>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar ticle-4548906/Pit-bul

>>2427891
>it's totally normal for a dog to maul babies if they are not trained :^)
"Normal" implies something that occurs regularly, more often than not.

if it were normal for pit bulls to maul babbies at least half of them would do it. This would mean you'd have hundreds of millions of mauled babby stories instead of one or even one hundred.

in reality "hundreds of millions" is too large a number for you to comprehend, you have no idea how far from normal your one example is. Because you're incapable of imagining how small one is compared to hundreds of millions.

>>2427918
they're responsible for over 80% of the human deaths caused by dogs each year in the US

>>2427923
unless every person in the US is killed by a pit bull, it's not normal.

>>2427924
>caused by dogs

reading comprehension is hard

>>2427927
>normal
statistics is well beyond your grasp

>>2427923

Aren't most of those misidentified labradors?

>>2427954
no
labradors can be bitey but dog and human fatalies from labs in extremely low

>>2427891
>left alone
there's the key word

>>2427932
Not the anon you are replying to but I'm 99% certain you are retarded.

>>2427924
Which is a absolute drop in the bucket. Dog bites pretty well kill "no one," statistically speaking. I think dog bite fatalities are on par with lighting strike fatalities (30 and 50 respectively a year iirc).

This isn't even getting into the whole identification thing, where "pitbull" just becomes a catch all term for a multigenerational mutt.