Do statistics really show that certain breeds of dogs are more likely to attack or "snap" than other breeds? Or does the media blow this out of proportion?

Asked by ItalianPrincess1217 (11979) November 3rd, 2009 from iPhone

I may be a bit biased seeing as I own a pitbull. And I’ve owned one in the past also. I made sure both came from reputable breeders. I also met the dog’s parents and made sure their temperment was good and stable. This was important to me because I know that problems can arise if I wasn’t careful about learning the dog’s history, etc. What really upsets me is when hear someone jump to conclusions about this breed (or any breed for that matter) and make generalizations about them. I’ve noticed a lot of news stories covering pitbull attacks and this also upsets me. My opinion is this…If a dog is properly trained, socialize and watched carefully around children, the chances of an attack are slim to none. I love my dog and she’s never shown signs of aggression before but would I let her play in a room with a toddler that she is just meeting for the first time? No. That’s irresponsible. What is your opinion on this topic? Do you think it’s more the owner’s fault when attacks happen? Do you truly believe all pitbulls, rottweilers, German shephards, etc, are naturally mean, aggressive dogs? Do you think the media tends to blow these things out of proportion? If a golden retriever were to bite a child, would it be plastered all over the news?