[kanawa]

You..."Pit bulls perpetrate a far greater percentage of maulings and deaths for their total number than other dogs."

Me....."Sorry, when both the numerator and the demoninator are in question your statement reflects only your personal opinion. "

You....All who are very interested know about the 20-year-study by the Centers For Disease Control, but the other studies show the same.

Yes indeed let us read that report as I have done many times.
Let us look at the conclusion of the study....

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites

And let us look at the discussion...

Discussion Ideally, breed-specific bite rates would be calculated to compare breeds and quantify the relative dangerousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by Breed X relative to a population of 10,000 X’s (1/1,000) implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y relative to a population of 1,000,000 Y’s (0.1/1,000). Without consideration of the population sizes, Breed Y would be perceived to be the more dangerous breed on the basis of the number of fatalities.
Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities, because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. Therefore, we have elected to present data separately for purebred and crossbred dogs to demonstrate at least 2 alternative counting methods. Relative rankings do not differ greatly whether one focuses only on purebred dogs or includes crossbred dogs. The crossbreed issue is also problematic when estimating denominators (ie, breed-specific population sizes).
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available.

And from the AVMA report A community approach to dog bite prevention

An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.”12,13 Although this is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment.14 Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens. Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7 Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community.

You, Sir, are an example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
I harbor no illusion that the facts will change your opinions,
your mind has ossified around half truths and cliches.
My only hope is that others who seek to work toward actual solutions
to reduce dog attacks will gain something from the information I present.

[gitmo]

There is a serious problem with Pit Bulls. It is called “the owner”.

Many breeds seem to have this problem.

[familyop]

You omitted something.

Despite these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.