The thing is...if I take my gun pull the trigger and blow your kid's arm off I'm going to jail.
If a Pit Bull rips the kid's arm off, there may or may not be a criminal penalty for the owner. It depends on whether the dog lobby managed to get a "One Bite Free" law in place. Meaning that the owner is not criminally responsible until the dog has been proven to be vicious from previous attack. Even though we all know certain breeds like Pit Bulls are more dangerous than others, the owner skates if it is the first mauling.
Thanks for feigning to care about personal responsibility though.
Now... which breed has a worse mauling and death record than APBTs?
ABPT's are not necessarily (or likely) what's being referred to in this article nor are they the specific focus of 'breed specific legislation' within most jurisdictions.
As example, Ontario's current law (presently being hotly contested before the Courts &, as of now, zero for one therein) begins by citing ABPT's along with 3 other recognized breeds but then falls back on the same 'definition by subjective appraisal of appearance' which has been the fatal inherent legal flaw in most such laws. It then compounds this error by proceeding from the 'guilty until proven innocent', reverse onus that, if a dog is adjudged for any - even unlikely - reason to be a so-called "pit bull", it's up to the owner to prove otherwise.
IMHO, governments would be far wiser to literally 'throw the book' at all irresponsible owners no matter what sort of dog they possess:
National Companion Animal Coalition:
"Do Breed Bans Work?"
Canada Safety Council:
Aggressive Dogs Threaten Public Safety
BTW, far from "feigning", I'm the one taking a principled conservative position here which advocates holding offending owners personally accountable but still respects conscientious individuals' rights. "Shot gun" approaches to problems which negatively impact the good along with the bad should rightly be left to liberals.