Here's what we need to do: separate out the media hysteria, which results in identifying almost any attacking dog as a "pit bull", even if it isn't, and make sure that all large dog attacks, not just pit bull attacks, are being recorded. They certainly aren't being reported in the media. Add to that the problem that "pit bull" is a type and not a breed, and you have a real difficulty, especially since Animal Control is hardly expert at breed identification.
Until we can get accurate information uncontaminated by these problems, we are simply adding to the hysteria by calling for breed bans, mass slaughter, etc. with insufficient data.
It just amazes me that FReepers, who are normally quite skeptical of media bias and also tend to be alert for government overreaching and unintended consequences, take the fact that something is printed in the paper as gospel truth.
btw, I have never owned a APBT, a Staff, or anything else that could be remotely considered a "pit bull". I've got Labs, and I do almost exclusively hunting retriever work. But I know some 'sharp' retrievers (especially Chessies and the field-bred Labs) that will bite, and any large dog is capable of doing considerable damage. I've personally seen it happen (in one case the dog was put down, in the other, not). And media panic could be whipped up over any large dog breed, with a little doctoring of the ID (substitute "Lab mix" for "pit bull mix").
Once you set the precedent of a breed ban or mandatory destroy order, you can count on government incompetence and venality to cast its net wider and wider. Not sure we want to set that whole process in motion. It certainly hasn't worked well where it's been tried.
"When they came for the pit bulls, I didn't say anything . . . " You know the drill.