Why does anyone need an AR15 ???

To just say anyone that plays violent games will turn into a murderer is absurd. But, to also say that a person that may suffer from a mental disorder will not be affected by playing these games may be wrong to. To say ban these games would be like saying ban guns. Laws for violent games should be in place to protect children. PARENTS need to know what games their kids are playing. A person with mental disorders that "snaps" probably has many situations or circumstances that bring the violent act to come to be. To blame any one thing would be to simple and easy. I personally believe that these mass shootings are society based, meaning the person does not fit into the "norm" of the way society functions. Over time this person builds anger and frustration with dealing with life and can no longer cope and makes a plan to lash out.

The sad thing is these evil events bring hurt and pain to so many. Along with anti-gun people thinking more gun laws will some how solve these problems. Mentally ill, mean and destructive people are in every town across America. This being true is why I believe open carry should be nation wide for lawful citizens to protect themselves and family.

davidmcbeth said:

some may keep guns just to look at

Click to expand...

I have one like that. Makes me smile every time I think about it.

crazydude6030 said:

A mentally ill person is able and willing to do anything.

Click to expand...

Not picking on you in particular, but I really wish people would be more precise in their blaming.
Saying "a mentally ill person" is like saying "a disabled person" (or to be PC, "a person with a disability").
That gets you in the state, but there are lots of counties & towns that person could be living in.
Just like gun owners, the vast majority of mentally ill people are pretty much like anyone else & are no danger to anyone (or at most, themselves).

Redbaron007 said:

You have utterly missed the point. View attachment 9715

Click to expand...

“ZOMG someone killed a bunch of people we need to place blame!”

No you are flat out wrong on that. I get it. I get what’s happening here and I get the reasoning behind it. The point being made is video games predispose kids and young adults to violent acts and by controlling that or regulating that industry we will in some way be able to impact violence.

The problem that I have with that thinking is throughout mankind’s history we have a history of violent acts. it seems we always tried to blame something from fictional daemons, to books, and so on. Heck in the 70’s we blamed D&D when a youth lashed out and killed parents or someone else. In the 80’s it was drugs and TV/movies. In the 90’s up until now it seems we like to blame video games. Tell me when jack the ripper was tearing it up what video game did he play? Did a video game inspire the mafia? Maybe Bonnie and clyde enjoyed a good game of grand theft auto?

WalkingWolf said:

There are a lot of people driving cars who have not killed anybody either. Even all drunk drivers do not all end up killing, but some do. Should we encourage drunk driving? Maybe a video game driving drunk running over children while not getting caught?

Click to expand...

So now your comparing drunk driving to playing a video game? Are you just trying to confuse the topic or does this somehow make sense to you? I thought the topic was regarding video games being “evil” not drunk driving…

WalkingWolf said:

If I let Dale kill that boy who would be at fault? Dale or I?

Click to expand...

This makes no sense to me.

WalkingWolf said:

The point is that when it comes down to it bearing arms is a constitutional right, playing video games is not. One is inanimate object the other draws a person into a killing game.

Click to expand...

Video games has been ruled by the courts under the 1st. Like it or not but it’s been ruled as being protected under the freedom of speech. Since the sale has been validated by association so is playing. I see this just as I see guns. It’s up to a person to choose what’s best for them. If they like guns, don’t buy them but don’t keep me from buying them. The same goes with games. Don’t throw away one right for another just because you don’t agree with how its used.

Cite:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html

WalkingWolf said:

Most people will not lose touch with reality, some people will. One can be reasonably be outlawed and not violate rights the other should not. Would you rather open carry a violent video game or a firearm for self defense?

Click to expand...

Your question makes about as much sense as your call to ban them. At this point I can’t tell if your just trolling me or if you really believe the nonsense your spouting off.

Lets stop trying to blame random hobbies and objects on the actions of people who need help. The people who are influanced easliy might be mentally ill and should be able to get the help them need. We need to stop ignoring the root issue by placing blame on everything but the real issue.

