The original piece, http://www.opposingviews.com/i/topanimalrights/pit-bulls-6-times-more-likely-attack-their-owners, generated more than 600 comments. Now there is a living document on these attacks and that is the inspiration for Part Two.
First there was the "Are Pit Bulls Different?" analysis done by HSUS behaviorists. "Familiarity with the animal also seems to offer less protection in the case of Pit Bulls. Out of 143 Pit Bull attacks, 19 (13.3%) involved attacks on owners; out of 135 attacks by other breeds, only 3 (2.2%) involved the owner."
In 1987 there was a "Pit Bull Summit"/veterinarian/animal control symposium at Tufts University which produced a slightly important public safety information: Pit Bull Bites Are Worse. Later in 1993, the AVMA Professional Liability Trust published this document http://www.scribd.com/doc/13625481/Excerpts-Dos-and-Donts-Concerning-Vicious-Dogs-by-Donald-Clifford.
Since that 1987 Symposium, 229 Americans have been killed by pit bulls, plus dog fighting/breeding and pit bull advocacy have festered into a billion dollars a year, co-dependent, tax free economy in which a host of individuals make their living.
Please read the rest at http://cravendesires.blogspot.com/2012/05/vintage-darwin-attacks.html including the extensive list of those attacks on owners that will be update as needed. This doesn't include the children of those who own pit bulls. That list can be found here: http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/index.php
One has to ask with all of this baggage, why would a person choose this breed? There are studies addressing this and the very people that should not have this breed are the very ones preferring and owning the breed. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence addressed this issue:
This study examined the association between ownership of high-risk (“vicious”) dogs and the presence of deviant behaviors in the owners as indicated by court convictions. We also explored whether two characteristics of dog ownership (abiding licensing laws and choice of breed) could be useful areas of inquiry when assessing risk status in settings where children are present.
Our matched sample consisted of 355 owners of either licensed or cited dogs that represented high or low-risk breeds.
Categories of criminal convictions examined were aggressive crimes, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, crimes involving children, firearm convictions, and major and minor traffic citations. Owners of cited high-risk (“vicious”) dogs had significantly more criminal convictions than owners of licensed low-risk dogs.
Findings suggest that the ownership of a high-risk (“vicious”) dog can be a significant marker for general deviance and should be an element considered when assessing risk for child endangerment.
Please share with anyone you may know considering getting a pit bull. And thanks to CravenDesires once again for the outstanding research.