org really are more likely to kill a person than a pit bull:
"NCHS [CDC's National Center for Health Statistics] does not collect data to confirm the statistical claim you are referring to."
Translation: They doesn't perform that kind of study. If they don't perform those studies, there is no way that bulladelphia.org could have acquired that information from the CDC. However, in the same email response was this, that contradicts bulladelphia.org's claims:
"A CDC study on fatal dog bites found that at least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human deaths over 20 years. Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs were involved in more than half of the deaths."
I also found a report conducted by the CDC on breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, which also contradicts bulladelphia.org's claims:
"...the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF [dog bite related fatalities] in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."
That's right. Breed-specific problem.
It's worth noting that for falling coconuts to be more likely to kill somebody than a pit bull, a falling coconut would have to kill a U.S. citizen every 21 days. I don't know about you, but where I live in the Midwestern U.S., there are more pit bulls than palm trees.
Case closed. Again, pit bull advocates are quite often liars, because to justify keeping a pit bull, one must tell blatant, dirty lies. Pit bull advocates also choose to ignore the facts because it will go against their twisted worldviews. Why do they not feel guilty?
Oh, I almost forgot. Here's the story behind the "coconuts kill more people than X" myth. It started with sharks, and it was recycled for pit bulls. Whatever you plug the myth into, it's false.