The Exception Proves the RuleYes, it’s true that pit bulls and similar dogs aren’t always dangerous, nasty brutes. It’s also true that seat belts occasionally cost lives.
And I could go on with other cases of occasional exceptions to norms. But the fact of the matter is that there are far, far more cases of pit bulls doing harm than of the contrary.
Yes, pit bulls raised by kind, loving people — as opposed to the poor mutts bred and trained for brutality by men (mostly) who, apparently, regard the dogs as manhood-enhancers — can be little scrappers on behalf of their human pack-members. But, again, that appears to be the minority of pit bulls.
Of course, pit bulls themselves aren’t to blame. They’re dogs, and they usually do what they’ve been bred and trained to do. The Vicks of the world bear the blame, not the poor little mutts.
However, given statistics, it’s probably soung public policy to limit exposure of innocent people to potentially danger dogs — just as it’s sound public policy to require the wearing of seat belts.

I’m afraid I agree with S1There have been all too many cases where pit bulls have killed people.
I do not pretend to understand the entire phenomenon, but I have never heard of the same stories related to any other breed – over and over.
The repetitious aspect “Child mauled by pit bull…” “Pit bull turns on owner and attacks…” “Pit bulls kill neighbor…”  are simply too many to be solely caused by bad owners.
Homeowners insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for these animals, just as they exclude other known and proven hazards like at home explosives manufacture.

So very truePit Bulls like any dog can be trained to be mean, or trained to be family dogs.
Growing up I had a German Shepherd named Dutchess. This dog had police training but wouldn’t take to it. We found out why. She wanted a stable family.
And wherever I went that dog came with me. Didn’t even have to call her. She was a bit overprotective of me though she’d respond to command if she started to go after someone.
I loved that dog.  

Lets be honest about statistics and deaths vs. bitesLet’s look at CDC statistics. This shows breeds of dogs involved in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States, by 2-year period, between 1979 and
1998. Death-based approach of counting most frequent purebreds and crossbreds involved in 7 or more human DBRF.

Going by this chart, yes, pit bulls are at the top of fatal dog bites, not all dog bites. What is true is that more attacks on humans that are fatal are due to pit bull and Rottweiler attacks (Rotties have more bite power because of their huge heads and size). No one calls for Rottweilers to be banned.  And if you look at the mixed breeds, pit mixes pose no more significant threat than other mixes — should those all be banned as well; after all, visual appearance alone doesn’t indicate behavior.
Also, the vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim’s family or a friend. Another study confirms the obvious to people with experience with dogs — the dogs most likely to bite and kill (and this cuts across all breeds) are male, unneutered, and chained. That’s also a dog that has not been socialized, trained and is a time bomb, not a family pet.  Those are much better predictors of behavior than breed alone. Also:

A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic.
The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. (See Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans.)
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined.

Are you saying you’re in favor of putting into place breed bans rather than holding the owner responsible for their dogs actions? Are you saying it’s OK to have my dog confiscated for taking it out of the car in another state to relieve herself simply because of what she looks like, regardless of her training or socialization? Because that is what can be done under some bans. And where to we draw the line — are Rotties and German Shepherds next? Because they do worse on temperament tests than pits related to people-aggression. Pits are lower on the list than many popular breeds.

We Do Not Need Pit BullsI am for banning the breeding of pit bulls. I could see banning the breeding of rottweilers as well. Simply put, we do not need these dogs. Other dogs make fine pets and the world would not miss the more dangerous breeds if they were gone.
Casey may be a fine dog. However, if pit bulls had not been available, I suspect you would have another breed with which you would be happy.
Yes, of course, dog owners should be held responsible for the actions of their dogs, but that’s not the way our system works. Drunk drivers should also be held responsible for their actions, but we see that they are not.

Another bit of fact-based information in the same veinThe Discovery Channel site:

The study, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, represents one of the most extensive of its kind and is the first to report replicated findings of breed differences in aggression, since both of its data sets led to similar conclusions.
Chihuahuas and Dachshunds scored higher than average for aggression directed to both humans and dogs, putting them towards the top of the list.
Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers, which have “bad boy” reputations, mostly scored high for dog-directed aggression. When they did injure humans, however, the injuries tended to be more severe than those inflicted by the scrappy, smaller dogs.

then how do reconcile…this:

Casey may be a fine dog.

with this:

the world would not miss the more dangerous breeds if they were gone

So you would like my dog confiscated and destroyed for the good of society, regardless of whether she’s dangerous or not, but allow a fear biting Labrador because the breed is not seen as dangerous.

thinking about itWhile we do have laws already on the books that ban all sorts of exotic animals from being pets, I do worry a bit about these types of laws.
If passed, any pit bulls found by authorities.. what will they do with them?  Just by looks of the chart Pam posted in the comments, several other breeds show the likelihood of fatal injury.  Are they going to just be euthanised, agressive or not?
What about the people who have a distinct love for these breeds, raise them correctly and develop well socialized dogs?  
Shall we just take everyone’s car away because of the people who drive wrecklessly?  
Banning specific breeds seems to just be an easy way out.  Animal control and animal police are way underfunded, people seem to forget that they are there for more than just animal suffering, they are there to discover and eradicate bad animal ownership as well.
I was bit badly by a dalmatian when I was a kid.  Now, I avoid dalmatians… but I don’t want them taken from their loving families.  So, I’m kinda stuck on this argument… the two sides are compelling.

