Again, the problem with sites like this, as well as sites that have a clear agenda to defend pit bulls, is in addition to not being objective, they're completely inconsistent. Which data set do you believe above, the one that reports 284 fatalities over 12 years or the one that reports 295 over 32 years?
The top site is clearly anti-pit bull by the graphic, and that becomes more clear when you look at the site content.
The bottom link is the equivalent of MSN's popsugar spam, and if you go to the study that it references the author starts off by defending his approach against pit bull apologists, which to me is already a red flag about his bias. He tailors the data analysis specifically to how dangerous pit bulls are, and he lists in the notes on the pit bull fatalities such things as people who were hit by cars, people who were hit by trains, people who died of heart attacks, people who died of infections, a dog in Tijuana despite the fact that this is a study in US and Canada, 2 dead men that were determined by forensics to be dead then subsequently eaten by dogs, a child that was strangled by a leash, several instances of homicide where the dogs were either blamed by the person convicted without any evidence to confirm it or thought to play a role somehow (including being fed the body), two cocaine overdoses that were subsequently eaten by dogs, instances where it was clear they weren't sure what the dog was but it was assume to be a pit bull anyway, and one person who was hit in the head by a pan thrown by his brother to break up a dog fight. In fairness, 3 or 4 of these "cases" were not used in final tally of the numbers presented, which raises the question of "why put them in the paper?"
If you're inclined to think "it doesn't matter which data set you look at, either one is still too much" consider the previous paragraph and ask yourself how quickly you could inflate those numbers if you take that sort of approach.
Also, any breed that the author apparently doesn't think would behave this way on it's own and was part of a multi-dog attack has language that makes it seem like it was coerced by the pit bull(s)... unless it was a Rottweiler, then the language makes it clear that they're both equally at fault. The author then goes on to take an almost apologetic discussion of the numbers associated with German Shepards.
In addition, his manner of looking through classified ads to see what dogs are available in order to determine percentage of the total dog population that a breed makes up seems very likely to significantly under represent certain breeds and over represent others.
I'm not disputing many of the points that were made intelligently and thoughtfully by posters representing the full spectrum of opinions on this topic in this thread. I just have a hard time accepting it when pseudo-statistics are passed off as objective analysis.