I guess I have to break it down for you... here's an exaggerated example to help you understand.
You dont have to break down anything, the facts and figures dont lie.
Pits and Labs are among the most popular breeds, and they bite the most people year in year out. Beagles are too, but they dont bite people.
So if you have a dog population with a million labs and 50,000 of them bite someone and you have 20 shorthairs in that same population being studied and 10 of them bite someone, statistically that would mean shorthairs are 10 times more likely to bite than labs.
Tell that to the kid that lost a face to a Lab.
Without a census to know precisely for instance, the actual ratios of bite per hundred animals, your data you've presented is meaningless
Disagree.
Someone remarked that Labs are better 'family' dogs, less sharp it was said.
That is patently NOT true.
One could add up all the German breeds together in the USA and Germany (population 75 million) (GWP/DD, GSP/DK, Weim PP, Munsters) and still fall way short of bites than Labs. The German breeds are safer as a hole.
YOU are confusing your own experience with a poorly bred trial dog and using it to bias your OWN thesis, based on SA which is faulty.
Sharpness on fur has nothing to do with high bite threshold, as often seen in cocker spaniels and pits for example, and now Labs, it would appear.
Same with protectiveness.
If a dog is 'wired right' he knows what to protect and when to protect, and he isnt a menace to kids or bites first without thinking. Many good dogs are wired just like this. I owned them and own them and wont tolerate nonsense.
I see it from setters, cockers, labs and occasional gsps, but ive never seen it in GWPs/DDs where breeding is very controlled.