Find me a statistic which relates the total number of pitbulls to the number involved in violent attacks. They may be more violent than other dogs, but that's not the question. The question is are they more violent than the tolerance limit. And don't say that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of violence, because that would make you sound like a middle-aged soccer mom. Clearly, society does and must tolerate a certain degree of violence if it is get on with the business of living life. One attack per year is differrent than 100, is different than 100,000. At some point, safety outweighs personal liberties, but the arguement I'm making is that, unless I'm very much in the dark, we have not come even close to that point.
The fact it, you live with danger all the time, as does everyone else. You could very well be run over by a car, or have a brick fall on your head (just a few days ago, I accidentally dropped a bottle of Windex from the 7th floor. It landed less than a meter from a small girl playing below. Luckily, it was a plastic bottle, and just scared the girl and spilled the Windex) When a driver kills someone because of carelessness, they fine him or give him jail time. But to make the arguement that cars should be banned, because they are a potential danger (a far greater one than pitbulls I would imagine) is absurd.
