A bit of balance is necessary in the coverage. I think there is FAR TOO MUCH hot-headed emotional bias going on against this type of dog in particular. You don’t want to own one - fine. No one is forcing you. As for the “nanny” comment, you are arguing a historical fact. I have said REPEATEDLY on this and other threads that responsible ownership is what is needed rather than an emotional backlash against a specific breed or type of dog. I would not personally leave a child unsupervised with ANY domesticated animal (cat or dog). Children have a way of making sudden movements which can startle the animal which will then act defensively with teeth or claws. This is simple common sense and is even more important when dealing with a powerful dog. HISTORICALLY, however, people HAVE used Pits and other types as nanny dogs. You may disagree with their having done so, but it doesn’t make it less so - and most have done so without incident. If you choose to go ahead and argue a historical fact, be my guest. Good luck with that.
The “Pit bulls are naturally vicious” mantra does not make it so - despite the endless repetitions by many here and the total denial of studies suggesting the contrary.
It is the breed.
Not many breeds would be capable of such an attack. Not many breeds have the temperament of a fighter and killer.
Dogs personalities reflect the purpose for which they were bred. Pitbulls were bred to fight and to kill.
There are few breeds with the fearsome combo of being capable of a deadly attack and prone to the temperament to carry out such an attack, and being so well loved by low brow low class morons.
http://www.nj.com/bayonne/index.ssf/2009/12/animal_shelter_manager_70-year.html