Pitbulls Used to Be Considered the Perfect "Nanny Dogs" for Children --

[Honeycombe8]

253. I agree they are more dangerous than many other dogs, but the owners aren't

telling the truth, usu., when they say, "Oh, the dog never showed any signs of aggression, I swear!" Sure, he did. They just didn't properly handle the dog, notice the signs of aggression, etc.

For example, a dog growling at a human is a sign of aggression. Many dog owners wouldn't recognize it as such. I have a dog that growls at strangers if they look at her in her eyes. She's afraid of them. It took me a while to admit that that is a sign of aggression.

Also, a dog should never be left alone around children, esp a strong dog who can kill IF it bites. Yet the parents of children who were killed would do that.

Also, children must be disciplined & watched and not allowed to pick on the dog or pull on his tail or whatever that kids often do.

The news articles I've seen where kids were killed...those were trailer trash places, where the families would have multiple dogs, incl. pits, that ran around everywhere, incl. around the kids...there was no discipline of dogs or children....

The problem with pits is that IF they bite, they can kill. There's a reason these people don't have Yorkies. The man of the house no doubt wants a "real man's dog."

A german shepherd can kill a child, too, as can a Rottweiler, and some other large dogs. I don't think the pit is any more likely to do that, but PEOPLE handle and treat pits differently, IMO. In other words, the kind of people who own pits to begin with, unless they're rescued dogs, WANT mean dogs. And they raise the dogs accordingly. But they'll tell authorities the dogs were never anything but sweet.