Certainly, but that was partly due to negligence. Over 99% of pit bulls are owned with no problems. It is a dangerous breed, and know that responsible owners have to take special precautions. But is the pit bull breed the place the line is drawn? Banning pit bulls would bring into question the right to own another dozen breeds, and after those are banned, then breeds will be crossbred.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to keep a certain breed of dogs. And, FWIW, I’v enever heard anyone talking about a ban on Giant Schnauzers or Akidas or even Fila Brasileiros even though anyone of these dogs is potentially as dangerous as a pitbull because they aren’t as commonly available or as notorious as pit bulls. That being said, I have always contended that ownership of a pitbull should be regulated at the state level just as much as a handgun. I understand the need for the breed but I think we need to ensure that owners have mandatory liability insurance on the dog and they need to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the ownership laws anually and at the request of neighbors and LE, laws that demonstrate that the owners have positive control over the animal at all times. And I disagree with your “99%” figure.