Please read the statistics
I am well aware of the anger and frustration my post may have brought. Believe it or not, I do like all types of breeds. This does not mean I have had them all or would. It does mean I appreciate them for what they are.
I do resent the uneducated remark. I have defended with many that well-bred dogs of all breeds are great pets. However, not all dogs are well-bred. Also, there are breeds that breeders hesitate to put in homes with young children especially if their dogs have not had the experience of young children. I was talking with a schnauzer breeder and giant schnauzers are one of those breeds. I did not just pull some breed names out of my head..and I did not list them because someone told me to do so. During the past few weeks, I have been looking at each breed. There are numerous breeds considered good for the novice, while some are only for the experienced. I have noticed that many of those bred for fighting are not for the novice pet owner...why? Because in the wromg hands, these breeds can be more dangerous. When handled by good owners, they are no different than those breeds for the novice.
I have listed some websites which will show statistics of dogbites and what breeds are the main offenders. Notice that some breeds are more likely to maim and kill. These were that were not breed oriented.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite
http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statistics.html
http://www.lawcore.com/animal-and-dog-bite/statistics.html
http://www.nafacares.org/Dog Stuff/dog_bite_statistics.htm
This definitely does NOT mean that all pits or rots, etc. are going to bite. In fact, the majority of any breed will not bite. Properly socialized and well-trained animals of any breed are much less likely to do so. My brother-in-law has a chow. He has had experience and has small children. He has no problems. But he will also be one of the first to tell you that a badly trained chow can be dangerous. And yes, a badly trained dog of any breed can bite, but certain breeds are more likely to do more damage. (Exceptions exist in even the "safest" breed...six years ago, a Pomeranian killed an infant.) When one reads statistics, it can be seen that when a particular breed becomes popular as a fighting dog, guard dog, or as "protection," this breed becomes the one with the most fatal bites. There seems to be a direct correlation between this perception, the resulting popularity, and the training to become aggressive. Theoretically, one can see how boxers could be put in this position.
It also goes without saying that each breed has its own temperament. Some breeds such as poodles and golden retrievers have different temperaments overall than do tosas and terriers. Last year. someone here in town had a breakin...he was going to get a pit bull for protection. This is being uneducated. Boxers are much better for protection. Boxers are more likely to let you know someone is breaking in and scare the person off.
I am not meaning to start a debate either, but the uneducated remark brought me back. I try not to make remarks that can't be backed up with facts. Did these "uneducated remarks" start from bad misinformation or have there been enough cases of fatalities that can be traced to certain breeds? I can appreciate your love for this breed especialy if you have had many good experiences with them. Also, google dogfighting and pit bulls and related dogs. I think you will come across some horrific websites where people are breeding their dogs for fighting. At one site, pits were argued to be the best fighters. It is these kinds of people who raise dogs who eventually kill someone due to bad training...then the whole breed gets a bad name.
By the way, American bulldogs and boxers as a mix seem to be a great combination.