On Sunday, an 11-year-old boy in Washington D.C. was riding his bike, when he was viciously attacked by three unleashed, unattended pit bulls. A neighbor, seeing the attack, retrieved a handgun from his house and shot one of the dogs as they continued to savage the boy. A nearby D.C. policeman on bicycle patrol heard the commotion and shot the other two dogs. From the Washington Post:
D.C. police said the unleashed and unattended dogs attacked the boy before a neighbor who saw it went into his home, got his handgun and fired once, hitting one of the dogs. A D.C. police officer on bicycle patrol heard the shots, and authorities said he shot and killed the other two pit bulls. It was unclear from a police report exactly how many shots the officer fired.
The boy has had surgery, and is apparently expected to recover from injuries his uncle describes as “terrible,” but the same uncle says the boy is (understandably) “traumatized” by the incident.
Incredibly, the Washington D.C. “justice” system is apparently considering “traumatizing” the man who may very well have saved the boy’s life, as well:
D.C. police said they are reviewing the incident and have left open the possibility that the neighbor could be charged with violating the District’s gun laws.
The article goes on to say that the police have not revealed whether or not the man was in compliance with D.C.’s onerous registration laws, but that even if he was, firing the gun “on a D.C. street” is illegal (even, apparently, to save a child’s life).
All this, remember, occurs in the recent aftermath of NBC’s David Gregory knowingly, deliberately and very publicly violating D.C.’s “high capacity” (gun banner-speak for “standard capacity”) magazine ban, despite being told by the police that he did not have permission to do so.(although one version of the story claims that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives granted him an exemption–and neither the D.C. Police or the BATFE have shown any willingness to clarify).
Not only has the investigation against Gregory been dropped, despite his obvious guilt (Gregory having committed his crime on national TV), but some journalists have openly criticized the police for investigating him at all.
Keep in mind what we are told about the vital need to imprison people for having 11-round or larger magazines. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) explains:
The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun [but he would ban 11rounds in any magazine (handgun or not)--with exemptions for the military and "Only Ones," including retired "Only Ones"] is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.
Former President Clinton describes the continued legality of 11-round and larger magazines as “nuts.” We are to believe that the magazine ban is so important, in fact, that one congressman is apparently bent on banning the Internet publication of the information on how to defy it.
We are told in hysterical tones that the law so brazenly violated by David Gregory is absolutely essential to the safety of Americans (especially “the children“), but when he violates it, for cheap political theater, in an attempt to embarrass gun rights advocates, it is an outrage that prosecution was ever considered.
Meanwhile, a man who saves a child’s life with a possibly “illegal” gun is potentially facing a fullyear or more in prison for doing so, and Greta Van Sustren and Howard Kurtz seem not to have uttered a peep in protest.
What does one call a society that excuses law-breaking done for the purpose of propagandizing a fabricated justification for still more freedom-crushing laws, but throws the book at someone whose “crime” was saving the life of a child? Whatever the name for such a society, it cannot be very complimentary.