This is just plain not true.
Guns don't eat, don't bark, and don't have to go potty.
If you have enough land to keep your vicious dog out of sight and out of contact with the general population, you aren't part of the problem.
It is very easy to effectively ban breeds which are allowed into situations where they can be seen by the public.
Almost throughout the entire country citizens are prohibited from owning dangerous animals like lions, tigers, etc. This works.
Wrong; if your dog is vicious, you ARE the problem. It doesn't matter where you live, if your dog will indiscriminately attack people you are doing something very wrong. But banning a breed will only prevent knowledgable, responsible owners from keeping their pets, it will not affect people who don't license, vaccinate, or walk their dogs anyway.
On an unrelated note, how are they going to define pit bull? I know some champion weight pulling dogs who are no more than 30 pounds; they look like beefy Jack Russels. Then there are the unpapered block-headed types that look like bulldogs; There are slim pit bulls, fat pit bulls, and pit bulls that look like mastiffs.
Except for a small percentage of pedigreed ADBA dogs, 'Pit bull' is a catch-all term for a smooth-coated dog that's big. Are you going to ban all mutts? What about pit bull mixes?
You're going to end up with a bunch of ham-handed government regulations targeting any dog that anyone cares to name, and irresponsible pet owners will continue to harbor dangerous dogs.