The breed is instinctively aggressive just as much as a Golden Retriever isn't aggressive. Pits from good homes with loving families have had ther beloved pet turn on them and their children in an instant.
Edit: posted after others apparently posted objecting to the sense of this post of mine. Nevertheless, my opinion stands.
The problem is that pit bulls are bred to have an "instant on" red zone.
That's not the problem in that they have a place in certain situations. Families, though, I don't think are one of them.
I don't think we want the govt getting involved as to who can have a pit bull (or not), but clearly people have to do a better job when selecting a dog.
I have often considered the idea that if a family has kids and gets a pit bull (or other aggressive breed) the "parental units" should be charged with assault (or the like) if something bad happens.
But there's no good way to implement such an idea. So back to Square 1. Which also, incidentally, calms my libertarian objections to such schemes. That, and the fact that I love pits....
--- End of line (MCP)