D.C. gun owner saves boy from pitbull, now investigated for "discharging firearm"


PDA






Gaiudo
January 24, 2013, 07:26 AM
Anything we can do to advocate for this guy, pressure the DA, etc.?


http://www.cato.org/blog/gun-owner-saves-boy-pit-bull-attack-wait-police-say-actions-could-be-criminal

Today’s Washington Post reports that a boy in a DC neighborhood was out riding a new bike that he received on Christmas. As he was riding through his neighborhood, he turned a corner and suddenly came upon three unattended pit bulls who proceeded to maul him. Fortunately for this 11-year old boy, a neighbor saw what was going on, ran into his house, got his handgun, and then returned and shot one of the pit bulls. A DC police officer, nearby on bicycle, heard the shot, got to the scene, and then shot the other two pit bulls.

Is the unidentified neighbor hailed as a hero? No – just the opposite – he apparently needs a lawyer because he is reportedly under “investigation” for violating our capital city’s firearms laws! You see – he may have discharged his weapon beyond his property line. Talk about no good deed going unpunished.

If you enjoyed reading about "D.C. gun owner saves boy from pitbull, now investigated for "discharging firearm"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bowserb
January 24, 2013, 08:49 AM
This is what Tom Gresham, Massad Ayoob, and others warn about. What to do when you see someone needing the benefit of your gun ownership. As Gresham says, there are three or four things that can happen when you display a handgun, and they are mostly bad for you. Your first obligation is to yourself and your family, and coming to the defense of someone else, can put your family's financial future at risk.

That said, I don't think I could stand by and not try and stop pit bulls attacking a child.


Sent using Tapatalk...so please excuse the typos!

hso
January 24, 2013, 09:54 AM
Here's the Washington Post article on the incident. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/three-pit-bulls-shot-and-killed-after-attack/2013/01/21/b07c43ee-63ea-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

We can enter comments, but I have to point out that there's nothing in the article critical of the person that intervened to save the child and that there's no indication that the District is looking into charging them so our comments and support should include wishes for a rapid recovery for the child and praise of the gunowner as a hero.

radiotom
January 24, 2013, 10:06 AM
Just what we need, people second-guessing what is the right thing to do.

tarakian
January 24, 2013, 10:52 AM
Can't he just say he was exercising his first amendment rights against the mauling of children by dogs?

Skribs
January 24, 2013, 11:00 AM
Can't he just say he was exercising his first amendment rights against the mauling of children by dogs?

I don't see how this is related to 1A.

USAF_Vet
January 24, 2013, 11:02 AM
What a world we live in. 10 years ago, this person would have been praised and the pit bulls vilified.

But because a gun was used... Disgusting.

481
January 24, 2013, 11:29 AM
I couldn't stand by and watch as pitbulls savaged a child either.

Seems that the liberals would have it both ways- either you dispatch the animal and save the child only to be prosecuted or you stand by and watch the dog devour the child and be vilified as an insensate monster.

What a fine bunch, the Left.

Ryanxia
January 24, 2013, 02:21 PM
While this is horrible what else can you do? Not save him? It's just sad he had to run all the way into the house to get it or he might have saved the kid from even getting hurt that bad.

Maybe this is something we push on a federal level, a Bill that says unless there's good cause to believe it was anything other than defense, no investigation can be undergone.

tarakian
January 24, 2013, 03:13 PM
I don't see how this is related to 1A.

Kind of a joke, figured if the reporter in DC could use this defense for a 30 round mag when specifically told he couldn't, why not try to apply it in this case.

c4v3man
January 24, 2013, 03:34 PM
Great, another story proclaiming that pitbulls are attack dogs...

Dogs are what you make of them. Pitbulls aren't inherently evil or aggressive.

That being said, I agree on the 1st Amendment defense above. Sounds like a bulletproof argument to me with precedent.

mgmorden
January 24, 2013, 03:54 PM
Not sure if it was the citizen or the cop, but the kid was hit by a bullet in the foot. If it turns out that the citizen did that, he may well be looking at a lawsuit from the child's family too.

bowserb
January 24, 2013, 04:06 PM
Great, another story proclaiming that pitbulls are attack dogs...
I think that's "Assault Dogs", and I think it's time we had an ADB...Assault Dog Ban.

wojownik
January 24, 2013, 04:39 PM
Not sure if it was the citizen or the cop, but the kid was hit by a bullet in the foot. If it turns out that the citizen did that, he may well be looking at a lawsuit from the child's family too.

