Usually this kind of hysteria is limited to the Philadelphia media market:
And the weapon of choice is invariably a handgun, conveniently available, cheap, on any city street, courtesy of the NRA. After all, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Oh, you’ve heard that line beforeft I guess you haven’t had a relative or friend murdered with one of those guns that don’t kill people. Personally, I am in favor of doing away with all private handgun ownership except for those who can demonstrate a real need (not just self-protection).
Self-protection isn’t a real need? But if you keep going, the person in question actually comes out against “Lost and Stolen” for largely the same reason I oppose it as well. At least some gun control advocates understand there are principled reasons to oppose this bill. Then you have this article:
I know there are some legitimate hunters who think they are allowed to have semi-automatic guns too. It is ridiculous to call yourself a sportsman if you need to use a semi-automatic gun. Each shot should be carefully calculated, not just haphazardly shot repeatedly in seconds in the approximate direction of an animal.
These guns, the ones that should never hit the streets, are getting into the hands of criminals and innocent people are dying. Why? Because guns get stolen.
In my opinion, there is no legitamate use for civilians to use a semi-automatic weapon.
Yeah, except for this whole matter of it being a constitutional right at both the state and federal level, and, of course, there actually being legitimate uses for semi-automatic firearms. Except for the fact that you’re 100% wrong on this, you’re totally right! I love how these people who don’t understand guns, or how they are used, presume to lecture those of us that do on what we do and don’t need. What incredible arrogance and cultural condescension is this. The worst part is that it’s spreading out from Philly. I am becoming concerned that Pennsylvania will be as anti-gun as the rest of the northeast within a generation.