Sorry, that argument doesn’t fly very far.
In both cases the government passed laws saying that certain animals are too dangerous for people to be allowed to keep.
You can make a case, possibly a very good one, that designating certain breeds of dogs as being inherently too dangerous is not the place to draw the line between dangerous and non-dangerous animals. You can also make an argument, though not as good a one, that the government shouldn’t be making such laws at all.
But the principle, dangerous animals not allowed, is exactly the same.
There is a legal distinction between a domesticated and a wild animal. You are ignoring it because it undermines your fallacious argument.