You're right about misidentification. It's obvious from reading stories on the internet that there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes a "pit bull". There are different varieties. And do we include dogs which are mixed breeds? Also, there is certainly a tendency in the media to "pile on" whenever the journalists detect a vulnerable whipping boy, whether a dog breed or an unpopular president.
Anyone who owns an agressive dog is responsible to protect innocent citizens from it. A neighbor of ours had two dogs which were ifentified to me as pit bulls. I'm no expert. They escaped from their yard a couple of times and terrorized some of the neighbors. Most dogs when they get loose around our neighborhood just go exploring, but these dogs wanted to pick a fight.
I don't know what the answer is, that is, where to draw the line between a dogowner's rights and the rights of other citizens, but I do think that people who own large, powerful dogs often forget the potential danger.
"I don't know what the answer is, that is, where to draw the line between a dogowner's rights and the rights of other citizens, but I do think that people who own large, powerful dogs often forget the potential danger."
I agree with you. I also think that some people are simply in denial. Dogs don't just snap. There's always something to provoke it, it's just a question of whether we see it or not. Whenever a dog attacks someone and the owner says they have always been so sweet, I cry foul. Unless you are an idiot or in denial, you must know your dog is showing warning signs.
The sad part is, the people who have strong dogs either take care of them so nothing ever happens, or they don't bother, and when something does happen, their pride will not let them say they saw it coming. Honestly, who is going to admit their dog was unstable to news crews after someone gets attacked? Why, that would put the blame where it belongs, on the owner, instead of scapegoating an entire breed.