This is a really good example of bad data. Even assuming these numbers are correct, the information is parsed in a way that doesn't make sense. There is no reason to break down fatalities per 100k dogs, other than to skew the data.

More pit-type dogs than other breeds (which, since it encompasses several different breeds and mixes, this base number is bound to be several orders of magnitude than some of the other breeds listed) means fatalities get divided by a larger number, which means it looks like a smaller number of fatalities.

Thank you for this, it really serves to show the ways in which pit apologists misrepresent data to pretend their dogs are safe, even on the occasions when they're not outright lying.