This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don't work.
The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people's pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.
If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won't feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.
And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.