I believe the cutoff is in the 80’s?

All of their tools are completely unrelated to what craftsman used to be.

Old craftsman or new? Because if new you might not be Craftsman very long. Old craftsman tools will outlive us all and if you can find them at a garage sale, buy em.

New craftsman tools are pretty much just junk.

Yes, owner surveys over tens of thousands of individuals regardless of breed meaning no implicit bias. The survey finds the same result across all breeds, the survey isn’t specific to pits.

You really thought you did something there didn’t you? Please learn to trust science over inflammatory media

Like if everyone claimed they had a perfect puppy, your critique would hold water, but flaws were reported across all breeds…

It’s absolutely not “deep in their brain” breed doesn’t really impact behavior

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828|MCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg|TS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629

How you raise a dog does. If you see an aggressive dog, blame the owner.

Well your article isn’t a study, it’s a literary review from a very biased source of a Colleen Lynn

In fact if you want to read up on your source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogsbite.org

You can see that she complains about science and ignores expert opinions in the field because they disagree with her.

It’s very telling when her literary review comes to very different conclusions than actual scientists performing studies in the field.

Okay, because I saw you’re a fan of banpitbull subreddit.

I need to ask a very simple question. Do you care about actual safety, or do you just want pitbulls banned? Like what is your goal?

Because all science in the last 5 years states people, not pitbulls, are the problem. Globally. That’s the issue.

If you actually want “less harm and death done” then you need to listen to the scientific experts and stop pushing for BSL, and instead push for things that move towards the goal of less harm and death.

But okay let’s address the rest now

Are you shitting me? https://financesonline.com/number-of-dogs-in-the-us/

You don’t need to have a census to have a pretty damn good idea of how many there are. And you all keep telling me that I’m disingenuous.

You say that and then the link you provided did not give me a very good idea about per capita of the breeds… I have no idea how many of any breed there are.

This is a persons representation of a study. Not the study. but it links to here (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639) So if breed has nothing to do with anything. How come there’s qualities organized by breed by the study? You can’t claim that behaviors aren’t affected by breed, then show me a study that shows a bunch of behaviors organized by breed. And you all keep telling me that I’m disingenuous.

You are being disingenuous… Less than 9% difference across all breeds. A dog is a dog is a dog. Some howl, some don’t. Some are more active. A dog is a dog is a dog.

Except this misses one big premise… Amount of cases can be exactly the same, but severity of each case can go down severely. Also amount of cases can be the same, but have less fatalities!

Well it was counting hospitalizations… So it’s safe to say we’re only talking about severe ones…

That combined with the pseudoscience that was spewed by Merritt Clifton, that everyone still quotes today, and you’ve got yourself some statistical issues.

In case people don’t know who Merritt is

So I’m not the other user but I’ll go ahead and help you out.

AVMA quick summary of all the problems with trying to blame a set of breeds: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/dog-bite-risk-and-prevention-role-breed

Study that shows breed doesn’t impact behavior in any substantial way: https://www.aaas.org/news/dogs-breed-doesnt-determine-its-behavior#:~:text=According to the findings%2C breed,exclusive to any one breed. Basically a dog is a dog is a dog and the main indicator of how a dog is going to act is how it was raised.

Study shows that BSL doesn’t work: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208393

Meaning if you remove pitbulls and other “aggressive” dogs, people still end up in the hospital at the same rate from dog bites.

All this points to the simple fact that if you give an asshole a dog, that dog will be dangerous.

Also as an aside any claim to “per capita” with regards to dogs is baseless. There has not ever been a dog census nor would we reasonably be able to do one, so we can’t make any claims about “this breed has a higher percentage of biters” or anything to that effect.

Point of order: That’s not an appeal to authority. The other user was pointing out organizations that have actual expertise in the field. “Appeal to authority” is if they said “Bill Gates said pitbulls are fine”

He’s an authority figure, but not expertise in the matter.

Whereas the CDC, the humane society, the American veterinary association etc etc are actually experts in at least some part of the argument.

Yeah I have to agree with everyone else. If this is a question you’re actually asking, it’s probably a question for your doctor, because the actual answer should just be “just breathe dude”

I mean you attacked me because you didn’t like a logical, obvious, critique of something. Which again, I never said it was bad, I just said it could be improved. And you said things that I just repeated back at you, and now you can’t handle your own words?

Goodness me indeed.

Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It’s just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.

A CEO is not a manager. You’re already embarrassing yourself here 😉

Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve been a treasurer for a number of medium size charities. I know exactly how much money is needed to support the charities objectives.

I did read your comment, but I kinda assumed you either were lying or getting really defensive. There’s a lot of waste that wouldn’t exist if they were consolidated into the government.

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

For example?

Yeah sure, since it’s already been brought to. The red cross does blood donations, but they’re only 35% of America’s non profit blood donations, there’s also America’s blood centers and vitalent and more! So much overhead! If they were all one organization, you could eliminate much of the overhead and more effectively coordinate the blood donations.

Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you’ll understand why it exists.

Sorry mate, but you’ve got your head up your ass and you’re getting defensive.

I have been involved in both charities and government.

I mean, you can look anywhere, whether it’s upwards of 70% of medical donations not being used: https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/article/11/5/379/5420717?login=false#151492984

Also you can dive into the problems with definitions of “the cause” https://hbr.org/2009/06/beware-of-highly-efficient-cha

A charity can loosely define what counts as their cause which means they can tell you that 95 cents on the dollar go to the cause, even if it’s only 20 cents.

Moreover it’s really suspect that the rich keep getting richer even in the “nonprofit” sector: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/24/15377056/big-charities-best-charities-evaluation-nonprofit

Furthermore, even from an innocent standing. When you have multiple charities working on the same thing, that’s crazy inefficient.

Let’s talk about the Red Cross, great organization. One of the things they do is blood donations. They’re responsible for about 35% of the blood donations in the US, the rest come from other non profits.

That means there’s competition among the non profit blood donation organizations to provide blood for emergencies. Whether they want to compete or not, they have to.

Just from a blanket statement, if you moved all of those blood donations under a single entity, you remove a lot of inefficiencies.

You don’t need to advertise for multiple organizations, you don’t need to coordinate with all those different organizations during a crisis, you don’t have the same overhead for the same problems across multiple organizations. It’s just by design, inefficient. It’s not their fault.

So first off, you can totally volunteer for government things. I mean, I can volunteer at my local government library for instance, there’s nothing about a government contract that removes the ability to volunteer.

But I wouldn’t need to have volunteers if the red cross and all competing charities were swallowed up into one thing.

There are a bunch of organizations that do the same or part of what the red cross does. That’s a lot of wasted time of resources, that would be better spent lumped together as a collective unit.

Charity is simply one of the places you absolutely don’t want competition/capitalism. You want oversight and efficiency, that’s the government.

That was the point of my comment.

I think ideally the point of charity organizations should be a stop gap measure that identifies issues the government needs to address, and then temporarily addresses them.

How that works in practice 🤷‍♂️

I’m not saying the soup kitchen shouldn’t exist. It’s absolutely necessary, it should just be part of the guaranteed baseline, provided by the government.

The CEO equivalent doesn’t exist in government. Your entire argument is pointless.

Do you realize how little a CEO does?

Do you realize how little the actual money donated to an organization trickles down to the cause?

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

In fact in pretty much every instance of a modern government taking over a service, it becomes cheaper and more efficient. That’s why many governments run utilities, and healthcare.

Look I’m not saying your service is useless, but I am saying it would be more efficient elsewhere.

So then we should ignore Kant and give money to individuals because it’s better than nothing