I'd really love to have the 'dirt' so to speak and find out what correlation there is between deadbeats who have some involvement, or intention to be involved in dog-fighting, and the sheer negligence of not properly fencing off their properties so no dog (regardless of breed) could get out and run wild.
You get what I mean, they take a decent puppy, brutalise the poor thing until it is in a seige mentality, ready to tear apart anything except its owner (maybe) and get off on such a thing, thinking it is a status symbol, then when it gets out and attacks a kid, they shit their pants and it's like 'oh no, I don't know what could have happened, "fluffy" was such a lovely natured dog, and was nurtured and cared for properly, it must be something wrong with the breed, I had no idea your honour'
ANY large dog is dangerous if improperly raised, trained and housed. You don't even let the dogs near kids until they are properly trained and monitored, and if you do happen to have a dog (after that initial phase) that isn't responding to training, and shows certain behaviour traits, you either keep them the hell away from people or more properly, do the responsible thing, and go to the vet and have them put to sleep. Seriously.
The problem is, and to a certain extent this is the problem with guns too, (i.e. lots of decent responsible owners but it only takes one fuckwit) you CAN'T fix 'stupid'. And there's always going to be moronic people owning pits, and other breeds for the wrong reasons and not responsible enough to have them in the first place. I'm not sure banning the breed will fix anything, I believe in the UK they did that, and the fuckwit brigade just switched to other big breeds. In Australia a number of breeds are now heavily restricted. But much like making drugs illegal, it's not hard to get one if you want it. I don't think there is a true universal answer.