Did I say a word about banning any dogs? My post was about where the public perception comes from. I understand this is an issue near to your heart, but please don't make me your straw man.
Of COURSE pits represent a tiny proportion of maulings; they're a tiny proportion of dogs. And my post repeatedly made clear that I don't assume pits are any more likely to attack than other dogs. The point I was trying to make was that a perfectly fine dog breed can still be reasonably perceived as "dangerous."
Think of it this way: you go outside and jog down the sidewalk. How worried are you that you're going to fall off that sidewalk? Not a bit, I imagine. It's plenty wide enough to run on. OK, now put that same sidewalk 1000 feet up in the air. Would you still feel just fine taking a jog? The chances of falling may be the same, it's the consequences of the accident that changed.
Yes, a pomeranian can kill. Just like you could trip while jogging on the ground, fall into the street and get run over by a car. But rather than showing me lists of fatalities committed by other breeds, how about showing me this: stats on the number of serious/fatal injuries caused by each breed as a percentage of total attacks by that breed. E.g., if one of those pomeranians you cite goes after a human how is that human likely fare vs a comparable encounter with a rottweiler.
Again, I'm not advocating rounding up anybody's beloved pets. I'm just trying to explain where I think the public sentiment against these dogs comes from (in part; unscrupulous breeders and fighters being the other element.)