At this point I’m done replying Feel free to counter point me all you want but don’t expect any replies. I’ve said my peace.

crazydude6030 said:

“ZOMG someone killed a bunch of people we need to place blame!”

No you are flat out wrong on that. I get it. I get what’s happening here and I get the reasoning behind it. The point being made is video games predispose kids and young adults to violent acts and by controlling that or regulating that industry we will in some way be able to impact violence.

The problem that I have with that thinking is throughout mankind’s history we have a history of violent acts. it seems we always tried to blame something from fictional daemons, to books, and so on. Heck in the 70’s we blamed D&D when a youth lashed out and killed parents or someone else. In the 80’s it was drugs and TV/movies. In the 90’s up until now it seems we like to blame video games. Tell me when jack the ripper was tearing it up what video game did he play? Did a video game inspire the mafia? Maybe Bonnie and clyde enjoyed a good game of grand theft auto?



So now your comparing drunk driving to playing a video game? Are you just trying to confuse the topic or does this somehow make sense to you? I thought the topic was regarding video games being “evil” not drunk driving…



This makes no sense to me.



Video games has been ruled by the courts under the 1st. Like it or not but it’s been ruled as being protected under the freedom of speech. Since the sale has been validated by association so is playing. I see this just as I see guns. It’s up to a person to choose what’s best for them. If they like guns, don’t buy them but don’t keep me from buying them. The same goes with games. Don’t throw away one right for another just because you don’t agree with how its used.

Cite:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html



Your question makes about as much sense as your call to ban them. At this point I can’t tell if your just trolling me or if you really believe the nonsense your spouting off.

Lets stop trying to blame random hobbies and objects on the actions of people who need help. The people who are influanced easliy might be mentally ill and should be able to get the help them need. We need to stop ignoring the root issue by placing blame on everything but the real issue.

At this point I’m done replying Feel free to counter point me all you want but don’t expect any replies. I’ve said my peace.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between an inanimate object/tool and encouraging people to kill. If you can't see that then you have a bigger problem than the progressives.

WalkingWolf said:

There is a big difference between an inanimate object/tool and encouraging people to kill. If you can't see that then you have a bigger problem than the progressives.

Click to expand...

You are the one wishing to restrict the first yet you say I have the issue progressives have.... You realize how stupid your statement sounds right?

One can bemoan something without desiring legislation against it. For most, violent first-person video games have no motivational effect, however, for some, it is a training ground and provides motivation to move from the virtual to the real.

They are a problem. Legislation from the Feds is not a solution.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Always educate!

A year or so ago I attended an open carry dinner with my local Richmond, VA group. My wife and I asked the same question to the group as to "Why get an AR-15".

The answer was the same - "Why not?!" and then, "Why not TWO?"

They educated us well that night with background discussion and I'm proud to say my household is now more fortified. I've been a gun owner for years, but was really in the dark about what these rifles were all about.

My advice: don't be surprised that a gun-owner could still be slightly in the dark about our rights and the expectations that the Constitution put upon us. Guide the unknowing into a more educated environment.

I thank my brothers for their insight and encouragement to my family. I am blind, but now I see!!

crazydude6030 said:

“ZOMG someone killed a bunch of people we need to place blame!”

No you are flat out wrong on that. I get it. I get what’s happening here and I get the reasoning behind it. The point being made is video games predispose kids and young adults to violent acts and by controlling that or regulating that industry we will in some way be able to impact violence.

The problem that I have with that thinking is throughout mankind’s history we have a history of violent acts. it seems we always tried to blame something from fictional daemons, to books, and so on. Heck in the 70’s we blamed D&D when a youth lashed out and killed parents or someone else. In the 80’s it was drugs and TV/movies. In the 90’s up until now it seems we like to blame video games. Tell me when jack the ripper was tearing it up what video game did he play? Did a video game inspire the mafia? Maybe Bonnie and clyde enjoyed a good game of grand theft auto?