This may or may not be true. Another post article noted that "police said they had no record that either a shot fired by the officer or the neighbor struck the boy."

Hopefully they will investigate the firearms owner to the same level they investigated Dick Gregory.

aeriedad
January 24, 2013, 04:58 PM
This may or may not be true. Another post article noted that "police said they had no record that either a shot fired by the officer or the neighbor struck the boy."

Hopefully they will investigate the firearms owner to the same level they investigated Dick Gregory.

You mean David Gregory.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/11/miller-david-gregory-gets-scott-free/

IMO, if the hero in the OP is investigated, he should call Mr. Gregory for advice on how best to avoid charges.

sonick808
January 24, 2013, 05:19 PM
what about THE CHILDREN ? damned if we do, damned if we don't. we are just evil people that own guns i guess.

Manco
January 24, 2013, 05:22 PM
You mean David Gregory.

Freudian slip in calling things what they are? :evil:

Cesiumsponge
January 24, 2013, 11:43 PM
Help someone in need and the public calls you a vigilante.

Sit back and watch, and the public calls you a terrible human being.

InkEd
January 24, 2013, 11:57 PM
THANK YOU c4v3man!

In the case of ANYTHING. The REAL problem is the BAD PEOPLE.

Ridgerunner665
January 25, 2013, 01:01 AM
Davey Crockett had a saying that applies here I think....

Be sure you are right, then go ahead...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

wojownik
January 25, 2013, 01:05 AM
You mean David Gregory.

Naaah ... I think I was right the first time :evil::evil: :neener:

Blackstone
January 25, 2013, 04:56 AM
I couldn't stand by and watch as pitbulls savaged a child either.

Seems that the liberals would have it both ways- either you dispatch the animal and save the child only to be prosecuted or you stand by and watch the dog devour the child and be vilified as an insensate monster.

What a fine bunch, the Left.

They'd say the gun owner should've rushed the dogs with his bare fists

JRH6856
January 25, 2013, 06:50 AM
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not protect the right to use them so that is subject to regulation, for better or worse.

radiotom
January 25, 2013, 06:58 AM
what about THE CHILDREN ? damned if we do, damned if we don't. we are just evil people that own guns i guess.
And we have a winner.

Redlg155
January 25, 2013, 10:43 AM
The problem is that he shot the DMD ( Dog of Mass Destruction) with a ROG (Regular Ol Gun) instead of using an WMD (Ar15).

Perhaps he should have taken the non politically correct route of using a HKBB ( Hello Kitty Bubble Blower) since the little girl is on suspension and can't use it.

gunsandreligion
January 25, 2013, 11:20 AM
But if they commended the guy, more people would follow his footsteps, which would portray guns in a good light which would result in more widespread ownership which would prove that guns promote a peaceful society. From the governments prospective, war is peace, so thats a unwanted consequence and so by demonizing the guy, we can make others afraid to defend themselves and others and thereby keep a need for a big brother.

Alaska444
January 30, 2013, 02:31 PM
Great, another story proclaiming that pitbulls are attack dogs...

Dogs are what you make of them. Pitbulls aren't inherently evil or aggressive.

That being said, I agree on the 1st Amendment defense above. Sounds like a bulletproof argument to me with precedent.
Why does it seem that pit bills are all you see any longer? When attacked by a pit bull, you are in a whole world of hurt. One of the biggest reasons I carry daily is because of the risk of pit bulls.

Sorry, I have no love for these mutts whatsoever. Just my opinion, but shucks, look at the data, pit bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks in the US. They ain't no joke when they take you on, especially when the you is a small kid.

c4v3man
January 30, 2013, 02:39 PM
Pit bulls aren't the problem, abusive owners are the problem. All dogs can attack, but abused and/or neglected dogs are more likely to become agressive. If you look at the demographics of who likes to own pit bulls due to their "tough reputation/appearance", and you'll find largely irresponsible, lower income demographic who are unable to provide proper care and living conditions to a dog. They also largely keep them as living alarm systems outside with little interaction other than feeding them.

