I don't know that there is anywhere where dog bites are tracked by whether the dog is registered. It's really not the point. With the fatal and near fatal mauling statistics in mind, can any sane person, looking at all the kinds of dogs out there, say that pit bull type dogs are "Particularly good with children"? In comparison to what, a tiger?
>looking at all the kinds of dogs out there, say that pit bull type dogs are "Particularly good with children"? In comparison to what, a tiger?<
I am not arguing that the pit bull that you see on the end of the local thug's chain is a nightmare around children.
However, allowing people to lump all breeds of bull terrier into the "dangerous to kids" column is my pet peeve. How do you explain the breed's nickname? Why does the Bull Terrier, the "Target spot dog", get a free ride? There were 1,744 Bull Terriers registered with AKC, as opposed to only 856 Staffs. Staffs are way less common in this country. The average person will never even see one in the flesh, outside of a dog show, anyway.
The Staffordshire Bull Terriers you find in the US are not only very rare in the States, they are very far removed from their fighting roots, as is the Boston Terrier.
And, since there is no record of the breed we are discussing killing a person, I find it odd so many people are so quick to lump it in with the average thug-owned cur.