So your argument started out as pits cause 60% of attacks to now being the 5 pit types, the commonly mistaken for Pitts, and mutts comprise 60% of attacks.

My argument never changed; Pitbull breeds cause 60% of attacks/fatalities. You just don't understand what a dog breed is. You still think the dogs outlined in the articles I have linked are just mistaken for Pitbulls when they are pitbulls.

Meanwhile your argument was that cops don't perform DNA testing to confirm what breed of dog is responsible for each attack. You couldn't prove that, and when pressed for information you told me to go find out for myself when it's your own point.

You then provided a link that stated 1 specific dog type is mistaken for other dogs, which had nothing to do with anything; additionally that link explained that multiple dogs fall under the pit bull categorisation (which I doubt you even read yourself).

You then provided a link from the UK (A country that has already banned large pit bulls, which makes me laugh as you are using them to defend Pitbulls), but per your own words it was not relevant to the discussion as it was related to tracking dogs, not confirming which breeds were responsible for attacks; continuing your trend of pointless links.

And then you rambled about all evidence being irrelevant as you could not find a centralised police data base. As if they are an authority on dog breeds in the first place.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dog breed is, and when I provide information to help your understanding you don't even bother to read past the first few lines.