So now your comparing drunk driving to playing a video game? Are you just trying to confuse the topic or does this somehow make sense to you? I thought the topic was regarding video games being “evil” not drunk driving…



This makes no sense to me.



Video games has been ruled by the courts under the 1st. Like it or not but it’s been ruled as being protected under the freedom of speech. Since the sale has been validated by association so is playing. I see this just as I see guns. It’s up to a person to choose what’s best for them. If they like guns, don’t buy them but don’t keep me from buying them. The same goes with games. Don’t throw away one right for another just because you don’t agree with how its used.

Cite:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html



Your question makes about as much sense as your call to ban them. At this point I can’t tell if your just trolling me or if you really believe the nonsense your spouting off.

Lets stop trying to blame random hobbies and objects on the actions of people who need help. The people who are influanced easliy might be mentally ill and should be able to get the help them need. We need to stop ignoring the root issue by placing blame on everything but the real issue.

At this point I’m done replying Feel free to counter point me all you want but don’t expect any replies. I’ve said my peace.

Click to expand...

Dude, you are not getting it......no one is solely BLAMING the video game industry for what happened; however, they are suggesting it played a possibility in this kids thinking/rationale for what he did. Read my prior posts...for the second time.

It's very obvious you are a gamer and are offended by the fact that violent video games could/do have an effect on folks. Does it effect everyone the same way....obviously no....but for those who may be highly influenced, they could. Should their parents be involved?.....NO Question...the parents play a role too.

No offense, but are you old enough to drive yet?

...cause a bushmaster is more expensive than an armalite

MNMGoneShooting said:

A year or so ago I attended an open carry dinner with my local Richmond, VA group. My wife and I asked the same question to the group as to "Why get an AR-15".

The answer was the same - "Why not?!" and then, "Why not TWO?"

They educated us well that night with background discussion and I'm proud to say my household is now more fortified. I've been a gun owner for years, but was really in the dark about what these rifles were all about.

My advice: don't be surprised that a gun-owner could still be slightly in the dark about our rights and the expectations that the Constitution put upon us. Guide the unknowing into a more educated environment.

I thank my brothers for their insight and encouragement to my family. I am blind, but now I see!!

Click to expand...

I have no AR's no black rifles at all, well nicely blued. The highest capacity handgun I own is 9 rounds. Unlike some I am not fighting the sentiment to ban them because I own them. I am fighting it because it is a right that the constitution says shall not be infringed.

The government and the leading liberals do not want to get rid of black guns because of school shootings, they just use school shootings to attempt to accomplish their domination on the people. They are scared of people standing up to them, and people with guns standing up to them. AWB is just a stepping stone for them.

I posted the following in another thread (link: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109369-John-Pierce-on-the-BBC-News), but I think it actually is more applicable in this thread:

side thought:
so much talk about civilian designated rifles being designed around military type weapons. isnt that a GOOD thing?? when you want to improve a design, make multiple versions, get it tested in mass volumes, record flaws and successes, and make a final design based around these gathered facts. isn't that the standard concept of prototyping? and design & research? hell, I personally am happy my weapons are derived from military issue weapons, it means I can trust my weapons to be reliable and accurate. I'm not gonna buy a gun some random person made in their basement without ever testing it, that'd be suicide.
it does NOT however give the excuse to call a civilian rifle a "military style" rifle in such a negative fashion!

look at it this way: car manufacturers. how do they create new designs? they put them in their race cars. if it proves successful, they implement the design into their standard production cars. IE: my father's ford pickup has a pushrod v8 with fuel injectors and high energy ignition. it is controlled by a computer, and burns petroleum based gasoline. ford racecars use this exact same design. does that make my dad's pickup truck a "race style automobile"? heck, even my mom's caravan uses technology originally tested and frequently used in the professional racing industry.

