Well, well. All of you guys have probably noticed my conspicuous absence in this thread. I do not have the internet at home, and am thus unable to contribute to such "debates" while I have days off, enjoying my time with my dogs.
As I read this, one thing jumped out at me:
the idea that 
it bulls are being bred for human aggression. Let me make something very clear:
this is not possible. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Stafforshire Terrier have been bred for generations with very specific criteria: Dog Aggression. Any examples of Human Aggression among the stock were immediately culled. Reason: the handler MUST be able to approach his/her severly injured dog without ANY fear of a bite.
Now, as to why it's not possible: Some time ago, I asked the question about breeding for Human Aggression.. In the case of the APBT and the AmStaff, human aggression comes as a strict result of
post birth conditioning. It is NOT possible to pass along a post birth conditiong trait along in the bloodline. The genetics are just not there. This will bring up the age old argument of nature vs nurture, and the following paragraph will illustrate how the confusing the difference can be.
What IS happening is this: unscrupulous people have gotten a grip on APBT and their cousins, breeding mercilessly for profit and without regard for bloodlines. These are people who know nothing about breeding nor genetics. They see a phyically superior dog with a tenacity innate to ALL terriers, and the capitalize on these traits for personal gain. They beat/neglect their dogs
intentionally into a human aggressive state, and think that breeding these dogs will result in a human aggressive litter. In reality, their litters are being conditioned for human aggression consistently by post birth abuse and neglect, and because these people don't know any better, it appears to them that they have succeeded in breeding human aggressive dogs. In order to properly breed for human aggression, it would be necessary to CROSS BREED with a breed specifically known for human aggression, and in so doing, one would undeniably change the very make-up of the dog. Some of the strength and tenacity that is such a concern would be lost. This cross breeding would need to continue for generations to be predictable, and then it would be, by definition, A WHOLE DIFFERENT BREED.
As to the predictability or "unpredictability" of the breed: I always know what my dogs are going to do. Always. Without question. They never, ever suprise me. The inability of the OP, or anyone else for that matter, to read the body language of a dog is NOT my responsibility, nor is it the fault of my dogs.
Some of you have read the post detailing the injury to my boy, Tek, during a roughousing session with my husband. Yesterday, I was inspecting the wound for any signs of infection, and I found a bit of grass seed lodged in the cut. I got a pair of tweezers, and climbed under my dog (picture an oil change[
]) and manipulated the injury with both hand and tweezers until I managed to dislodge the seed. My neighbor had been watching this whole thing, and said, "I have never seen ANYONE who had such control over their dogs before. I cannot believe you were just picking at that wound and he just stood there." Hmmm... vicious killer indeed.
NOW... as to what to do about the attacks. ONE attack on a human is too many. I will NEVER stand up and deny that attacks have occured. And I will not try to downplay the attacks by saying "all dogs bite". Yes, all dogs bite, but YES, when an attack by a pit type breed occurs, there is an undeniable ferocity to the attack. So, what to do? Well, banning the breed would surely, over a LONG period of time, after ALL the strays were
icked up and the BYBs shut down and the guy with the cabin in the woods who is completely off the grid- after HIS dogs are gone- sure, there wouldn't be any attacks by pits.
The logic is faulty, however. People who breed for human aggression would choose a breed NOT on the list- perhaps even Irish Setters, for that matter, since they are supposed to be so stupid and would thereby be easy to manipulate. And the Irish Setters would fight in the pits, and be chained in the backyards, and eventually, to the horror of the OP, people would talk about banning them.
So let's talk about it: let's talk about exorbitant licensing fees (which, by the way wouldn't price out the famous rappers who are a large part of the problem). Let's talk about the casual owners of "pit type dogs" being forced to spay and neuter.
Let's talk about the breeders bearing responsibility for their stock. Let's talk about serious penalties, felony penalties, for ANY dog attack which results in the need for professional medical care outside the home or enclosed yard of the handler, whether that attack be on a human or a dog. Let's talk about an animal control staff who are well funded enough to carry out the law. Let's talk about strict adherance to
all laws involving animals, including ticketing people for not picking up their poop, and ticketing people who refuse to use a leash where one is required. Let's talk about personal responsibility. Let's talk about ALL of us paying licensing fees, in ALL counties in ALL states, which will appropriately fund the implementation of the law.
And I'm sorry, but I can't resist a little inflammatory language: so far, the OP's main argument, which has been repeated in every single one of her posts has been the
potential of the dogs. Let's talk about banning things with "potential" to do damage to people. Here's my list:
young black men
Catholic Priests
fraternaties
young white males in trenchcoats
Arabs
Italian men
Isrealis
Palestinians
There is a list of people who have proven, over and over again, that they will harm others. Over and over, we have heard of the molestation within the Catholic church. Again and again, young black men are in the news, killing each other and people around them. Palestinians and Isrealis blow each other to bits every day, along with thousands of innocent bystanders.. Arabs are continually funding and committing acts of terror. Fraternaty brothers are consistently raping women and getting away with it. Some of them are even elected to political office in this country. And we cannot leash these people. We cannot spay and neuter them. We are left as sitting ducks, waiting to be their next victims.
This is the rationale the OP displays with the argument of *potential.* We cannot control the potential for anything. But we can manage problems aggressively and thus remain safe.