The reason pits are a pooled group (type) of dogs is because they share ancestry. I think the term is Molossor dogs (an agressive guard dog) was used as a foundational breed for a group of dogs that share agression problems because they were bred to be agressive. This very old ancestry is core and key to the pit bull problem - they were never bred to be companion dogs, they were bred to kill. They do not fit in civil society - their attacks and silent approach, hunting people etc. are not like domesticated dogs. I don’t believe that the problem is irresponsible owners - not when you have different breeds of dogs resulting from common breeding stock all having agression issues. I have yet to see decades of breeding for “good traits” if we are talking about companion dogs. There’s alot of wishful thinking on the part of those who either own or know dogs that never went postal. The problem is there’s no way to tell them apart - I used to believe as you did but then I started watching videos, reading accounts, talking to people who loved their pits but had to give them up (or worse) - it is the breed. The “irresponsible owners” thing doesn’t account for enough bodies but it sure doesn’t help.
Pit bull is a term used to describe the problematically agressive group of genetically related breeds that were bred for agression. Now we can’t tell a “good pit” from a “lethal pit” until the ambulance arrives. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.
It's fine to say we have a problem with pit bulls in this country, because we do, but don't ignore facts.
If you say the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Terrier were never bred to be companion dogs, then you are ignoring over a century of history.
In particular, to say Staffordshire Terriers were never bred to be companion dogs is to deny the existence of the breed.
You and I both agree that we have a 'pit bull' problem in this country, but I doubt we'll agree on much else.