What I would like to know is, where do you draw the line? I have not done the research, but I will take the statement as true about Pit Bulls being involved in more reported attacks than other dogs. So if that is true, then are you suggesting that ALL Pit Bulls be put down, regardless of their individual temperament? At what point do you stop eliminating the worst dog on the list? Because after you get rid of the Pit Bulls, then the next worst dog is now responsible for the most attacks. Remember, probably all breeds have documented cases of aggression (even Toy Poodles and Dachshunds).

I hear a lot of ranting and raving, but I have yet to hear anyone clearly state what they think the solution is to this.

Personally, I think the owner ALWAYS gets punished. And if the situation warrants, you also deal with the dog. But taking away a person's right to choose the breed of dog they want for a pet is just wrong. And that is no different than the debate over gun ownership. Many own potentially lethal weapons with good intent and handle them responsibly. Others knowingly get things because they want the destructive force they are capable of. If that person allows that weapon to be used in a destructive nature (by them self or another), then we have to hope that the legal system acts appropriately.