The only problem with statistics like that, is that people who couldn't tell an amstaff apart from a pitbull would definitely describe it as a pitbull anyway. One always have to take those things into account as well, and they do skew the statistics up a bit. They're not as reliable as they should be.
Yes that would change everything if the truth were that it was actually pit bulls and
dogs who look just like pit bulls who were responsible for more attacks than the next 7 most dangerous breeds.
Would definitely lend credence to the concept of environment over genetics
I think it's environment.