I am glad you liked the info. I wasn't disagreeing with most of you had posted other than your general conclusion about the breed. I believe the more people understand the real problems with dog attacks the more they will come to realize what a bad rap pit bulls and rotts get. I don't want people to think I am saying all dogs of these breeds are extremely firiendly and should be approached on the street. I am just pointing out that they are good dogs as a group when given the proper training and socialization.
You definetly have to defend yourself. I just didn't want your bad experience to leave you a bad impression of the breed or owners. The good owners get more angry than anybody when they hear about irresponsible people giving all of us a bad name. You should complain on this guy for not keeping his dogs constrained or say something to him if you are comfortable. I had a German Shepherd as a child. They are great dogs but they are right up there at the top of the list for deadly attacks. I have been in situations were I have seen extremely ferocious shepherds, but I still like the breed a lot. It is really true that people can make any breed ferocious and the big dogs like pits, Rots, and GSD ar the most commonly used for these purposes because of their strength and agility. Citronella sprays developed by dog trainers would probably be the best repellant for future scenarios. Mace doesn't always work well on an out of control dog and a gun is not desirable just because the laws in your state and I think the spray would be easier to deploy and faster working.
Perhaps my general conclusion about the breed is built on illusions ... but all my reason rebels against that. You could be right that the media simply doesn't report deadly attacks made by other breeds, and so pits and rotts are unfairly represented. But then ... again ... I find that possiblity doubtful because unlike in politics, where the media is great at leaving things unreported for reasons of a political agenda, there's no political agenda as to breeds of dogs. And my own personal experience points to pits and rotts and no others as far as real genuine risk of MY DEATH. Please understand: I did not approach the dogs, I did not trespass on their territory, indeed I didn't acknowledge them at all, and that last bit is perhaps what saved me.
And that's the thing. If somebody has a poorly trained and badly socialized muttly, or chihuaha or poodle or labrador or Australian shepherd or border collie or even a German Shepherd, the possibility of that dog KILLING someone is pretty slim, with some exceptions I'm sure, but not many. Even a GS or a Great Dane or a Doberman will aim to hurt, not kill, it seems, though I may be mistaken. Rotts and pits, on the other hand, seem to go off for no reason and stick with an attack until they are either forcefully removed or their victim is DEAD.
People do and should have dogs, God bless them and God bless the dogs too, I think dogs are wonderful, amazing creatures that have helped us humans to be more civilized. I don't even like to seem them on leashes. I know personally a family whose dog literally saved the life of one of the kids by jumping in front of a striking rattlesnake and taking the bite himself instead of letting the child get bit. People WILL and should have dogs, and it's a given that not all people will properly train or socialize them. That's fine with most breeds -- but can be fatal with rotts and pitts. I'm a less-government-is-better person. Personally, I think I should have the right to shoot dead on the spot any Rott or Pitt that is running loose on a public street. I think that if more people killed those loose dogs on sight, fewer owners would be irresponsible. So I'm afraid I do have a bad impression of the breeds, and nothing you've said in your excellent, reasoned, and refreshingly civil posts has changed that impression.