but we dont own pitbulls

The term 'dangerous', given the context of a breed-specific discussion on a dog owners' forum, can be taken as a relative term.

The full meaning of the question, had the writer thought it necessary to expand, is "Is it possible to make a reliable, generalised comment about the aggressive tendencies of the APBT and do those tendencies, if they exist, present a greater risk than other breeds and is that risk, if it exists, of such a magnitude that it is unacceptable in our society?"

The question does not ask about danger in absolute terms (such as whether a fatality has been caused) because it is patently obvious than any breed can present a danger in the right (or wrong) circumstance. By posing the question as breed specific one it asks a relative question. To take an absolute interpretation, universal to all dogs, and apply it to one specific breed is neither illuminating nor helpful.

In absolute terms of 'fatalities caused', all breeds and crosses are dangerous as are slippers, lawnmowers and balloons.

In relative terms of risk all breeds present a risk relative to their size, (heavier dog = greater risk), their temperament (aggresive/unstable dog = greater risk) and their owner (poor handling = greater risk). Of the three factors the last, the handler, is the most pivotal. We can see this by the facts that dogs which have been both small and non-aggressive have still killed when coupled with bad owners and that even large, aggresive dogs can be successfully and safely managed by highly skilled handlers.

When considering 'acceptable risk' it is clear that some dogs with some owners presents a totally unacceptable risk to society. The error is the notion that we can manage that risk by restricting the dogs to which this owner has access.

The key to reducing dog attacks is to target the principle agent - poor ownership. IMO only competency testing can achieve higher average standards.

My dear - really I am not 90.

Its not relevant - you are generalising a whole breed based on their name only..... its not possible to say that a whole breed are dangerous just because they are of a certain build etc as then you are saying that any dog of similar build and characteristics are - which would open the door for loads of other so called "family dogs" with simialr jaw size etc.

You are just missing the point of generalisations. You are entitled to your opinion of course - you are just wrong !!

I gather from the irrelevancy's you keep posting on this forum, that you are of the opinion Pit Bulls are not dangerous in any way, shape or form.

However, I will be instigating a thread within the near future, to try and make sense of a modern day phenomena that is blighting our land. I.E. "Why are babies and small children committing suicide by recklessly throwing themselves into the jaws of the gentle, passive misunderstood Pit Bull.?

Great post, I notice Jiff ignored it as he seems to want to go around and throw insults to make his point, which is very unclear unless it is to show, if all else fails throw insult I am pretty sure you answered his question but I am sure we will be graced with his true thoughts on this soon enough.

Children? do you mean in your neighbourhood that children are now savaging cats and roaming the streets too, unsupervised. Society has a lot to answer for.

Get some Pit Bulls over there to thin them out. LOL

Pit Bulls are not dangerous.....its the teeth

Thank You for now accepting Pit Bulls are dangerous.

Thank you Jiff....for your very insightful PM...it says a lot that you do not feel confident to call me a stupid person publicly.

However - to explain...
The above quote was meant to illustrate the...to use your word - 'stupid' - remark you made about guns not being dangerous.

With regards to pitbulls....My personal opinion is that they have the potential to be dangerous.......and this is my opinion of all dogs.

I think it's pretty clear that either (a) the question goes far above your head or (b) you're a troll.

If it's the first, then that's just sad. Let me explain my post, since you don't seem to understand. The point was that you have to take each dog individually just as you have to take each person individually. Can human beings do atrocious things? Yes. Absolutely. Will all humans do atrocious things? Of course not. Can pit bulls be dangerous? Yes. Absolutely. Are all pit bulls dangerous? The answer to that is, quite obviously, no.

You can't paint any breed of dog or any species with a broad brush stroke.

The pit bull thing always reminds me of the woman who cries "All men are jerks!" The fact is that often the men she meets ARE jerks because they are more in your face, louder, and harder to miss than the nice quiet guy. When it comes to pit bulls, you don't hear about the millions everyday who quietly live their lives with owners who love them. Shall I talk about Bailey, the wonderful pit who lives across the street from us? Or maybe Oscar, the other one who lives there. Or Dallas and Dublin, who my dog has had a blast playing with in the park?

They don't make the news. Just like the millions of people who go to work and come home fine don't make the news, while the horrible car accident caused by a drunk person does.

THINK. It's not that hard. You can do it.

And if you're the latter (troll), well, then scram and get a life.