BIB: that isn’t true.
It’s true that some breeds might be more likely to bite if we look at statistics gathered on biting and aggression. There are many reasons for this. One likely reason is that most dog breeds once served specific functions for humans. Some were highly prized for their guarding and protective tendencies, others for their hunting prowess, others for their fighting skills, and others for their “gameness” and tenacity. Even though pet dogs of these breeds rarely fulfill their original purposes these days, individuals still carry their ancestors’ DNA in their genes, which means that members of a particular breed might be predisposed to certain types of aggression (From the ASPCA Website)
[I]
There are inherited ways of behaving that are particular to some breeds or types of dogs that make it more likely for individuals to grow up to use aggression where others would not. Because no two dogs are exactly the same, individuals will differ too. For example some breeds are intentionally bred to be more reactive and some to be “wary of strangers”, which might make them more likely to be defensive if approached. In every breed there will be individuals that use aggression inappropriately and others that will not.
Aggression is not a single characteristic, however there are breeds of dogs that have historically been used for specific purposes, such as for fighting dogs or other animals, or for guarding. Whilst these breeds may not be any more likely to show aggression, because of their physical and temperamental attributes if they do show aggression it is likely to have more serious consequences. Persistence in attack coupled with strong jaws can cause serious injuries[/I] (Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors).
I once asked the police why they don’t use Doberman’s or Rotts (staffies were not so commonplace back then) and the answer was: they are not predictable enough.
These dogs get a reputation for a reason.
and it also about looking at the other end of the leash to find the root of the problem.
We can but try 
I think you and Julie oversimplify the matter. Not every dog owner is a bad owner - their skills will differ just as much as parental skills do in humans. If aggressive breeds are removed as an option for the general public, it solves the problem.
Here is a link - read the link in its entirety and tell me if you could any of those children in the face and say people have the right to own any dog they choose.
If people cannot display a responsible attitude, then the decision has to be made for them by the authorities. I would never, ever, put the requirement for owning a non-essential animal over and above the safety of everyone (including other animals).
You may both like to defend staffies but it does tend to be them in the majority of attacks - that could be down to the type of person that chooses to own them but it makes little difference to anyone on the receiving end of an attack. A chap who worked for us had two Staffies (which, imo, are amongst the ugliest dogs imagineable) when he moved in with his girlfriend and her children. He assured the girlfriend that the dogs were well behaved - shortly afterwards, the two dogs shredded her three cats.
. Both animals are loving pets and provide a great deal for their owner but cats don’t eh … rip people’s faces off or kill them either. If all dog lovers were cat lovers and owners only there would be no problem at all.