I see in your profile that dog's in your care had; "A accidental litter of puppies" How could I have any faith in a owner who was that irresponsible to bring unwanted dog's into this world, if I see them walking towards me with a dog I believe to be aggressive

A dog in my care had an accidental litter BEFORE she was old enough to be spayed. We found homes for all of the dogs bar one which we kept. Had I not found homes for the others I'd have kept them too. The puppies were not unwanted. I was actually delighted.
What this has to do with this thread I have no idea. It just confirms that you're here just to wind people up.
I shouldn't have to explain myself to you but as you have decided to call into question my PERSONAL dog ownership then I feel I have to answer it.
Now can we get back to the topic on this thread?

I ask again. How are you defining aggressive in the context of dogs?

and how do you link the two ... imo you are being judgemental and just plain nasty!

ok sorry I did't have 5 hours to read the whole thread I did read the beginning post of some others. my views are as follows:

I have encountered Pits in my past and they were very docile and gentle dogs I haven't owned one nor plan too unless I got him as a pup just weaned . . . only for the simple fact I would like to know exactly what kind of background he has and shelters cannot guarantee backgrounds of any animal cat dog bunny ferret ect. when I was looking to adopt a dog I shied away from pits for that reason the dog could be reformed and retrained but what if a family member hit a trigger that was supposed to be gone (accidentally) and the dog attacked? we don't know what triggers an attack they are all different. I don't think they should be banned there should be extra caution in owning a pit and mandation(not a word) like official coming to the house 2 a year no announcement and a scheduled yearly with an official on top of routine vet checks, to make sure the responsible owner stays that way and rather making the public pay forsuch perameters the owners should have to pay a bit extra for the right to own such a dog and if one is found that is not registered then the owner of such dog should be fine equal to the cost of having registered him since he was a puppy weather he had him for 1 month or 5 years and with officials out there making unscheduled pop ins they will be more likely to spot a non registered pit and that may decrease the bad rap these poor dogs have inherited from their bad owners.

I also wanted to make a comment on a post here about rotties being a bad dog also I knew several and lived on a street that had 2 huge ones that were the gentlest guys on the planet and wouldn't blink an eye if encounter one on the street. . .movies made them look bad.... also if you are considering rotties as bad then you may as well go up the line a tack on Mastiffs as I read the the rottie line comes from the mastiff.

I want to say that any dog has the potential to do harm (unfortunately pits are very strong in that aspect) and that is where responsible ownership comes into effect! and maybe the news should not put pit attacks but pit good deeds and make awareness of other breed attacks and also their owners and educated people more about dog ownership in general

sorry so long that is all that I can think of right now

I think over all I side with Footloose.

Really? With what? and Why?

i would put money on you being footloose

I was thinking that, one person banned a new person appears today that agrees with everything footlose siad . . .

Or maybe even JIFF.