All dogs have the potential to be lovely it's arsehole owners that cause the problem.I met a pocket bully yesterday she was lovely
I'm pretty certain that significantly less than eight percent of dogs in this country are banned breeds. Do you have any evidence at all that it's that high?
So you agree that dangerous banned dogs are more likely to attack people than legal breeds.I never said it was “that high”. Whatever that is. Just that the number is likely to be hard to ascertain.
Can you conceive how muscular they are?In case of an emergency splay a dogs front legs out to either side
It's the ribcage that'll goCan you conceive how muscular they are?
I'll be sure to tell my eight year old.It's the ribcage that'll go
In case of an emergency splay a dogs front legs out to either side
So you agree that dangerous banned dogs are more likely to attack people than legal breeds.
Ewwweeeweew!!!
Did I forget to ask permission to speak?
Fucking asshat.
In case of an emergency splay a dogs front legs out to either side
I’m sure similar would happen with a Lion. That doesn’t mean I’d fight one to find out.It's the ribcage that'll go
If you're going to produce data on attacks it should be as a percentage otherwise it's useless.Way fewer of them. Labradors come out high on bitey dog lists as there's loads of them.
You join in a conversation and then tell me I'm talking to the wrong person? Fuck off and die you pointless waste of amino acids.
Urban myth. Most people are about as likely to disable an XL Bully by doing that as I am to KO Tyson Fury with one punch.
Yeah, I said it would be hard to tell how many dogs of the banned breeds are out there. It’s kind of relevant regardless of whether you’ve pinned your flaccid ego to it being above as opposed to below a given number.
No idea but the percentage of attacks per breed will stay the same.What percentage of dogs overall are dangerous banned breeds?
Thread attracts virtual XL Bully owner-posters shocker.
The 8% came from the RSPCA in platinumsage earlier post.It's you that's making posts and refusing to back them up. Eight percent would be one in twelve and a half. Where are these dogs? Not in any of my local parks. I don't need detailed data to tell me there aren't nine hundred thousand banned dogs in this country.
Is it.Text parsing failure. Possibly something to do with the comma..
Eight percent of attacks are by banned dogs. I'm making the point that unless banned dogs are eight percent (or over) of the UK canine population then they are attacking people at a higher rate than dogs that aren't. You seemed to not understand that in your post.The 8% came from the RSPCA in platinumsage earlier post.
Is it.
Eight percent of attacks are by banned dogs. I'm making the point that unless banned dogs are eight percent (or over) of the UK canine population then they are attacking people at a higher rate than dogs that aren't. You seemed to not understand that in your post.
Which is the point I made earlier in that the dat should be presented as a percentage rather than just numbers if that's what they've done.Eight percent of attacks are by banned dogs. I'm making the point that unless banned dogs are eight percent (or over) of the UK canine population then they are attacking people at a higher rate than dogs that aren't. You seemed to not understand that in your post.
Most of them by XL bullies. Hence the argument to ban them.Well, that changes over time. Last year, and so far this year, no fatal attacks were by banned breeds.
Which was being held up as an example of the success of these laws.
Most of them by XL bullies. Hence the argument to ban them.
8% and 0% are both successes.Which is the point I made earlier in that the dat should be presented as a percentage rather than just numbers if that's what they've done.