There are plenty of articles of labs/goldens "snapping" and attacking or killing people with no history of violence.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dog-killed-2-month-old-baby-ripped-child-legs-father-slept-room-police-article-1.1065711?outputType=ampWelp, time to ban Golden Retrievers by this logic, they're inherently a violent breed and may snap at any moment. Or... the truth is, ANY animal could "snap" for reasons we don't see or understand.
As is regularly pointed out, these two breed categories along with shepherd type dogs are highly overrepresented in attack statistics and this is owed to these three categories also being disproportionately popular to own, but people hyperfocus on pit bulls despite controlled statistical evidence showing this is nonsense.
Pit bulls were bred to hunt and kill? What do you think the majority of working dog breeds were bred for if not to win fights and help kill, whether for hunting prey or protecting livestock?
"Oh, but breed temperament plays a role in pit bulls specifically." Then surely you'll be pleased to know that pit bulls have long been understood by vets, kennel clubs, and other dog breed associations like the AKC to be smart and easily trainable breeds that are generally great with kids.
Oh, or we could move on to the magic bite force argument, which is just the moved goalposts version of the old "pit bulls have mechanically locking jaws" bullshit, and as if pit bulls didn't actually have weaker bite strength than several popular breeds like the german shepherd or several mastiff type breeds.
Just fuckin' end this already. Pit bull hysteria has no basis in reality, and anecdotal evidence being used to fuel pseudoscientific fear isn't suddenly more valid than science when it comes to this particular subject.