some military guns fire 5.56 nato rounds, and my friend's civilian AR-15 fires 5.56 nato rounds, so that makes my friend's gun a military style?
nascar cars use sparkplugs, and my jeep uses sparkplugs, so that makes my jeep comparable to nascar cars?

my 3" swiss army knife is constructed of stainless steel blades. military bayonets used to be made of mild steel (not sure what they're constructed of currently). stainless steel is stronger than mild steel. does that mean my 3" swiss army knife is military bayonet style? does it mean my swiss army knife is as deadly or MORE deadly than a military bayonet? by common logic strictly of the construction, yes. but common sense obviously says no, and knowledge of the other characteristics obviously make it a big no.

differences are differences, no matter what the differences are. if it's not identical or near identical, it is not relatable. even an exact replica is not the same as an original.

then theres the concept of pellet guns and bb guns. there are thousands of versions of these that cosmetically look 100% identical to the highly illegal real guns they were replicated from. does that mean they are just as deadly or just as likely to be used in an illegal violent crime as its real version? or as effective as the real version?

When asked "Why do you need a gun?, or why do you need an AR15?", we should just ask them, "Why don't you care about our kids being killed in our schools? If data proves that guns reduce violent crimes, why would you be so insistent on getting rid of them? I think you want more shootings in schools. You and Obama are sick and evil individuals."

Posted by me elsewhere:

I don't need one anymore than I need a hunting rifle, fishing rod, trap, knife or personal defense weapon.

I want, if I so choose, to walk around in the woods wearing funny clothes and try to put meat on my families table.

I want, if I so choose, to spend time at the range putting little groups of holes in a piece of paper.

I want, if I so choose, to be able to say "NO!" to a person who intends to do harm, either financially, physically or mentally to my family or myself.

That I want to do these things, and am financially, physically and mentally capable of doing doing them is justification enough for that want. I can go to any grocery store and fill my cart with food. I don't need to hunt/fish/trap to feed me or my family. I can look far enough forward to not need a hunting rifle all but the most difficult circumstances that Mother Nature might throw at me. I can use common sense and avoid places, people and circumstances that place my family or me in danger.

I don't need a reason for this want, the fact I want it, and am a productive enough citizen to be able to afford them, is enough justification for this want.

j4l said:

well, we NEED them so we can get as much practice as possible for clearing jams, double-feeds,stove-piping, slam-fires, cook-offs, barrel-warping, and pretty much everything BUT actually shooting them, when we need them most.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the art of replacing "O" rings and recoil buffers, and the cleaning and maintenance of gas-tubes.

Besides which, what's sold to civilians is not really an AR-15, which is a fully automatic military weapon. The fact that the "black guns" look like assault rifles is no more significant than the fact that the set of Roy Rogers' chrome-plated plastic revolvers I had when I was seven was designed to look like those the actor wore on television. What the shooter had was a target-and-varmint carbine, not an assault rifle. No infantry company would dream of charging the enemy and taking the hill using that Bushmaster civilian .223 rifle.

So, why does anyone "need" a black gun? Let me ask another question which I think is more significant to real national security. Why does anyone "need" white flour or white sugar? Why does anyone "need" to eat foods cooked in lard or butter? Why do we "need" to sit around watching football and eating processed-food snacks that come in plastic bags and square cardboard boxes? Why do we "need" beer? Seems to me that more people die of poor diet and exercise than from weapon-related violence, and that these things make the population generally unable to defend our country in case of attack. Speaking as a fat old geezer with bad cholesterol, that is, which gives me a basis for pontification on this subject.

motoxmann said:

... so much talk about civilian designated rifles being designed around military type weapons. isnt that a GOOD thing?? ...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think so... the phrase, "low bid", keeps going through my mind.

It's the NRA's fault.

