Let me preface this by saying, I don't math well, so I may have nothing here and welcome correction of my perception.
Quote:
|
Fact: When it comes to dog bites, it very often is the breed. Each year, about one PB in 100,000 kills someone, compared with one non-PB in about 10 million. About one adopted PB in 30,000 kills or disfigures someone after passing behavioral screening. (Other dangerous breeds, like Rottweilers and Huskies do plenty of damage too; more on them another time).
|
Isn't that a bad statistic? Are they not singling out PB in it's own breed count numbers but then clumping all other breeds into the 10 million number? To be a correct stat, wouldn't they need to identify the breed of the one non-PB, give us it's breed count, and then we'd have an accurate comparison?
Or am I reading the stat wrong?