I'd like to thank everybody for there advice, time, and warnings, Yesterday after work i took the dog back to the shelter. It was my ignorance in thinking i could help the dog in the first place that lead me to this situation and i really don't think it would be a good idea to continue that thought process as it could lead to far more horrible things.

I have learned a great deal in the process but the cost of learning what i have is high, it wasn't an easy choice or thing to do. We actually loved the dog a great deal. This is a lesson that will not go forgotten, but a mistake that will not be repeated.

You sometimes just don't know what you don't know till it's to late to change the course of actions. Owning a dog sounds easy enough, just feed them, play with them and walk them right? Ignorance isn't bliss when you understand how ignorant you've been, it's painful.

Although we believe we've made the right choice in what we've done, the shelter has said that they would keep the dog up for adoption for no fewer than 7 days before they euthanize him. But considering the dogs playful attitude and healthy appearance they believe somebody would pick him up before than.

Cat's have a much different memory than dogs. They have really permanent short term memory...especially when traumatized.

We have another dog, we've had him for 6 years, hence the idea that getting another one wouldn't be that big of a deal. But i'm not wondering how we managed this dog and how i need to adjust things for him moving forward. Not to mention what i've taught my kids about having a dog. So there's a lot of opening changes that need to be made here. 

benmanns we can debate this all day but we are not talking about a trained dog to attack. I very much doubt that the majority of the pitbull attacks in the statistics were a result of owners that trained them to attack and I even doubt that the majority of owners of those dogs were incompetent. They probably simply got a pitbull and the pitbull eventually did its thing. Why? because it is in their dna and not something necessarily brought on as a result of training or incompetent pet owners. Yes a little dog can become aggressive as all dogs can but as far as I am concerned it is still all about numbers.

Lets be clear though, if someone wants to chain a pitbull up on a remote piece of property to protect their fenced in salvage yard with sings visibly posted then that is far different then bringing them into a home with small children, that is what the majority of this debate is about, pitbulls as pets around children.

Not anecdotal stories, or newspaper stories, but valid studies.

A number of people have stated this -- the challenge extends to you all.

I'm open minded and willing/able to be convinced.

Us humans are interesting creatures.  We tend to believe we're logical and that our beliefs are based up evidence.  However, we tend to have a belief then avoid/discount contrary evidence while focusing on confirming evidence.  We're all subject to this, even those who attempt to be unbiased.

Consider your above link JuniorCrooks.  Some see that and see confirmation of your belief.  Others can look at that same link and see quotes like:

-"The list is not meant to be exhaustive nor conclusive."

-"The first epidemiological study of dog-bite fatalities in the United States was conducted by an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1977.^[5] The study reported that all but one of the cases involved male dogs. The breeds reported in these incidents were St. Bernard, German Shepherd, Dachshund, Basenji, Collie, Husky, and Great Dane."

Note that pits aren't mentioned there.

-"In contrast to the time period covered by the CDC study, which found pit bulls and Rottweilers to be the most commonly involved breed in such attacks during that time period, this study found no fatal pit bull attacks at all in the US during its time period, and only one Rottweiler attack."

-"However, by far the most common specific single breed involved in fatal attacks (16) was the German Shepherd Dog..."

-"This list is not meant to be exhaustive"

-"This list is not meant to be conclusive"

The link can be used to validate both sides of this debate, and people being people tend to see in it what they already believe.

If this link is what you base your "...because it is in their dna..." quote then please to show where your link says that as I can't find it in there.

Ignoring the dog's owner is like ignoring the driver when assessing what cars are 'pedestrian killers'.

Generally, our human tendency is to first have an unsupported belief then finding evidence to confirm it, is harmless as the consequences are often not that important.  But in this situation people are using this to advocate the killing of a living creature (cause that's what happens to unwanted dogs most of the time).  Killing, not 'putting to sleep' or 'euthanizing' -- killing a living creature.

Those advocating this need to be darn sure of their facts.

If a dog is truly dangerous then that's necessary, but if it isn't...

A wise man years ago talked about judging by the content of one's character, not the color of one's skin.

Judge dogs by the content of their behavior, not the color of their breed.

Again, I'm willing to be educated/convinced.  Please do so.

And Merry Christmas to all!

BTW....I'd spend FAR MORE time and effort defending the life of a White Pointer...or pretty well EVERY species NOT 'created/invented' for man's titillation.

And...again....pitbulls kill more people than ALL the deadly [natural] species in Australia do put together....and we have them ALL.

Some people have made claims -- claims with serious implications -- and said claims need to be backed up to be taken seriously.

It doesn't just affect pit bull owners, but owners of dog breeds that are supposedly 'safe' -- these owners need to not become complacent because their dog's breed isn't 'dangerous'.

Jafo you say add up the stats -- you must have to back up your belief, right?  So what are they?  You did make the claim that I'm asking to be backed up. What years are you including/excluding?

I've stated I'm open minded on this, I haven't taken a side and I'm not defending anything (except the principle that serious claims need commensurately serious proof).

JuniorCrooks you mention pit bulls being bred for certain physical traits, but this thread has been talking about aggression -- a behavior. 

Where does it say pits are more aggressive by genetics as people here have claimed?

I respect the beliefs of everyone here, and a child's/person's safety always comes first, regardless of breed/species/etc.  I'm curious as to the basis of said beliefs.

Certain people believe some computer games cause aggressive/violent behavior.  News accounts sensationalize reports of aggressive gamers, uninformed people see the reports and tend to believe them, then they tend to focus on reports that buttress their beliefs and ignore reports that conflict.  This sort of thing occurs with dog attacks too -- 'if it bleeds it leads' is a news mantra.  This doesn't mean the reports are inaccurate or untrue, but it does mean said reports need to be considered carefully.

Again, Merry Christmas to All!

All dogs have the potential to be aggressive and to harm people, even those 'close' to them.  But training has a huge impact on the risk of aggression being manifested.  Correct training, less risk, but risk is never zero.

Once had a male bloodhound we raised from a puppy (owned his mother) who was a very sweet dog.  We trained him for the show ring and he did very well.  Was a point away from his championship when he became aggressive toward me out of the blue one day.  He was nutless the next, and, fortunately, that took the aggression out of him (not a reliable method, just happened to work for him).  He was a docile, lovable galoot the rest of his 9 years.  Just one example.

We currently have an 11 year old GSD who was skittish around and wanted to 'herd' small children when he was young.  We raised & trained him to be a service animal but he flunked out at the 11th hour for being too easily distracted to safely guide a blind person.  We had first option and took him back as a pet.  By age 3 he was very comfortable around small children, would even let us take him in to a grade school classroom and let 25 little kids crawl all over him.  GSD's have the capacity to serve as either attack/guard/police dogs or service animals, entirely depending on their training - the foundation we raised for got their breeding stock from Czechoslovakia, same stock that was used for border guard dogs there.

+1.  I wouldn't say it as evangelical as Jafo (bless his heart  ), but he's essentially right.

I have pitbulls.  They were rescues and we brought a trainer in to help train the dogs and more importantly, us.  Even after a significant investment in the dog's well being, if one was to snap at a child, I'd take it out back and put a bullet in it's head.  Sure, I'd feel bad, but I think about how I'd feel if one of my dogs kills a child.

Many dogs might attack, but pitbulls are know to maim and kill.  The reputation might not be fully deserved, but there's enough truth to it to give pause when picking out a family pet.  Sure, chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls.  I've been bitten a number of times by the little ugly freaks of nature.  They can't do much damage.  I still have all of my fingers and most of the skin that they came with.

Please think twice before getting a pit bull.  If you have children, then don't even think about it.