The concept of pit bulls being attack dogs is nonsense dredged up by the same media that demonizes "assault weapons".

Note: I do not, nor have I ever owned a pit bull, but I have worked and been around several of them that are the gentlest dogs you'll ever know. I've also experienced some more aggressive pitbulls, and can see where the problem actually lies... the owners.

skeeziks
January 30, 2013, 03:16 PM
Well...I just learned something from that article. I learned that all these years I, myself have been in violation of the law! I have owned dozens & dozens of firearms and have never had even 1 of them registered. :uhoh:

And that possesion of an un-registered firearm or ammo is punishable by up to 1 year in prison! :what:

Guys...Guys! please help me out here. Where/how can I get all my guns & ammo registered before I gets into trubble?

Alaska444
January 30, 2013, 03:17 PM
Pit bulls aren't the problem, abusive owners are the problem. All dogs can attack, but abused and/or neglected dogs are more likely to become agressive. If you look at the demographics of who likes to own pit bulls due to their "tough reputation/appearance", and you'll find largely irresponsible, lower income demographic who are unable to provide proper care and living conditions to a dog. They also largely keep them as living alarm systems outside with little interaction other than feeding them.

The concept of pit bulls being attack dogs is nonsense dredged up by the same media that demonizes "assault weapons".

Note: I do not, nor have I ever owned a pit bull, but I have worked and been around several of them that are the gentlest dogs you'll ever know. I've also experienced some more aggressive pitbulls, and can see where the problem actually lies... the owners.
No doubt the interaction with owners is the most problematic, the difficulty is their ability to inflict such severe damage.

No, I don't want a PBB (Pit Bull Ban), I just don't like these creatures. Yes, I have seen dogs that are "gentle." One of our neighbors has two. I talk to her quite a bit while she is walking two of them all the time. She kept assuring me over and over that they are gentle. One time, she asked me to step back a bit because one of them was a little nervous.

So much for so called gentle dogs. Many owners are on the list of these fatal pit bull attacks. Just sayin, I don't like these beasts that seem to be everywhere now especially since I have young grandchildren.

c4v3man
January 30, 2013, 03:30 PM
Just sayin, I don't like these beasts that seem to be everywhere now especially since I have young grandchildren.

Many people feel the same way about guns. As a dog owner, you need to ensure the safety of others, and that sometimes means being overprotective, especially in our litigious society. Your neighbor asking you to back off due to her dog being nervous doesn't indicate whether or not the dog was/was not gentle.

And again, I would suggest that if her dog felt nervous around you, that she neglected to properly socialize the dog, which can and does happen to every breed. If anything, people only judge pitbulls because they can cause harm when poorly trained, unlike small dogs like Chiwahwa's which often have even worse temperments, but are dismissed/excused because they are unlikely to do serious harm. And pitbulls "roaming the streets, looking for children to maul" is a symptom of a society that doesn't take personal responsibility for the care and control of said dogs.

I'm a motorcyclist, and am wary of any off-leash dog, regardless of breed.

Sam Cade
January 30, 2013, 04:05 PM
Just my opinion, but shucks, look at the data, pit bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks in the US.

Puhhhh.. leeze.


http://www.allmutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mutt-Labrador-Retriever-Border-Collie-mix.jpg

Most dogs reported as "pit-bulls" aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_from_1988_through_2012



They ain't no joke when they take you on, especially when the you is a small kid.:rolleyes:

steelerdude99
January 30, 2013, 06:33 PM
Well...I just learned something from that article. I learned that all these years I, myself have been in violation of the law! I have owned dozens & dozens of firearms and have never had even 1 of them registered. :uhoh:

And that possession of an un-registered firearm or ammo is punishable by up to 1 year in prison! :what:

Guys...Guys! please help me out here. Where/how can I get all my guns & ammo registered before I gets into trouble?

