Dangerous Dog Breeds?

The Mike Vick case has brought up another issue that people have been debating for a while.  Dangerous dog Breeds.  Is there such a thing and should they be Legislated against with breed-specific legislation?  How do you balance the rights of society to protect itself against dangerous dogs?

From a statistical standpoint I feel strongly that there are breeds that have a higher propensity to inflict physical harm on people.  This is a known fact.

I have an opinion on this and I have long thought that no breed should be outlawed, but for certain breeds anyone who is bitten should be allowed quadruple damages for their out of pocket expenses, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.  Any court levied judgment for these breeds should not be subject at all to the usual income protections that apply and should a person be victimized they will then be allowed to seize any asset including a persons home, car, or if left unpaid dog in order to pay the court determined damages.

What this basically does is put the responsibility and the brunt of any negative outcomes exactly where they belong, on the shoulders of the dog owners.  If just one or two people in a city lose their homes because they had a vicious dog then all other people buying dogs will make a more carefully thought out decision on whether they are responsible enough to take care of a more dangerous breed.  

Why do I take a firm stance?  When I was a kid I saw a dog outside my grandmothers house attack a paper boy and take his ear off.  The dog had been in trouble before. Our grandmother did not feel that it was safe to let us play around outside.  The whole neighborhood was held hostage by one selfish family.   The kid never got a dime from that irresponsible dog owning family.  That's just not right.