[proud_yank]

Until reading that, I never gave any thought just how dangerous walking into my own kitchen or backyard really was.

Following your logic, especially citing the media as the foundation by which it is made, guns and SUVs should be banned, or heavily regulated.

What specifically would you have done, regarding these specific breeds? You don't really say. Would you suggest tighter fencing laws, require they be on a line at all times, never allowed outside a house?

The question I have is, assuming a golden retriever attacks someone (which happened to my Mom, unprovoked and it came from nowhere), why should it be treated any differently than if it were a pitbull?

The vicious out-of-control Jack Russell terrier has very little chance and zero track record of killing or critically injuring an adult human, except by fluke.

I haven't checked the data, but I don't think you would have to dig too deep to conclude that the majority of fatal and non-fatal dog attacks involve children.

Honestly, I think that down in the PRC you have a far greater chance of being harmed or killed by a criminal than you do by someone's dog.

[GMMAC]

"... SUVs should be banned, or heavily regulated."

So-called - since neither the American or Canadian Kennel Clubs recognize any such 'breed' - 'pit bulls' are, thanks to the msm, the SUV's of dogs:
Although many readily identifiable breeds of dogs are known to occasionally attack humans or pets, when's the last time a headline appeared about a "German Shepherd attack"?

One of the main reasons 'breed ban' laws don't work is that there's no agreed upon or, more importantly, legally binding definition as to what constitutes a 'pit bull'.

Most animals so designated are actually mixed breed dogs. Accordingly, a 'pit bull' is essentially any - sometimes medium-sized and/or muscular - dog which a liberal or msm reporter subjectively doesn't like the look of.