D.C. government likes to trip up residents w/ bad, out dated or incomplete info. See the article below as a D.C. reporter takes quite a while to get all of the info so she can purchase.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jul/12/miller-new-guide-getting-gun-dc/

chuck

USAF_Vet
January 30, 2013, 06:45 PM
Statistically, German Shepherds and Labradors are responsible for more deaths and maulings in the US than Pit Bulls.

Pit Bulls have become a popular breed, just like the AR-15 has become a popular rifle. More pit bulls will naturally equate to more pit bill incidents, just like more AR-15s will equate to more AR-15 related incidents. The media demonizes the breed of dog just like it demonizes the brand of rifle.

bushmaster1313
January 30, 2013, 07:05 PM
the boy, who was taken to a local hospital with bites throughout his body, was in stable condition

A jury would not convict.
But it could be very expensive to get there if the prosecutor plays hardball.

But who says that the man was under investigation?

ExTank
January 30, 2013, 07:13 PM
Many people feel the same way about guns. As a dog owner, you need to ensure the safety of others, and that sometimes means being overprotective, especially in our litigious society. Your neighbor asking you to back off due to her dog being nervous doesn't indicate whether or not the dog was/was not gentle.

I have never heard of any firearm that needs a rabies shot, or distemper, or whatever. I have never heard anyone say, "My gun was the nicest gun, it never ever hurt anyone; I don't know what possessed it to just up and attack my neighbor's kids for no reason whatsoever."

Can's say the same about a dog.

USAF_Vet
January 30, 2013, 07:19 PM
I have never heard of any firearm that needs a rabies shot, or distemper, or whatever. I have never heard anyone say, "My gun was the nicest gun, it never ever hurt anyone; I don't know what possessed it to just up and attack my neighbor's kids for no reason whatsoever."

Can's say the same about a dog.
Just because someone can say it about their dog, doesn't make it so.

wojownik
January 30, 2013, 07:20 PM
A jury would not convict.

I take it you have never lived in the District of Columbia, my friend ...

But who says that the man was under investigation?

MPD (DC Police) and the DC Attys office, to name two...

Manco
January 30, 2013, 07:48 PM
Most dogs reported as "pit-bulls" aren't.

But the term "pit bull" scares the public now--always the self-fulfilling goal of the media. It may not be enough for when the nanny state tries to confiscate them, however--by then I figure the media will have started using "assault canine" instead.

wojownik
January 30, 2013, 08:09 PM
But, to get back on topic, has anyone heard any updates on the original incident?

Alaska444
January 30, 2013, 08:13 PM
Puhhhh.. leeze.


http://www.allmutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mutt-Labrador-Retriever-Border-Collie-mix.jpg

Most dogs reported as "pit-bulls" aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_from_1988_through_2012


:rolleyes:
With all due respect to such a "cute" looking dog, pit bulls and Rots cause the most fatalities, and yes, I have sources for that statement.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

If you like your mut, so be it, not my cup of tea. Just my opinion, you are certainly entitled to yours.

Take care,

Alaska444
January 30, 2013, 08:23 PM
Statistically, German Shepherds and Labradors are responsible for more deaths and maulings in the US than Pit Bulls.

Pit Bulls have become a popular breed, just like the AR-15 has become a popular rifle. More pit bulls will naturally equate to more pit bill incidents, just like more AR-15s will equate to more AR-15 related incidents. The media demonizes the breed of dog just like it demonizes the brand of rifle.
Do you have a source for that statement. I see USAF Vet. I am a doc, so I saw the other end of the stick so to speak. In any case,

Pits and Rots are at the top of the list in studies.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

In the United States, pit bull-type dogs and rottweilers were involved in more than half of 238 dog-attack deaths; they were followed by German shepherds, husky-type dogs, and malamutes in the number of deaths caused (5). However, as pit bull-type dogs gradually, and almost singularly, came under legislation in several Canadian jurisdictions, this breed-type’s ranking in the present retrospective study cannot be compared easily with the ranking from the earlier US-based study. In nonfatal aggressive incidents, the pit bull did rank highest in 2000 and 2001 (2.84 bite incidents per 100 licensed dogs of this breed type) in 1 Canadian municipality (Edmonton, Alberta) (12). Other breeds that followed in this municipality included the rottweiler (1.60 bite incidents per 100 licensed), Akita (1.52), mastiff (1.47), Dalmatian (1.40), and Great Dane (1.21) (12). The rottweiler, by causing 21 of the 72 non-fatal injuries attributed to dogs from known breeds, ranked 1st in a hospital-based summary of dog bites in children (9).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2387261/

