Anecdotal evidence does not a type of dog make. You have admitted you have owned several sweet dogs (I presume you did not have them killed?) I doubt seriously that those dogs owned in the past 100 years - prior to the “run for your life it’s a pit” mentality egged on by the actions of a few and fueled by an over the top media - and much-loved by their families were “dangerous” to their families. The question remains: what has changed? The media coverage, maybe?? I think so, given their history of swapping out pits for dobes, chows, and any other breed. Same song, second verse.
I KNEW several sweet slobbery Pitbulls; knowing the breed as I do I would NEVER own one. The ones I killed were running loose and harassing me on my driveway; harass me = clear and present danger to my mom and sisters = dead dog.
Pitbulls have a history of attacking and killing not just strangers; but members of their own family. Witness the little girl above. They are a highly “game” dog that strives for dominance, and sometimes thinks it needs to enforce or establish this dominance via the bite.
And Chows ARE notoriously vicious as well. I would never have a Chow as a “nanny dog” either.
The fact that there are other types of vicious dogs doesn't mean that Pittbulls are not vicious.
I didn't need media coverage to let me know that Pittbulls are vicious killers; all I needed was to grow up in my hometown where the things ran amok, attacked livestock, attacked people; and often as not ended up SSS.