TRH is right about this. YOu guys who want pitbulls outlawed sound strangely like those who would outlaw guns. As popular as pitbulls are, the number of attacks reported is surprisingly low. Of all the dog-attack related human injuries I am personally aware of (and that is quite a few), not one of them was a pitbull. Been around quite a few pits over the years (including the one I had, which was a cream-puff), and never saw cause to be worried. OTOH - we had a GSD in the neighborhood that was dangerous to have around, and it ended up being given the choice between the gas chamber or accepting a job as a perimeter guard at the state pen.
Some would make the distinction between a dog biting and a killer dogs maiming- if they were still alive.
The problem isn't who owns the dogs when the dogs are labs or hounds or pointers, or poodles or collies, are they?
Only a few types of dogs require "with it owners".
Problem is, those owners aren't required.
Give a thousand high schoolers ford pickups and a thousand kids corvettes. After a while, it will be found the corvette is, in common terms, more dangerous. Of course, some would say the kids driving the vetts are more dangerous. I suppose a thousand kids with pits would thus be deemed more dangerous than a thousand kids with Pomeranians, even if the kids having the dogs were drawn at random.
So, it would actually be the breed of dog that was making the pit owners more dangerous. Thus, if the pits were dead, their owners wouldn't be more dangerous, and many innocents would be saved, just as if tons of kids weren't given corvettes .
