Take a look at this list and see if you're able to spot a pattern.

You should always be careful with this logic. Attack statistics don't reveal why a certain breed is more or less responsible for injury. It doesn't make sense to simply say "a disproportionate amount of attacks come from pitbulls, therefore pitbulls are innately more vicious" for the same reason it isn't logical to say "a disproportionate number of crimes in the united states are committed by black people, therefore black people are innately more criminal".

Just as crime rates can be attributed to social and economic factors more than race, attack statistics should be placed in their proper context before you try to draw any conclusions.

My dog was attacked by a pitbull two separate times

My dog was attacked by a German shorthaired pointer on two separate occasions, the second time requiring surgery. Does my anecdotal evidence cancel out your anecdotal evidence?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Pitbulls are dangerous in the sense they are incredibly powerful and capable of inflicting immense harm. Combined with decades of irresponsible breeding to satisfy a market of street thugs who want a "tough" looking dog, it isn't surprising they have the negative reputation they have. But I don't think the arguments you're making are the correct ones. Using real statistics to jump to to illogical conclusions and drawing from your own narrow experience isn't sensible