I think people tend to be too emotional about dogs (in both directions).
Bad owners can make a good dog turn bad. ...And sometime good dogs just go bad. It happens.
Was it the breed? Was it the owner? Can you divide the factors in a unbiased manner?
'Shootin for fun' gave a very good article. Anybody read the article? Or more interesting, read the source material.
How about the article 'Vet Med today' from 2000. LINK See tables 1 and 2.
There's a 20-YEAR study reviewing dog-bites and the respective breed (many breeds/many owners).
The article shows Pitbull-types and Rottweiller topped the charts by a significant margin.
This is a statistical review, OVER 20 YEARS, which covers many breeds, and (inherently) also covers many types of owners (good/bad/mediocre).
The statistics seems to indicate there's something going on. That doesn't mean every Pit/Rott is bad, but there is a significantly higher probability that something may go wrong.
So if your argument is that it's the owner or the animal (Pit/Rott) - but never the breed as a whole.
...Well, your argument doesn't seem to match the study. So please provide your *DATA* to justify your position.
Should we kill the breed? Probably not. But the study definitely shows certain breeds are more risky than others.
But you could certainly put laws in place to discourage bad owners from wanting those breeds or require stricter safety measures.
Maybe Impose stricter laws on owners to carry a minimum insurance coverage. Stricter laws enforcing taller fences. Etc....
Thanks Shootin...
A background check to own a pit would eliminate much of the problem. Hell, we have to go through one of those to own an inanimate object guaranteed us by the constitution.