The biggest issue of getting 'true' stats on dog bites is that dog bites from smaller dogs don't tend to get reported.

>Are there stats on how much difference it's made in dog bites and attacks on people? Here in Ontario the ban seems not to have made much of a dent if at all.
>
>>>>>It's a stupid and undemocratic ban IMO.
>>>>
>>>>I thought it was sensible and democratic.
>>>>Last time I looked we had a democratically elected government and they chose to pass a law banning the ownership of a breed of dog whose sole raison-d'etre was to pick a fight with a couple of tons of beef :-}
>>>
>>>Was there a change like "you have to kill all pits xx month after the law is passed" recently
>>>or is the ban in effect now for more than one dog generation ?
>>
>>AFAIR, a dog born before 1991 would not be destroyed (unless there was good reason to believe that the dog was dangerous) but must be muzzled and kept on a lead.
>>
>>Ah - here it is : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/introduction/enacted
>>
>>>As GB is one of the countries with least weapons on the streets,
>>>a harsher attitude there is quite in line with *their* context,
>>>
>>>I personally believe with most others here that the dogs behaviour
>>>is heavily dependant on the owner, but there have been enough incidents both
>>>with special breeds and stupid owners and "harmless" dogs and bad circumstances
>>>to allow arguing for some control to follow the rules on arms -
>>>where some types are forbidden as well and a lot of variation between countries exists ;-)