From the data I have seen, the pitbull ban has worked, in a way. Pitbull bites needing hospital attention are down, however total bites needing hospital attention are up. German Shepards lead the pack pre-ban and post-ban, oddly enough.

Problem with this data is it doesn't actually record severity of these bites. That's a problem, we can't come to a 100% conclusion on what dog is more dangerous, just there was more bites from that dog varying in severity. It could lead us to the conclusion that these dogs are typically more aggressive, however one of the top 3 dogs post ban is the Labrador retriever, even more bites than Rotties.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that Ontario banned the breed and didn't actually research and collect data to either support the ban or stop it. Again, a problem. Has it worked? Possibly, but there are more bites than ever, at the moment. Are pitbulls usually the perpetrators of the worst attacks? If the media is to be believe, sure, but I don't believe it full stop and there is no data to actually support it either way.

If the data supported a ban, I'd be for it. But right now it was a ban that came into a affect because of a few news stories. The data says that German Shepards are the worst breed for this kinda stuff, so why Pit Bulls?