This is from a pro-APBT website, so I am not sure how unbiased the info is, but it does provide some compelling statistics.

http://pitbullregistry.com/unwarante...e%20stigma.htm

When looking at pitbull attacks vs. others you have to realize that our news media is an entertainment industry and therefore gives the public what they want to see. Just like a few years ago when every other day the news was reporting shark attacks, when in fact the numbers were the on par with previous and now subsequent years. The media responded to the public demand for shark attacks and therefore, sought out what are normally local stories and turned them into national news. Pitbull attacks get viewers, pomeranian attacks, probably not so much.

Also, attacks #s need to be looked at with consideration to the actual population #s and other environmental factors involved.

If you have a population of 200,000 Presa Canarios and they kill 5 people in 10 years, and then you have a population of 2,000,000 pitbull or "pitbull type" dogs that kill 20 people in 10 years, which do you consider the "dangerous breed"?

Just like with guns, the chances of being shot or attacked by a pitbull are statistically greater in certain geographic areas because 1) There are more violent crimes 2) There are more pitbulls 3) Both the guns and pitbulls are status symbols (of violence) within these areas. 4) A larger number of both gun/pitbull owners are irresponsible owners in these areas.