A human dog bite-related fatality generally refers to death proximately caused by trauma from a dog's teeth and jaws. According to The Humane Society of the United States, more than 300 individuals died of dog attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1996. Children <12 and elders >70 years represent the typical victims. Pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds constitute the majority of canines implicated in these fatalities.

http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/2009/09000/Dog_Bite_Related_Fatalities__A_15_Year_Review_of.2.aspx

Sam Cade
January 30, 2013, 08:48 PM
With all due respect to such a "cute" looking dog, pit bulls and Rots cause the most fatalities, and yes, I have sources for that statement.

Thank you for proving my point.:cool:


That cute looking dog isn't a pit bull.

Not Even Remotely.


It is a Labrador/Border Collie mix.

Sam Cade
January 30, 2013, 09:00 PM
"Pit bull-type dogs"

I have to laugh at that. What does that even mean? Any dog with a square head or brindle coloration?

Demonized cosmetic features. :scrutiny: Where have I heard that before?




You know,People have mistaken my 110lb, ugly (and slightly grumpy) Chessie Retriever truck-dog for a pit bull....

USAF_Vet
January 30, 2013, 09:07 PM
Do you have a source for that statement. I see USAF Vet. I am a doc, so I saw the other end of the stick so to speak. In any case,

Pits and Rots are at the top of the list in studies.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf



I had read it but couldn't find the source. Looking for it, I came across the CDC. Link you posted and was just coming back to edit my post.

In any case, "Pit Bull" type dogs can include virtually anything, because the Pit Bull is a misnomer, much like "assault weapon", many breeds from the Stafordshire Terrier to various mutt mixes can be, and are, included under the "Pit Bull" umbrella.

I raise, breed, train and show American Bulldogs, which some nit wits have tried to classify as "Pit Bulls". So really, to say that Pit bulls are responsible for xx% of all dog bites is a lot like saying pistols are used in xx% of shootings, where pistols refers to Colts, Hi Points, Smith and Wessons, Glocks, Rugers and Springfields.


Not a Pit Bull
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/167978_1587539484062_7256115_n.jpg

gunsandreligion
January 30, 2013, 10:24 PM
Most of a dogs bad temperment comes from bad socialization when young, bad breeding, and no training or respect for humans. The reason pit bulls or other dogs with "tough" reputations attack people more is because there are many owners who want a mean and tough dog. When properly raised and trained, pitbulls can be great dogs for single owners(due to the protective tempermant, they are still not a family or more than one owner dog) . If labradors where considered nasty dogs, I'm sure there would be many more ill raised spike collared labs running around mauling people. The interesting thing is badly raised and neglected people and dogs both are more likely to have violent characters.

hogshead
January 30, 2013, 10:39 PM
Well i guess he could have tried the rc method of stopping a dog attack but he would have needed another hand.

Alaska444
January 30, 2013, 10:59 PM
Thank you for proving my point.:cool:


That cute looking dog isn't a pit bull.

Not Even Remotely.


It is a Labrador/Border Collie mix.
Sorry, what is the point of your charade? I called the dog in your picture a "mut." Sorry, I didn't call it a pit bull. Read my post. What is it that you believe you proved?

If folks want to question my sources go for it. I stick by the data, pit bulls and rots cause the most fatal attacks, and pit bulls the most attacks in the US.

In addition, your own link shows that pit bull "types" have been the number one source of fatal dog attacks in the last decade. Rots are number two from your source.

Once again, not everyone trains their dogs well as the OP story proves. Once you get latched onto by a pit bull, you are in big trouble. If folks wish to disprove that go for it, but the data is clear. If you have some published studies to the contrary, go for it.

