January 26, 2013

That prosecutors would even consider bringing gun charges against the Northwest D.C. resident who saved an 11-year-old’s life by shooting one of three pit bulls that were brutally mauling the child speaks volumes about the mindless absurdity of the city’s gun laws, to say nothing of the zealous anti-gun sentiment that more broadly permeates officials’ thinking here [“Boy who was attacked by pit bulls has surgery,” Metro, Jan. 23].

Just as there is but one way to stop a violent human criminal with a gun, a vicious dog on the loose can be prevented from violently attacking people only by guns in the hands of brave, well-intentioned citizens.

If the good Samaritan who acted quickly in this case to save a child possessed his gun unlawfully, police and prosecutors should by all means confiscate it. But contemplating further charges against him is as unconscionable as it is ridiculous.

Darren McKinney, Washington

The neighbor who responded to the dog attack by getting his gun should be lauded as a hero. Even if the gun was illegal, his actions probably saved that boy’s life. Not only did his shot stop one of the dogs, it alerted the police officer who came and shot the other two.

I am a dog lover and have nothing against pit bulls. However, when dogs are attacking a human like that, they are operating in a pack-mentality mode, and nothing short of lethal force is likely to make them stop.

If this neighbor is prosecuted, what kind of message will that send? It would encourage people to not get involved because they might be setting themselves up for trouble. Would law enforcement rather have had the boy hurt worse, or even killed?

That is just mind-boggling and incredibly stupid.

Lucille Brannock, Haymarket