I think the biggest issue with pits is more a matter of how bad it can get if things DO go wrong. Nobody likes to get bit but getting snapped by a lap dog and getting ripped by a pit are two entirely different things. The numbers for serious injury/death are hugely skewed towards that breed. In 2012 61% of fatal dog maulings were Pit related. In 2011 it was 71%. In 2010 it was 67%. These numbers are hugely disproportionate to their % of the total dog population. And remember, we aren't just talking severe or even horrible maulings...we're talking dead.
The question isn't is this breed "meaner" than that breed. The friendliest breed you can think of I guarantee has bites on it's record. Not the point. Once you start narrowing the criteria to severe and fatal instances Pits start distancing themselves from other breeds very quickly and by a large margin.
Now, am I saying ownership doesn't play a role? Oh hell yes it does, I have no doubt, but the numbers above are absolutely sobering. There's just no getting around them. So, what to do about it?
I don't want to tell anybody they "can't" have a Pit. You want one, get one. However, given the enormous and incontrovertible association with severe injury and death associated with the breed you should have to be licensed. With this license comes a severe admonishment as to the liability involved with owning the breed and signing off on how one understands the risks. This will NOT incur any real costs...maybe $20 or so just to cover the implementation. The point isn't even to keep people from having Pits but rather to discourage as many of the idiots out there from wanting them in the first place. Make them jump through a couple hoops, pay a few bucks, tell 'em how bad it'll go if they don't keep up with the dog and maybe we keep some of the dogs out of homes they should never have been in to begin with.