Zoogster
January 30, 2013, 11:11 PM
The primary reason pitbulls are so dangerous is because of a segment of the population attracted to them.
They are stout strong dogs, but so are some other breeds that would be just as dangerous.
The difference is plenty of young men want a weaponlike dog and go for a pitbull because that is the breed they associate with a weapon.
This includes both gang members and hip hop culture thugs, as well as just young naive macho men that give little training and so end up with an out of control dog that just happens to also be strong.

So it is more of a cultural thing.
The breed people associate with being a dangerous weapon is the breed guys that want a dangerous dog are attracted to. Such guys include a higher percentage of bad owners.

If such animals didnt exist and we had a culture that made mastiffs out to be dangerous tough dogs, they would have the same segment of men attracted to them and be responsible for most attacks.


Beyond just young men is the segment of the population that gets the dog they think is dangerous as a guard dog. Once again it is the association with being a dangerous dog that causes such people to seek out and obtain the breed. People looking for a dog that can be a weapon.
A higher percentage of people that get a dog solely as a guard dog also make poor owners percentage wise. Motivated less out of wanting a loving companion and more out of wanting something tough to deter or defend.

The belief that pit bulls are dangerous dogs is as a result what actually makes them dangerous dogs.

(That said a terrier is not something you want things smaller than itself around, without extensive socializing. Pit bulls being essentially a large terrier are something I wouldn't want around small children, but plenty of other breeds without the pitbull stigma would be just as undesirable to have around small children.)

Cesiumsponge
January 30, 2013, 11:20 PM
Gee, "pit bull-type" dogs are not pit bulls.

Are military-type rifles actually military rifles?

Notice any similarity in language? How well researched is the CDC data? Is it anything like Kellerman's CDC firearms research?

Alaska444
January 30, 2013, 11:23 PM
The primary reason pitbulls are so dangerous is because of a segment of the population attracted to them.
They are stout strong dogs, but so are some other breeds that would be just as dangerous.
The difference is plenty of young men want a weaponlike dog and go for a pitbull because that is the breed they associate with a weapon.
This includes both gang members and hip hop culture thugs, as well as just young naive macho men that give little training and so end up with an out of control dog that just happens to also be strong.

So it is more of a cultural thing.
The breed people associate with being a dangerous weapon is the breed guys that want a dangerous dog are attracted to. Such guys include a higher percentage of bad owners.

If such animals didnt exist and we had a culture that made mastiffs out to be dangerous tough dogs, they would have the same segment of men attracted to them and be responsible for most attacks.


Beyond just young men is the segment of the population that gets the dog they think is dangerous as a guard dog. Once again it is the association with being a dangerous dog that causes such people to seek out and obtain the breed. People looking for a dog that can be a weapon.
A higher percentage of people that get a dog solely as a guard dog also make poor owners percentage wise. Motivated less out of wanting a loving companion and more out of wanting something tough to deter or defend.

The belief that pit bulls are dangerous dogs is as a result what actually makes them dangerous dogs.

(That said a terrier is not something you want things smaller than itself around, without extensive socializing. Pit bulls being essentially a large terrier are something I wouldn't want around small children, but plenty of other breeds without the pitbull stigma would be just as undesirable to have around small children.)
In our neighborhood in CA, we had several HUD/Section 8 homes where one had nearly 30 people in the home. Several were arrested for gang activity, drug dealing etc.

They had a dog they kept in the backyard, yup, a true pit bull. One day, a family was walking on the sidewalk immediately behind their house. The dog jumped a 6 feet wall and attacked all of them, fortunately, no one was killed. More and more, that is what I see the gang bangers walking around with all the time. I would suggest that these folks are not using them as show dogs or training them not to bite, just the opposite. That is the concern for me. I have seen it right in my own neighborhood with a vicious pit bull attack.

Once again, if folks want to have them, more power to you, not my cup of tea. Just my opinion.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 30, 2013, 11:26 PM
A pit bull is not a firearm.

Since this thread seems to about pit bulls now, I'm closing it.

If you enjoyed reading about "D.C. gun owner saves boy from pitbull, now investigated for "discharging firearm"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!