Thanks to the excellent article posted by Norski we have easy access to data that refutes your assertion “Breed-specific bans have been shown to have no appreciable effect as regards safety.”
From the article:
In late 2014, Animals 24-7, a group that tracks shelter killings, estimated that of the 1.3 million shelter dogs projected for euthanasia in 2014, pit bulls accounted for 56%.
This is true despite the fact that pit bulls only make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.
Over 900 U.S. cities and nearly all privatized military housing — the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force — and many public housing authorities have breed-specific restrictions. Such measures often include: mandatory sterilization, liability insurance and strict containment rules.
The most progressive law, a pit bull ban, prohibits new pit bulls and new pit bull breeding. In just a few years, these communities see a significant drop in pit bull bites and euthanasia of pit bulls.
However we are spoiled for choice if we look for other corroboration:
Manitoba experience: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/06/29/injuryprev-2012-040389
Council Bluffs, Iowa
Pit bulls are not only problematic in large cities; they threaten mid-sized cities and small towns as well. Located in the heartland, Council Bluffs, Iowa has about 62,000 citizens. After a series of devastating attacks, beginning in 2003, Council Bluffs joined over 900 U.S. cities and began regulating pit bulls. The results of the Council Bluffs pit bull ban, which began January 1, 2005, show the positive effects such legislation can have on public safety in just a few years time.
https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs.php
Do breed-specific laws work?
https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-bsl-faq.php
To be fair there are articles that say the breed bans don’t work and some communities have revoked them. Many of those articles are by animal rights activists. It is fair to say there are many sides to the story yet municipalities are within their rights to choose legislation if they feel it fits the needs of their community.
And, for the record, I don’t like the pit bull class/family of dogs and am very much in favor of their either being banned or outlawed outright or the cost of ownership and insurance being made correspondingly as high as their actuarial data justifies.
I’ve personally known only friendly pits, but I don’t trust any of them past 6 months old.
In fact, the only things I “fear” when walking my dogs are copperheads and pit bull type dogs that are loose or have broken free, and both for the same reason.
Though I don’t hunt, I have springer spaniels, dogs genetically programmed to hunt upland game birds. It is a joy to me to watch them “switch on” and go to work hunting the birds and whateverelse they smell in the backyard and on our walks.
With education and that experience of watching decades of human programmed canine genetics at work, I see no point in having something that can suddenly switch on genetically and then effienctly main or kill because it’s in their DNA.
The actuarial data supports this opinion and I support being free of such things being in the hands of people who cannot afford the damage they can do and/or are unwilling or unable to train and control them even if they can afford the insurance or whatever else is required.