and did you ever try to break down those statistics? First of all, "pitbull" is not a breed, so you're combining multiple breeds vs all other breeds. Then, you need to think about why they're being reported more, if those statistics aren't biased or altered by you fanatics. Because you are fanatics. Can't mention pitbulls without dozens of you freaks coming out of the woodwork calling for a genocide of them all and their owners. You don't see this kind of enthusiasm for people not wearing seatbelts or using their phones while driving or other dangers that are FAR more likely to affect the public. Why are you so outraged by the very rare instance of people being attacked? If you see one article a month about you'll think OMG PITBULLS ARE KILLING PEOPLE EVERY MONTH but there are 400 million people in America. I bet more people are killed by toasters but you aren't frothing at the mouth about toasters are you? Sheeple cult.

Do they actually bite more or do they just do more damage because of their strength? Do they bite more because they're predisposed to it or because so many people keep them as purposely wild guard dogs? Are they reported more because of the media sensation of OMG IT'S A PITBULL vs a bite from a goldie or a chihuahua or Jack Russel that might go unreported to the media? Statistics are never as black and white as they seem, and it's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to "50% of dog attacks are pitbulls despite being 15% of the dog population"... just like they quoted for African Americans.