aww

You say "alright", like you are responding to what I'm saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying

As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs

As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:

In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).

and that is their emphasis.

You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.

Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I'm not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.

And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.