It’s also worth pointing out that we have a self-selecting sample of irresponsible (and I partially include ‘didn’t know’ in irresponsible. It’s responsible to find out) owners here. Few responsible owners are going to research a fighting dog and think it’s going to be ok to have it around a toddler, are they? It’s almost automatic that owning these breeds in a family environment is done by someone who doesn’t have the knowledge and skill to assess manage the risks (because if they did, they would already know that the risk is too high and not even consider it!)
They were bred to be weapons. They are also often (not exclusively) bought by people who want a weapon. They might not mean to use them as weapons, but it’s no different to carrying a gun, a knife or a baseball bat, except that knives and baseball bats aren’t sentient beings and can’t go into an unstoppable attack independently. If you want a gun for ‘fun’ you have to demonstrate that you can keep other people safe from it. That you know how use, store and transport it safely. That you will keep it away from children. That you have a level of competence in using it and are surrounded by others who keep these norms. As a result, guns are quite hard for an average person to get hold of and gun crime is relatively low the in the UK. I have no clue how to go about acquiring an illegal gun, but I bet I could get hold a dangerous dog this weekend if I wanted. Being illegal won’t eradicate the bloodlines straight away, but it will help, and it will help keep them away from children, too.
Of the 27 fatal dog attacks in the list of upthread, 20 are some sort of bull breed. That’s 75 percent. They aren’t even common dogs. This is because they were bred to be weapons, and are easily available to people who wanted weapons but are not responsible enough to store them safely. If those blood lines were eradicated, some of those attacks would not have happened. If the first thing on a Google search was that these dogs are the most dangerous to children, then some people would have thought twice and bought something else. Some people’s partners would have said ‘not near my kids’. Some people would have bought them and kept them in kennels. Some people would have bought other dogs that are not so weaponised and might not have attacked. But saying it’s the owners not the breed makes people think they can keep a dog like this safely. People who want them already have a a high chance of having an inflated sense of their own ability. Dog owners have a responsibility to help people risk assess by being realistic about breed traits, not individuals and that means breed matters.
If you Google Beagles, you will find lots of dross about how they are ideal family pets. Not too big, not too small, not extreme form, easy to care for, don’t shed, relaxed and don’t need much walking - it’s grossly misleading. Beagles were bred to live packs in a stable all week, chase a fox for ten miles over rough terrain at the weekend (independently making their own decisions about how and where to go) rip it apart, and then call the master of the hounds to collect them. They don’t care what you want, have no instinct to please you, have no recall, have a strong prey drive, suffer from Godawful separation anxiety, often nip out of fear or anxiety and are VERY destructive in a home. Shelters are full of them. Despite being an experienced dog owner, despite researching the breed, despite getting older dogs that have always been pets, mine are still the most poorly trainable dogs I’ve ever had, and I would not have them again. But they don’t maul kids, because they are not powerful or driven enough. They are just a pain in the arse. All dog owners help by candidly saying ‘this breed was bred to XXXXX’ this can be managed by spending a lot of time and effort on training.