Pitbulls have an ownership problem plain and simple. Banning them is for their own good to keep them out of the hands of retards. There is nothing inherently wrong with pitbulls. The pitbull problem is already spreading to cane corsos which are now becoming popular among the same poor handlers. Another breed with nothing wrong with them.
The problem won't go away with pitbulls, until humans are held accountable you can ban as many breeds as you like they'll still raise dangerous labs if they are allowed to. Case in point >>5034367
>>5034271
>They were bred to attack and kill things
Bulldogs, bull terriers, great danes, irish wolfhounds, bull arabs, ridgebacks.
Hell most guardian breeds were specifically bred to attack wolves. Rottweilers and mastiffs in particular are bred man killers.
Half of those dogs are incredibly lazy and docile because once you stop breeding a dog specifically for a task and start breeding it for another, for example companionship, you change its temperament. Unsurprisingly reputable breeders don't breed their bully types for aggression and in fact do the opposite.
The very fact that breeding and breeds exist which is your entire argument in the first place disproves your argument, otherwise dogs would still be savage wolves.
Your belief is entirely based off of woman brained "vibes". It sounds right and it tickles your pickle so you treat it as fact when it simply isn't.
There is nothing magical about pitbulls. They're just poorly managed. I've owned a staffy x for 15 years without any incident. Any decent owner can do the same with any dog by understanding its breed, its personal temperament and by reading its behavior. If people want to argue against pitbulls because the average owner is too retarded to own one then fine. Selling fantasies to justify zoosadism and damage control for bad owners isn't.
>>5034355
This is common sense. But you've described exactly how this is an ownership problem and not a breed problem.