I never said that. ??? However, I'm not sure how anyone can say "yes they're dangerous" without having ever met one.

You also dont have to have met one to know they as a breed can be dangerous !

The history and its breed traits CAN make them dangerous , because you have met one nice one does not speak fo the whole breed.

I have never stuck my finger in the fire , to equate the danger.

But who says I have not met one, I am old enough to remember when they where legal, and knew people who owned them!!

And I know any dog can be dangerous. All dogs have teeth. All dogs can use those to defend or attack.

I've also not met ONE nice one. I've met many. Pit bulls are extremely popular in my area. I meet far more pit bulls than I do labs, even. Right across the road there are FOUR of them (in two different houses). I help out at a local shelter where I meet many more, some who were strays, some who were abused, all of which are super friendly. I've met the occasional dog aggressive one, but even those have been few and far between (and I've met many other dog aggressive dogs who aren't pit bulls).

Most people are basing the idea that they're aggressive on media reports, but media reports are often wrong or incomplete and frequently don't bother reporting dog attacks by other breeds.

I think that is an excellent post, any dog can be dangerous. Some breeds may be more powerful and therefore have the capacity to cause more damage, as has been mentioned before(though not sure if it has on this thread) a yorkie(and I have nothing against yorkies) may bite but the damage would usually be less than if a doberman(and again I have absolutely nothing against Dobermans) But that should not IMO detract from the fact both Dogs (not breeds) should be classed as dangerous if they carry out an attack which is wholly or partially contributed to by them being out of control.
As far as I am aware the pitbull was not bred for its aggresive traits towards humans in fact quite the opposite, I do however appreciate that in the majority of attacks (according to the media) the dogs of a specific "type" are usually owned by a specific"type" of owner. These dogs have usually been mistreated as in left outside not integrated or socialised with animals children etc and then they suddenly find themselves confronted by an unsupervised child or a stranger and they can and do attack. But other breeds too are "guilty" of this and other big breeds inflict similar damage if involved in such attacks. I therefore think that it still comes back to the individual dog and the individual circumstances as any dog can be dangerous because of its history and breed traits

I believe some one stated earlier, that pitbulls weren't needed in this country anyway, because there were other bullbreeds, that is an interesting point would we like to expand on what that means exactly.

One isn't needed because of the existence of another similar to it.

So, bcs aren't needed because there're other sheepdogs.
Labs aren't needed because there're other retrievers.
Jrts aren't needed because there're other terriers.
Greyhounds aren't needed because there're other sight hounds.
Malamutes aren't needed because there're other sled dogs.

Of course they've all bitten/attacked/killed some one, somewhere at some point in time, so lets just ban the lot of them, the world will be a safer place, and hey, its not like they were needed anyway.

As ridiculas as that sounds, it is probably quite true, many breeds of dogs aren't needed, as most no longer do the job they were bred for. However, they are wanted, and that is what matters.

Saying to someone they don't need a pitbull because there're sbts, is like saying to someone they don't need a bc because there're rough collies. The fact is, yes there're sbts, and rough collies, but they aren't pitbulls or bcs, and if people want a pitbull or a bc, then why shouldn't they be allowed to have the choice.

I really do find the continuous support of a law that clearly hasn't made even the slightest bit of a positive difference quite baffling.

The only things this law has done are:

Prevent responsible dog owners from owning/promoting the breeds, in the correct manner. Because lets not kid ourselves here, the dog fighters and other undesirable people who shouldn't own them, already do, and don't give a toss about the law.

Cause a hell of a lot of confusion with regards to what may or maynot be considered type. Remember, as has been pointed out several times now, 2 legal breeds could create an illegal type. Like wise, a pitbull crossed with say, a gsd, could create perfectly legal offspring, because remember, illegal types are only judged on appearance, not behaviour, so if it doesn't look like a pitbull, but has the temperament of one, than no problem.

Condemn perfectly legal breeds, or the offspring from some crossbreeds, to destruction, or months in kennels because they look illegal/dangerous, not because they actually are.

Never mind the amount of money, that has been and continues to be wasted, on this joke of a piece of legislation. Some people stated on another thread about how the money that was used to create a dog park could have been better spent elsewhere, well, whilst I agree, the amount spent there, is nothing compaired to the amount spent trying,and failing to inforce this law. I'd rather the money was used on improving education, health or public transport, at least then it might be put to some good use.

Its funny, because the asbo is now on its way out, to be replaced with god knows what, but anyway, its going because, it wasn't working as well as they hoped it would, therefore, not worth continuing to spend money on it. Yet, the dda, hasn't been working for 19 years, but still they continue to spend money on it, why?

excellent post

2ND that ...

I 3rd that!!

i 4th that

And a 5th!!