Personally I would never get a pitbull (or a mastiff, rottweiler, wolf/wolf mix, etc.). You see on the news all the time that the family pet, that has never shown aggression before, suddenly attacking/killing babies. Of course there are exceptions, but why take a chance? Especially if there is a child in the home?
This is a extreme example: I like bears. I don't think we should kill them all, but I would never have a pet bear because they are dangerous.
A lot of people defend pitbulls by saying, "the dog on the little rascals was a pitbull..."
Take a look at these two pictures:
They may both be pitbulls, but I think its pretty safe to say that they have changed a lot since then. And as far as "human-aggression" vs. "dog-aggression", whose to say one couldn't lead to the other? And besides, why would you want a dog that was very aggressive towards other dogs?
Here's a Q&A from
dogsbite.org:
Q: Do pit bulls bite more than other dogs?
Depending upon the community in which you live and the ratio of pit bulls within it, yes and no. But whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injury. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.
When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties.14
