They were bred explicitly for fighting. First fighting bulls in pits, hence Pitbull. That was outlawed. It was deemed unfair to pit different animals against each other in a fight. So pitbulls were then bred to fight other dogs.

Pitbulls were killed when they wouldn't fight, or were beat by another dog. The breeders didn't care about them bitting humans. They wouldn't keep them as pets as they were for fighting.

In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that's the end of your line of reasoning.

Are you able to provide a link or a study stating this, or are you just providing your opinion here? Happy to have this discussion. But you seem to just be angrily dismissing my comment out of disagreement rather than facts.

The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting. It was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog. To produce a lighter, faster, more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

They were made primary for dog fighting, and fighting is ingrained into their nature, in the same way that retrievers were made to retrieve. I have also provided information in another comment here that breaks down the fatalities caused by dog breeds each year and pit bulls kill more than all other breeds combined.

Even if they were bred for something else entirely a singular breed of dogs causing the majority of fatalities each year is clearly dangerous. So dangerous that something should be done to ensure the public's safety.