Funny you should ask. I own a herding breed right now.
1. Socialization has really no impact on what a dog is bred to do or what it has an aptitude to do. Socialization mainly teaches dogs how to read "dog cues" and how to fit into the dog world. That is - to understand when another dog does or does not want to play, who the dominant one is, what the polite greetings are, etc.
2. My breed does certain things that are unique to the breed, and exhibits behaviors unique to the breed. She was not trained to do so. She lays prone on the outskirts of the field, anticipating a command from a human to move the stock in a given direction. She does this, despite never seeing a sheep/cow in her existence, nor being trained for herding in any way.
Whenever I see dogs of this breed at a dog park, they exhibit the exact same behaviors, down to the posture and eye focus.
The more I read your comments in this thread, the more I realize how little you actually know about dogs, nor did you actually read my comment before labeling it pseudoscience.
Partly, what I meant was that the causation is also irrelevant - if 1 breed is responsible for most attacks, and there is legislation against it that solves the issue - that doesn't mean anyone has been discriminated against. It just means there's going to be less attacks in the future.
Because they do. That's what they were bred for. This has nothing to do with human race analogies. Dog breeds influence behavioral traits heavily. I'm not convinced you know anything about dogs.
If a certain breed of dog is responsible for more attacks than any other breed, then breed-specific legislation is not pseudoscience.