It is a horribly complex issue.
What we need is more education - how to be safe around dogs, how to raise and train a dog safely and effectively, how to source a dog responsibly...
And some sort of registration/licence set up, that requires a basic test to show you have had the above education..
It needs to be affordable - if it isn't its discriminatory against those who are on a lower income, and if its unachievable you just push people to break the rules.
But... whilst all that would help, where does the money for it come from?
The previous licencing system was scrapped because it was costing more money to run than it generated. And back then we had more dog wardens and police had responsibility for strays.
We do not have the infrastructure for a useful licencing scheme nor an education scheme.
We do not have the ability to police and enforce the legislation we currently have, as it is left to local authorities in the main and they prioritise other things.
So we have fewer dog wardens - these are now typically provided by outside contractors rather than a part of the LA's environmental health dept, and stray kennel contracts go to the cheapest bidder.
We do not have regulations on dog training/behaviour providers, nor on the education providers who are training the trainers/behaviourists.
One of the people currently advising police is qualified only by his own organisations, ie those HE founded. His only formal qualification is as a police dog handler, back in the 70s/80s when police dog training was pretty brutal and frankly, dangerous.
The police are pretty much a closed book, they won't accept outside education from existing organisations except in very rare circumstances. They think their 'experts' are at the top of their game when in reality, thats a long way from the truth.
SO we don't even have a starting point for creating a licencing system that ensures people know what they're doing, or that can be policed and enforced effectively.
What will almost certainly happen is more knee-jerk legislation such as banning more breeds or insisting certain breeds or weights of dog wear muzzles, because that makes it LOOK like 'someone is doing something' and the real issues will continue to fester away under the surface.
Those two options are a real problem:
Banning a breed means banning x breeds of that breed, and because DNA testing cannot yet determine breed accurately (And probably never will) what you're left with is a system that must rely on measurements and proportions.
This means if your dog has the appearance that fits those criteria, it is illegal, if it doesn't, it isn't.
It has very little to do with whether the dog or owner are actually 'dangerous'.
Because you HAVE to include crosses of a type, not just pedigrees, and you can't use DNA... you instantly turn people into criminals when their crossbred puppy grows into a set of measurements.
You also tell people that specific sizes and shapes of dog are inherently dangerous and thus for certain people, desirable to own.
If you successfully seize and remove this particular make and model of dog, you simply drive those who wish to own intimidating, ego boosting breeds into developing a new breed that doesn't fit the measurements (and this is where we are at with the XL bullies, they're not illegal as they don't fit the measurements which are based on the American Pit Bull Terrier breed standard).
Muzzling dogs in public sounds like a solution... it really isn't.
It is a huge welfare issue - 'in public' applies to in your front garden, and in your car, not just walking down the street. So now imagine your dog is vomiting due to car-sickness or they've eaten something dodgy before leaving home. You take the muzzle off, in your car, to clean them up and prevent choking... instantly, you're breaking the law and whats the penalty, a fine? That would not be very effective (those without money or who just won't pay fines just don't pay fines!), so in reality, its seizing the dog.
Seizing the dogs not wearing muzzles requires people out there to spot this and police it - who are they? Police? Dog Wardens? We don't have enough of either, and most of the dogs they would be seizing will not be dangerous or a threat to the public...
Where do they put these dogs - most LA have access to one stray kennel that may take perhaps 20 seized dogs at a time (thats generous, most would have space for perhaps 5). They are NOT welfare friendly environments - dogs will get food, water, shelter, they will not get exercise, enrichment, human company, training, in some cases, they wont get adequate veterinary care either (they should, but the last 30 years has shown that they do not).
Thats a HUGE drain on taxpayer funds... and it won't do much to prevent bite incidents and fatalities.
Dogs can do serious injury whilst wearing a muzzle, they can bash you, they can nip you with the front teeth and most dogs can yank a muzzle off if they're loose and panicking. Muzzles work well with the dog held on a short lead, but once the dog is loose, they're nowhere near as effective as people think.
Muzzle wearing also affects natural behaviour (the body language involving their faces, lips, eyes, ears etc, all affected by muzzle wearing) so we'd likely see a decrease in socialisation between dogs and other dogs, and dogs and people as they can't communicate properly.
It also makes it much harder to train dogs when they're wearing a muzzle - you can't use toys, and using food as a reinforcer is harder too (you're limited to poking treats in through the muzzle, so you can't deliver reinforcers any other way).
We may also see an increase in fear based reactivity/aggression as a result of the diminished communication skills, lack of socialisation and the difficulty in training.
We're also likely to see that as many owners will assume their muzzled dog is now rendered totally harmless, and so they put the dog in situations it can't actually cope with...
But, most fatalities happen INSIDE someones home, on private land, where these dogs will not be muzzled.
So I would caution people, be careful what you ask for - the more people cry out for 'something to be done' and 'ban these breeds' and 'all dogs should be muzzled' the more likely it is we will get knee jerk legislation, that serves no useful purpose (if it did, then 30 years post Pitbull ban, we'd have no pitbulls and no fatalities from heavy bullbreed types...)..
When we get crappy, rushed legislation designed to appease the masses, we also make it far FAR harder to create effective and useful legislation. As far as government is concerned 'we've done what you asked, now go away'... for the next 30 years.