Certain breeds are inbred physcopaths. They are mentally ill.
Like which ones? Rottwielers? I have only known 2 personally, and they were both incredibly sweet dogs. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but since you're making sweeping generalizations, I think it's better than nothing. If you want to convince me all Rottwielers are mentally ill phsycopaths, you're going to need some hard evidence.
They have been bred to be agressive over many generations.
I think you're wrong. They've been bred to have dominant personalities, and to be mistrustful of strangers as opposed to those they recognize as part of their pack. Neither of those things translates to "aggressive" in my book, much less "violent without provocation" which is what you seem to be suggesting.
They have been bred to have less nerve endings in the skin. They have been bred to have bigger teeth, stronger jaws, and smaller ears (that can't be bitten off). They are designed to inflict damage.
Irrelevant to a discussion of their personalities. You might as well say that because body builders have spent years of their lives training to be bigger and stronger, and thus are more dangerous should one choose to attack you, they are therefore more dangerous people. Should we say people shouldn't be allow to body build? Or what about train in martial arts? They work to lessen their pain response in their skin, train to have stronger, faster muscles, and harder bones. Does that imply they are more likely to attack you without reason? Often, the opposite is true -- trained martial artists will be more confident and in control of their abilities, and are thus less likely to use excessive force accidentally through error or panic. (The same is true of properly trained dogs, regardless of temperament.) If a person attacks another unreasonably, we punish them. We should do the same (conceptually) for dogs, punishing the owner responsible for the situation if a dog attacks a person unreasonably. If it appears the dog is too dangerous to be safely rehabilitated, euthanize the dog. Banning certain breeds is still an inadequate and ineffective way to address the root issue. It's like saying that banning hollow-tip bullets will prevent shootings, because they are designed to do damage. At very best, it will change the situation such that if someone gets shot, they will get hurt less. But you know what? They real problem is that someone shot someone else, not the kind of bullet involved. Reread my comment -- banning certain breeds due to their physical characteristics will not reduce the number of "vicious" dogs in the world in any significant way, just like banning hollow-point bullets won't reduce the number of wackos with loaded guns.
Some dogs are bred to be dangerous.
I disagree. Some dogs are bred to have physical advantages in a fight. That isn't what makes a dog dangerous, it is their behavior and the ability of their owner to keep them under control in stressful circumstances.
Most dogs are great pets.
... when properly raised and trained, yes. When improperly raised, most dogs make bad pets; when abused, almost all dogs will be horrible pets unless someone puts time and energy into rehabilitating them.