Not this rubbish again.

Pitbulls- the vast majority of subspecies, are not remotely aggressive.
Virtually every single pitbull I've ever encountered was not only calm, but actually affectionate and social.

The finger of blame lies solely on the owners. Miraculously; paranoid, neglectful, aggressive, OR angry owners raise aggressive, angry and paranoid dogs. Even lazy people who don't know how to handle animals will raise violent pets.

Furthermore, it doesn't even really matter what species the dog is- aggression can come easily from any dog, be it pitbull, rottweiler, chihuahua, or Blue Heeler; all of which capable of mauling a child (the chihuahua would need a smaller child however).
But personal observations imply that the most intrinsically aggressive dogs are actually the more vulnerable dogs- who simply must show aggression to balance the fear of being themselves harmed by larger, stronger animals (other dogs and humans too).

The solution to this problem is to have a pet-owner's license.
Make it an 'opt out' system where any reported cases of mistreatment get reported to authorities, and that individual is added to a federal database that is investigated by petstore and pound owners before an animal may be purchased- and being marked negatively puts a lifetime ban on the individual (and if found in possession of an animal from a house-litter, that person gets fined or imprisoned and the animal given a new home).
Not only will it prevent many attacks- but it will also stop a lot of animal abuse too (usually the abuse causes the attacks).

Of course, THAT would put an inconvenience on the gluttony of ALL would-be pet owners having to demonstrate better parenting skills (which is what it truly is)- than expecting authorities to clip off the parts that are inconvenient to other people only.

King Hazza, I agree with the fact that most pit bulls are friendly and affectionate...to people they, or their owners, know and like!
Certainly, they are a very aggressive dog to other dogs or to any vague form of teasing, such as that given by children at times.

I have cared for an elderly lady living in the country, who went for a walk one day, as she does most days, down her street. A pit bull in a neighbouring house ran out of it's yard, and across the road to bite her on the leg viciously. We attended to her infected leg wound for over a year. She never went for a walk outside again.

Sorry, but humans have to come before aggressive animals, whether it is their owners fault or not.
Yes all dogs bite.
But, hands up those who would prefer to tackle a biting pit-bull to any other breed?

How many of you pit bull lovers would feel the same way about the breed if it was YOUR elderly mum or kids bitten by them?

King Hazza, not having a go at you mate but is that it?
Truly is it rubbish, based on your view this story that has happened, many times,is rubbish lets move on?
No one loves dogs here more than me, never ever would I own a pit bull.
And a great deal of other Bred to kill dogs.
Bad boy belly! but[the pit bull breed came about after it was bred to fight in the pits.
Blue cattle dogs bite more than pit bulls, but how many do they kill.
So lets not do the OLO shuffle, kick people who have different views.
And at the same time place the highest value on our own.
Tell me,do you trust every owner of a pit bull roty or such.
Would you give the druggy up the road more off his head than not a loaded gun.
Or let your kids wander next door while a sub teenager was using dads rifles.
King Hazza, the death toll just in Australia, from this breed or crosses can not be ignored.
I blame first the owner,some are unfit to own such a dog, councils,who fail to check on complaints about savage dogs.
And question not the breed but our need to have them living in Suburbia.
And who? yes who doubts we will again hear of such a story this year maybe month?

There are dozens of dog breeds to chose a pet from, so it is simply beyond me as to why any person would chose a breed that has specificly been bred to fight and kill.

Sure some breeds of dogs bite more than others and most will bite if you step on their tail or they feel threatened, but the difference with dogs bred to fight is that they do not just bite, they kill. When adrenilin is pumped into their blood, they keep fighting untill they kill or they are killed. That is what makes them dangerous, plus the fact they are powerfully built and have very strong jaws. It is all in the breeding.

I have seen footage of people, adults and kids, playing with big cats like lions and they are very gentle with the humans, and bears too,but we are not allowed to keep them in our backyards because they are considered dangerous, no one argues with that, so if a breed of dog is also considered dangerous it is only right that it is banned from being kept as a pet.

I do not agree with king Hazza, the breeds of fighting dogs have been bred that way for many generations and the genes are there, just below the surface and only needs a trigger to set it off.

I think it only a matter of time, and a few more incidents, when more stricter laws will be imposed and all dogs with genes of the fighting breeds banned.

As for a licence to have a dog or certain dogs, hell, some people should have a licence to have kids of their own. Just ask DOCS.

Pity about this title: "Dogs The Wolf in your back yard"

It puts a wrong slant on what a dog truly is.
Besides being men's best friend and specifically bred for the purpose of hunting, protecting livestock and the family unit, there seems to be a notion that breeding dogs with "lock-jaws" can do the job of previous mentioned purposes.
They should be banned as family pets in my humble opinion, as they should not have a job as bone-cruncher's. This breed is a killer with killer instinct including the necessary tools.

Belly, my point is a valid one, even if you can't see it because you're blinded by your fear of appearing bigoted, even though there's no bigotry on offer. It's a common failing of the Left. Lexi had the same problem.

All I'm saying is that people from places like Sudan haven't got a dog-owning cultural background, they don't see dogs as friends and companions on the whole and they have not developed good ways of dealing with them.

The same could be said of many Australians with backgrounds in the inner city or even many suburbs today. It's because of that lack of capacity to deal with dogs that people who choose to own dogs need to be more vigilant.

I still say this incident was avoidable and if the dog had wandered into my yard with my kids in it there would have been no problem. Dogs react, they don't act with malice aforethought and their instinct to bite when excited is very strong. That applies to every dog, but most dogs are capable of sufficient self-control that no bad outcome results. Perhaps a scratch. Only 1 in 100 or less will require any form of treatment other than a bandaid. This is probably also true is Sudan, but dogs there carry rabies, so it's not surprising that people from there are reluctant to take a chance with them.