the lowest common denominator keeps getting lower

A comment from Tom Scott just caused me to write a long and rambling comment that wants to be a post, so rather than expect people to read comments (a process many reasonable people avoid) I guess I should just let the comment become this post.
Replying to my earlier comment that I had “seen many dogs (especially pit bulls) which have simply wanted to fight without any training,” Tom says:

this reportfrom Tacoma would seem to confirm your point. However, there is no evidence that the dogs were not trained to be aggressive or violent.

Yes, I saw that story. Drudge (never one to shy from “pit bull” headlines) linked and embellished this version with the following headline:

NIGHTMARE: Pit Bulls Break Into Home, Maul Woman…

From what I can see, there was no indication that the dogs had been trained for dog fighting in any way by their young, very flaky-looking owner. It appears that these were simply aggressive, untrained, undisciplined, unsupervised animals who were allowed to roam the neighborhood at will, and one of his dogs was familiar with the woman they attacked (the latter, along with the whole neighborhood, knew they were vicious):

…Gorman [the victim] and neighbors say Wilson’s pit bulls have long terrorized the area.
Brad King said his five-pound papillon, Toby, was attacked inside his home when the two dogs entered through his open back door last summer. “They had Toby in their mouths,” King said.
King was able to stop the attack, but Toby suffered a broken jaw.
Neal Fortner, who lives two houses down from Gorman, said the pit bulls came toward him snarling one morning as he tried to get into his car. He threw rocks to shoo them away.
“I can’t believe she made it out her back door,” he said of Gorman. “I’m just glad she made it with her life.”
Gorman said she has called 911 previously when Betty charged her and Misty. She said the animals should be shot.
“A lot of pit bulls are very sweet, but she’s not at all,” she said of Betty. “She’s got a real mean streak in her.”

I agree with the victim that any animals which run around and terrorize the neighborhood like that should be shot, and I also think an irresponsible owner like that should not be allowed to have them. While this in no way excuses the culpability of the owner, I do think it’s nonetheless a bit peculiar that the victim (who has a dog of her own and knew about the dangerous pit bull) left her patio door open, and that not only did the two pit bulls go in, but so did another dog. Video and accompanying story here:

“I can just say I’m sorry because I can’t take it back,” said Zack Martin, one of the dogs’ owners. He says the other dog belongs to a friend. Martin says one of the dogs chewed on a rope holding up the fence to his backyard, and that’s how the dogs escaped.
“I would never think my dog would do something like that,” said Martin.

Well, the entire neighborhood seems to have known that they roamed at will, and had repeatedly had to fend them off and call the cops.
I should point out again that notwithstanding the disproportionate media coverage they receive, for this breed, attacks on people are an aberration. While it’s not generally well-known, those who bred them for fighting traditionally wanted dogs that were people-friendly in the extreme — otherwise they could not have been handled in the pit. A very well written piece in the New Yorker explains in more detail than most readers probably want, but here it is anyway. A brief excerpt:

The supposedly troublesome characteristics of the pit-bull type–its gameness, its determination, its insensitivity to pain–are chiefly directed toward other dogs. Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was “Man-eaters die.”)
A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog’s stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. “We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs,” Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. “I’ve tested half of them. And of the number I’ve tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children.” It can even be argued that the same traits that make the pit bull so aggressive toward other dogs are what make it so nice to humans. “There are a lot of pit bulls these days who are licensed therapy dogs,” the writer Vicki Hearne points out. “Their stability and resoluteness make them excellent for work with people who might not like a more bouncy, flibbertigibbet sort of dog. When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight, but what they are resolute about is being gentle. And, because they are fearless, they can be gentle with anybody.”

Breeding for characteristics, of course, is not an absolute science. But in general, coonhounds were bred to go after (and do go after) raccoons, Bulldogs were once bred to go after bulls, Foxhounds to go after foxes, Beagles to go after rabbits, Bloodhounds to follow the human scent, Dobermans to be aggressive towards human intruders, etc. These tendencies can be overcome — or accentuated — by training, and there are always aberrations and exceptions. Many a “hunting dog” not only won’t hunt, but will run from the sight of a gun. And Saint Bernards (considered one of the most loving of all) have been known to attack children.
My worry with the pit bull is that its amiable nature (which once went with the fighting genes) is being screwed with by psychopathic criminal breeders who do not seek the same characteristics as the original Victorian gamblers who bred them to be pitted for money. I have seen very friendly pit bulls owned by young thugs who were angered to see their dogs wag their tails and lick me when I pet them. A lot of these kids would do better with a Rottweiler or a Dobie, but they want the muscle-bound look that the pit bull has. (Unfortunately, I suspect that what they want is a pit bull that acts like a Doberman, and I hope such an animal is never created. In my view, such an aberrant variety would constitute a different breed.)
Sorry to ramble, but I am often concerned. I worry that what is going on in the streets is not in the best interests of a wonderful but misunderstood breed.
It often reminds me of the gun issue.
Problem is, there’s no Second Amendment for dogs. Which sets this thing up as a debate between loyal and responsible dog owners (accompanied by the usual libertarian hard core) versus concerned communitarians who want to hold everyone to the lowest common denominator.
The latter mindset means that social policy tends to be written by street scum.
(Why does that seem fine with the bureaucrats?)