Dog breeding for fighting has very little to do with temperament and a whole lot to do with physiology and intelligence. They have very strong neck and jaw muscles, and are very large. That means the stakes for aggression are much higher. Smaller dogs are more likely to be aggressive and neurotic, and can legitimately take more work to train and socialize. Larger dogs, across the board, regardless of specific breed, cause more damage when they attack.

The lockjaw myth and killer instinct myth are just that - myths. The statistics of dog attacks and fatalities are woven into a complex tapestry of human behaviors and circumstances - demonizing a particular breed is about as stupid and kneejerk an argument as can be made.

https://spartacuslawfirm.com/top-car-models-with-the-most-du...

The Acura NSX has the most DUIs associated with it. That's probably due to the culture around people who want those cars, their socio-economic conditions, the level of enforcement on that demographic, the overall number of cars made available for purchase, the level of marketing, how the marketing was targeted, and so on, and so forth.

DUIs being associated with that particular car has nothing to do with Acura NSX being more or less likely to cause the driver to be drunk. More attacks associated with pit bulls have nothing to do with the breed except at a superficial level. All sorts of cultural baggage and irresponsible human behavior underpins every dog attack, and banning a breed of dog isn't going to impact the rate of dog attacks in the slightest.

Weight limits tied to graduated licensing such that someone has to demonstrate they can be responsible before owning a potentially dangerous animal might be reasonable. If you want a Saint Bernard, you have to demonstrate the resources and capacity to handle it responsibly, etc. If someone doesn't have the resources or time, they've got no business owning the animal.