Those lists are not entirely fact-they are the opinion du jour of insurers, cops, etc and change from time to time-less than 30 years ago Huskies, Mastiffs and Malamutes were not even on the lists, and Dobermans, German Shepherds and Rottweilers were at the top, not Pits and Chows.
Not sure what lists you're referring to. What I'm talking about is not opinion, but facts gathered from the CDC's collection or statistics. So you had a dog on the dangerous list and it didn't rip off your face. Good! But this doesn't mean that the breed is safe, simply that you weren't attacked. In fact anectodal evidence "it was the sweetest dog... bs bs bs etc." is meaningless. It's only from the collection of data over many incidents that patterns emerge, and that pattern is pit bulls and rotweilers are dangerous.
Pit bulls are estimated at 6% of the us dog populaton (from American kennel club records I believe) and yet year over year they account for over half of the deaths and maimings reported. Some other delusional poster claimed it was the owners, not the dogs. Sorry, but she's living in a world that only peripherially impinges on the real one. Just as dog breeds differ in appearance, they also differ in temperment, and all the self delusion in the world won't change this fact
"“The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.”–-H. L. Mencken