My opinion changedThis is my first post on PHB. I’m one of the moderators at an online forum called ChatEVO, where the most popular topics are dog-related. I confess I once believed that pit bulls were inherently dangerous, that they were bred to be killers. But after reading the personal experiences of our members and learning more about these wonderful animals, I realized that I’d been misinformed. Pam’s right about doing reseach before adopting. I chose labs because their prey drive is low and they get along with cats – but if I didn’t have cats, adopting a pit bull from a rescue shelter would be soemthing I’d consider.    

Consumer Product Safety. In the 70′s a lot of cars were blowing up and catching fire. Usually a Pinto was involved but not always. Now, we didn’t solve the problem by just saying No More Pinto’s. We solved it by figuring out for the good of all cars what was creating the problem and setting up some safety regulations. Purebred dogs are bred to be sold. In this light they are products and should be regulated as any other product.
Just looking at that chart shows us that the aggression can be resolved with a little crossbreeding. 66 fatal bites for a purebred pit bull : 10 fatal bites for a crossbred pit bull. The source of the problem is not the dog itself but the purification. Breeding needs to be regulated. If we don’t do that, then in our post-pit bull world a new breed will be modified to take it’s place in the dog-fighting arena.
Personally, I’ve never understood the desire to own a purebred anything. There is something very egotistical and controlling about that. And I wouldn’t be too surprised if egotistical and controlling people weren’t more likely to show aggressive behavior themselves (particularly when chained up).
Pit bulls have an amazing capacity for love and loyalty, and those qualities won’t disappear with a little crossbreeding. Stick with the mutts and they’ll stick with you.

Nature or nurture?The environment and manner in which an animal is raised/trained is the primary reason for aggression. There may be temperaments for which a breed has a general propensity, however, how it is socialized is the bigger influence. Aggressive dogs come from irresponsible owners who intentionally create aggression or through neglect of responsibility in handling, allow aggression to develop.

I totally agree!I had a sweet AmStaff for fifteen years. I loved that little guy. He was very protective of me and my mom and in his long life bit two people: a neighbor (after he tried to put his finger in my dog’s mouth!) who, as it turns out later, had a ton of child porn on his computer; and my dad (who liked to ignore him when he needed to be walked or fed), who was an abusive arse toward me and my mom. All other neighbors and family members he loved, licked, played with, wagged his tail for them. But the only two people he was aggressive toward were the ones above. (the neighborhood possums didn’t stand a chance!)
What’s that about dogs sensing evil?
And talk of getting rid of an entire breed just because of a few bad apples smacks of behavior that, when applied to humans, is against several peace treaties. Yes, all dogs need to be socialized and this is where we run into another problem with the “dangerous” breeds. A lot of schools refuse to admit them. Well, that doesn’t help the problem, no does it?  

PBS had a story about history of dogsAnd it covered the whole purebred craze. According to the story, it was merely an extension of the late 1800s/early 1900s obsession over purity of (human) race, mainly in the middling classes who now had the time and money to have pets. Previously for these classes dogs served a practical purpose.
I forget the name of the special, but it was very interesting

Media BiasIf you go look up the actual statistics of fatal dog bites, pit bulls are no more likely to kill than any other breed.
Every one of the pit bulls that I have known personally are wonderful family dogs–including those belonging to a friend of mine in South Central Los Angeles, that are all rescued “bait dogs”.

Really??>Drunk drivers should also be held responsible for their actions, but we see that they are not.
Really? So we ban the model of car a drunk driver drives, or rather only the models of car that are involved in drunk driving fatalities (see posts above re: fatalities vs. aggression), rather than incarcerate or otherwise punish a convicted drunk driver? Cause, see, I really thought we generally do the latter. Maybe the laws and how the laws are applied need work, but we DO punish drunk driving.

Non SequiturI said I am against the breeding of pit bulls. I did not advocate destroying existing animals. I could have chosen my words more carefully: Instead of “were gone” above, I could have said “didn’t exist.”
Don’t kill them, just don’t create more.
There may indeed be media bias, but I remember a time when we never heard about pit bulls, and reports of serious dog attacks were rare. This could be linked to the current mode of if it bleeds it leads. I don’t know.