It just occurred to me, thinking about this topic, that the reason people couch their objections in terms of what people "need" is that the NRA has been trying to soft-pedal the defensive aspect of weapons ownership for a long time. I think this is in direct opposition to the organization's founding principles. By attempting to portray gun owners primarily as people interested in shooting sports and hunting, the question of what one "needs" to accomplish those tasks becomes significant. The anti-gun terrorists are simply reacting to the arguments made on our behalf.

Another objection: I saw a news report yesterday about what Wayne LaPierre said, and characterized the NRA's position as "no compromise". But I thought what he said (have an armed law enforcement officer in every school) WAS a compromise. (Here in Fauquier Co., Virginia, by the way, we've had "school resource officers" in every school for years, and thus far, no teachers or students have been accidentally shot by the deputy sheriffs.) I think the legitimate position would have been to (1) repeal Lautenberg's "gun free school zones act", and (2) provide special training for school personnel who wish to carry, as well as to have at least one armed law enforcement officer in every school.

The NRA/ILA tried to cram a "castle doctrine" bill through the Virginia legislature last year in an attempt to standardize the law throughout the U.S., which would have had the effect of repealing the castle doctrine law as it now exists in Virginia (generally referred to in case opinions as "defense of habitation"), and has since 1607. Their purpose was to create a compromise between the legitimate castle doctrine as defined by the common law, and the wishes of the legislatures of places like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachussetts. Fortunately, our legislators figured out what was going on in time and quashed the bill.

Time to stop trying to sugar-coat personal defense. Every citizen in this country has the right, the duty, and the need, to protect himself - it is neither the State's power nor duty to protect any individual. We simply cannot afford to pay for the kind of police state that would be required to provide real protection to every person, nor do we want to live in a place that has a political system that would tolerate that level of intrusion and limitations on personal liberty.

It may be that most people are not willing to kill, even to save their own lives or that of their children, and I accept that. I am willing to take the risk that they or their children will be killed by evil-doers if they are. What I'm not willing to do is to take that risk myself, and I'm not willing to be restricted in my own personal defense by people who want to live in the Magic Kingdom.

(By the way, I am a life-member of the NRA, and an NRA certified instructor in rifle, pistol, and personal protection in and out of the home.)

My latest letter to editor drafted but not sent yet. On need. I left out the gun part because my goal is to get people to think about rights. I left my last sentence which inspired my letter on my face book page.

Need is an often used rational for social and economic control. Need though is such a subjective word and leaves out other important aspects of human nature. The only way people can truly discover what is needed or desired is by individual choices made in a free economy and a liberated society. No oligarchy, academic intellectuals or even a democracy or consensus can make the best decisions for all. If need is the requirement to justify restriction, we should just give up everything we don't “need” now. We don't need to have a choice in a mates, we don't need to decide what to eat, we don't need more than a few sets of clothing, we don't need art in it's various forms. We don't need oranges, but we can go to the market and buy one, because people want them, and because of that want a nutritional need is fulfilled, without somebody mandating the market provide oranges.

If we allow the subjective term “need” be the rationalization for imposing restrictions on us, then we are not free but slaves and property. After all Slave masters decide what their property's “needs” are.

I won't let someone else decide what guns I need, just like I won't let them decide what food I need.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

Why do children need violent video games?

Click to expand...

Cowboys and Indians .. modern version. Oddly enough, playing Cowboys and Indians did not result in massive attacks on reservations ..

davidmcbeth said:

Cowboys and Indians .. modern version. Oddly enough, playing Cowboys and Indians did not result in massive attacks on reservations ..

Click to expand...

When we played cowboys and Indians, we (the Indians) always won, even if it meant the cowboys went home crying "that's not how it's supposed to happen".

But that is a good point, and I have read some statistics at some time that showed that video games might actually be playing a part in lowering violence. It provides a release and an outlet for young men.

Although like Wolf points out it may affect some in other ways.

I wouldn't advocate the restriction of them anymore than I'd advocate for the restrictions of guns.

I watched a lot of three stooges and marx brothers when I was a kid. Hop-a-long cassidy too.

I have several AR15s, too.