Completely wrong dude. Pit bulls and Rottweilers account for 76% of all fatal dog attacks.
Discussion
Yeah, I trust the figures I've seen about as much as I trust COVID fatalities.
Police reports of the dog's breed are subjective. Media even more so. Even poodles have been written up as being pitbulls, here.
But if you have a link to a credible study, I'd like to read it.
Let’s use our common sense here and think about which one of these is more likely to kill a child. Pitbulls were specifically bred for aggression. Now dog fatalities are relatively rare only 72 occurred last year. That said 57 of those attacks were pitbulls of pitbull mixes. Genetics are more important than nurture. Look all you want and you will never find a report of a west highland terrier killing a person. Why? Because they simply don’t have the capacity. Pitbulls do. Now is your pitbull gonna kill your child? Probably not, but 50 families every year find out that their “well trained / sweet” pitbulls mauled their 3 year old to death.
Training this guy to kill, but it’s not taking for some reason
If any bad guys are watching don't break in I have a very scary Rottweiler
DNA test or it wasn't a Pit Bull.
I do strongly agree, though, that size and capacity for harm matter.
Before the 2000s moral panic around "Pit Bulls", the #1 breed reported in dog attacks was the Labrador.
Labs are big enough to cause serious harm, and bred for prey drive. Popular and photogenic, though, so the moral panic fizzled quickly.
Before that, German Shepherds were the moral panic breed of the 1980s - but since fashion among bad people moved on long ago, the breed's reputation has improved.
Personally I don’t trust any dogs around small children.