ReallyI used the drunk driver scenario only to illustrate that our legal system is flawed. The punishment for having an animal that kills someone should be severe, as should that for a drunk driver who kills someone. Sadly, our legal system does not make the penalties as severe as I think it should.

Breeding LegislationThe kind of legislation on breeding I would like to see is a 200K tax on each child to pay for their education and all that goes with negligent parenting.  Then we should legislate getting a license to breed being a Bachelor’s Degree in Child Psychology.  More than 1?  Turned over to the state for adoption.  Maybe people would be better parents if they new they only got 1 shot.

Turn the clock back And you’ll see that the “bad dog” in vogue changes. German Shepherds, then Dobies, then Rotties. You don’t remember the ’70′s horror flicks with killer Dobermans?
BSL’s are lazy policy that aren’t effective at reducing dog bites and only might be effective at reducing dog bite related deaths. Looking at the CDC numbers below, the scale of that problem isn’t large. Dog bite deaths are extremely tragic for all involved. They also make for dramatic television stories.
S1. Your exceptions proving the rules comments make no sense. Are you saying there are more cases of dangerous pits than well behaved pits? References and statistics please not anecdotal TV stories.
Sound public policy? Seat belt requirements are equivalent to banning specific breeds of dogs? I don’t think so. All cars must have seat belts and the onus of putting them on is very low. (minor discomfort for some people.) Compare this to the problem that Pam mentions–confiscation and possible death to her dog should she travel with him to wrong place. Also implementing this policy in the first place: I would need to euthanize or give up my dog or move?
I volunteer with dogs at the San Francisco Animal Care and Control. We have guidelines for animals that are based on behavior assessments and also some pit restrictions. The restrictions are in place because pitties are the vogue dog now and they need to be protected from people who would adopt them for fighting or breeding. No animals are adopted to a home where they’ll be chained outside. Chihuahuas, Pitties, and other high energy dogs are not adopted to families with young children.
Dora, our new girl from the pound, looks to be an American Staffordshire (pit cousin) and is quite sweet. She’s learning manners with people and dogs. We meet her needs for exercise and stimulation–at least an hour walk every morning with some social time at the dog park. Several shorter walks throughout the day.
How about a little more nuance and a little less fear in public policy?
Gotta go walk the dog…

No, the analogy does not work… and the was you phrased it was not just about the legal systemYou said that our society did not hold drunk drivers responsible. And that society does not hold dog owners responsible – both statements are not true.
BSLs ban entire communities from having anyone owning a particular breed. That is akin to banning people from owning any Chevy Suburbans in, say, Cleveland because a drunk driver with a Suburban killed a person in Cleveland. Even if there are more people who drunk drive the Honda Prius.
Is a Suburban bigger and heavier and therefore more likely to kill someone than a Honda Prius? Sure… Can a Honda Prius kill someone? Sure, in the right circumstances.
But the deciding factor is the person behind the wheel and the decisions they make.
And the deciding factor WRT dog breeds that were bred for hunting, fighting, and guarding (Shepherds, Pitt Bulls, Dobermans, Rottwielers) is the way they were raised and trained.

Please list the most dangerous breeds and define your criteriaWhat is your criteria for dangerousness? Size? Strength? History? The original purpose for which it was bred? Any dog large enough to kill a human? That would likely be any dog over 50 pounds. A dog that bites a person in the leg and hits an artery can can cause death or severe injury. Chows are known biters. Akitas, malamutes and huskies can also do severe damage. German Shepherds can break a man’s arm with a bite. I have seen a Airdale Terrier litterally drag a 200 pound man like a rag doll.
What about large breed dogs that have had the agression bred out of them? Mastiffs were bred as war dogs, but over the generations, have been selected for gentle dispositions. Any reputable breeder of dobermans can refer you to a line of dogs meant for security/ police work, or ones bred to be pets. Bulldogs were bred for bullbaiting, arguably one of the more brutal “sports” of the past 200 years. The bulldogs held on to the bulls by the throat or nose and suffocated them. They, too have had those original characteristics bred out.
And what is a “pit bull”? An American Bulldog? A staffordshire terrier? There are several breeds of dogs, AKC recognized and not, that fit under the “pit bull” label.
Frankly, I am not worried about being bitten by pit bulls, rotties or any the dogs I assume you would qualify as dangerous. A responsible owner keeps them on a leash when out. I worry about the ankle biters, like chihuahuas, that react out of fear, and might take me out at the achilles.
In the interest of disclousre, I have a chow-husky mix and am the proud “aunt” of a pit bull.  

For the most part I’m with you on opposing breed specific lawsAre Blue Dogs a breed? Cuz them I want spayed/neutered….yesterday