I have a seperate website about this topic at: pitbullban.org/, but briefly the issue I was having was the proponents for lifting the ban wouldn't acknowledge the actual origin of the law in the first place.

There was a Latina councilwoman who co-sponsored the original bill back in 1989. The measure was sponsored by Councilwoman Mary DeGroot and Councilwoman Ramona Martinez so the proponents insisting that it was racial related law was a lie. The narrative was that the Latinx gangs liked the dogs and the law was a means to oppress. I also noticed that there were owners of dog rescue operations in the mix of proponents to lift the ban too, so a job security motive since some people would inevitably need to give one up.

In reality there were a couple notable victims of pit-bull attacks within the city limits in the 1980's. A boy was mauled to death and a Black man was attacked by a stray pit-bull in his own alley. I thought it crude that the governor immediately had photo op celebrating the lift of the ban. All these so-called enlightened liberals are hypocritical and sadistic. Time after time I will get a liberal online commenting to me some subtle death threat (like "I need to be put down") or more recently I was asked why I would care what a person does to their child.

Below is excerpt of an online debate I was in about the ballot measure to lift the ban on pit-bulls. The platform was actually "nextdoor.com" and I finally had to give the platform up after I was threatened with permanent ban for publishing people's comments to me elsewhere on the internet. People come straight out and tell me they want me dead but I ain’t ’sposed to tell no one! The moderators were all volunteers so wouldn’t do anything. (It was also on nextdoor.com where a Nextdoor post digresses to discussing violence against a lost elderly man with tardive dyskinesia!)

Anyway, here’s the plain text of the post...

Scott H- • Hale What happened to Reverend Billingsley was one of the cases that was an impetus for the city council to enact the ban, Jude Wolf. Here you are insisting that I watch your propaganda but you (and others) are apparently ignoring the articles I've included regarding the history of the ban. While all or most dogs can bite, many will only bite and not continue on to maul a human being. You are insisting that the new legislation will help ensure that "abusive owners are held accountable and the dogs that are actually dangerous, can be helped" - so if a dog (that falls in the range of the currently banned breed) does go and attack some person then the owner will be held accountable but the person who was attacked and their loved ones would still have their reality to contend with.
Dogs are not equivalent to humans in any way, shape, or form so one that attacks a person doesn't need "help", it needs to be put down. "Anthropomorphic" is ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things. The picture you included in your original post could be described as anthropomorphic in nature and it's not realistic.
There have been bans enacted in cities throughout the country and some have been in effect for decades now so any statistics regarding dog attacks in relation to breeds would need to take that into consideration in order to be completely accurate but of course that would be difficult to near impossible. From a human rights perspective the absolute accuracy of the related statistics doesn't matter that much anyway since the goal is to prevent the dogs from propagating.
I am not going to research the technical specifics of the type of canines involved since the current law (and similar ones around our country) specify what dogs are included. Maybe the ban needs to be broadened is the way I would go. How are you so desensitized to human suffering?

Lisa B- • East Colfax Scott Hughes Huh. True dog hater. Never actually encountered one before. I’m sorry for whatever happened to you to make you like this. No sense arguing with someone who can’t be changed. Might as well “put you down.”