I guess the fact that they were developed for blood sports is a sensitive matter, but directly pertinent to the deaths, maulings, shootings and mass euthanizations.
Breeding more of them and pushing them as sweet and normal dogs is irresponsible.
And I don't think a single person here has promoted, advocated, or extolled the virtues of dogfighting. Just as the pack hunting instincts of wolves have been developed and refined to make shepherds useful herding dogs, the combative instincts of pits, mastiffs, etc., have been put to use by many as defensive dogs in municipalities and nations that have otherwise left their citizens unarmed. Do pit bulls attack people? yes...and frequently with regrettable circumstances. Do gangbangers use AKs and ARs with equally regrettable effects? You're damned straight they do. Should either be outlawed, banned, confiscated, destroyed wholesale? I guess that depends on who you ask.
I've been around dogs my whole life, and bitten, slobbered upon, licked and nuzzled by virtually every recognized breed, wolf-hybrid, and mutt. Admittedly, I've never been 'mauled,' but I've taken some stitches courtesy of a big gray husky. I'm not an especially big pit bull fan, and in fact the only person I know who even owns (two) pitbulls is a single mom(widow) who resides in the country with a teenaged daughter. IMHO, denying them that level of deterrence, early warning and protection would be reprehensible. Quite literally, the dogs pose a threat only to those that would threaten them.
My point is, as with so many other distortions in the media, the irresponsible use and ownership of these dogs by those who abuse their instincts and abilities have completely obscured the fact that there are others who have responsibly put those instincts to legitimate use. It amazes me how people that decry the mainstream media's slantedness toward politics, firearms, the welfare state, taxes, second hand smoke and global warming will buy into their expertise and truthfulness when the issue turns to the canine realm.
Although I'm hesitant to draw even remote parallels to inanimate objects because so many seem incapable of grasping the larger point, I think you're capable of more serious deliberation than simply firing back, 'but guns don't have brains.' Many firearms and edged weapons are designed, marketed and built for, 'tactical purposes,' in other words, to kill or incapacitate another human. They may be used recklessly or responsibly, the object themselves have no moral quality themselves. Fire likewise, (which many argue, 'can have a mind of it's own') has historically been used for good and evil. Those that deliberately breed, cross and cultivate pitbulls with the intent of dogfighting, intimidating rivals, or using as offensive weapons are the morally flawed component; those that take and refine, and channel the dog's natural instincts for their own protection, and bridle the animals to minimize their threat to their fellow man frankly, in a free society, deserve to be left alone if that's what they choose.