Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Real Gun Pulled At Counter-Strike Tournament 355

Posted by simoniker from the real-life-frag-bad dept.
Audiovore writes "Got Frag? has a press release and interview with the president of Cyber X Gaming about an event which took place after a Counter-Strike LAN gaming qualifier in Los Angeles at the weekend. Apparently, two guys from separate teams got in a fight outside, and when staff tried to break it up one of the participants went to his car, got a gun, and pointed it at the head of a staff member (who happened to be the son of the CXG president.) His team-mates then 'encouraged the person with the gun to fire', although the situation was then calmed down and the remainder of the event was cancelled."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real Gun Pulled At Counter-Strike Tournament More

Real Gun Pulled At Counter-Strike Tournament

Comments Filter:

  • Oh man.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:07PM (#7665363)

    Now this is guaranteed be used as ammo (bad pun) for all kinds of 'family' and 'parent' groups all over the place.

    • Re:Oh man.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Did it ever occur to you that maybe those groups (although often led by idiots, admittedly), may actually have a valid point and maybe these games everyone is so fanatical about really do encourage violence?

      Oh, no. That's not possible. We're all too smart for that. Especially here on /., where we're much better at mechanical skills than we are at having even the vaguest notion of how human emotions work.

      • Re:Oh man.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @12:14AM (#7665753) Journal
        Did it ever occur to you that maybe those groups (although often led by idiots, admittedly), may actually have a valid point and maybe these games everyone is so fanatical about really do encourage violence?

        You know, until I read this piece, I'd have disagreed with you. I don't believe the guy who went and got the gun is evidence that FPS games encourage violence. (A pro gun society is what has led to that in his case.) What I DO think is good evidence is his teammates egging him to pull the trigger! I mean what the FUCK?! Egging someone on to commit murder...

        Never thought my opinion would change on this issue, but it has.

        • Re:Oh man.... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cicatrix1 ( 123440 )
          Any time there is any sort of competitive activity that has a decent size prize on the line, you will have people that get emotionally involved. As was mentioned before, the same sorts of things happen with just about any sport. Oh, but why don't you hear about football players pulling guns out after games? Because they make millions anyway. They have reputations to uphold and they don't want bad press. The kids playing in this video game tournament have none of that. They had very little besides mora
          • Well I can think of stuff like the Magic the Gathering tournaments... Never heard of someone pulling a gun there.

            I mean for christ sake, this is like pulling a gun on someone because Word crashed.

          • Re:Oh man.... (Score:2, Insightful)

            by mellon ( 7048 ) *
            Maybe the reason football players don't pull guns on each other is because they know what it feels like to be badly injured - that is, because playing football actually helps them to develop compassion, at least for their fellow players.

            The problem with games is that they're life "like", but they aren't life. So you're practicing killing, but you're unable to identify with the result. So you start to see pulling the trigger as something with no real consequences, but something that's desirable to do -

        • Re:Oh man.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @05:36AM (#7666793) Journal
          There's a difference between being "pro gun," and "anti gun control."

          Of of them sounds like you'd even encourage firearm usage, the other one sounds like you actually care about civil liberties.

        • Re:Oh man.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @11:17AM (#7668387)
          I don't believe the guy who went and got the gun is evidence that FPS games encourage violence.

          (A pro gun society is what has led to that in his case.)

          So you don't believe one unprovable fallacy, but you believe another?

          I find it more plausible that this person has mental problems, is immature, is uneducated, was under the influence of drugs, etc.

        • Re:Oh man.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@sbcglo[ ].net ['bal' in gap]> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @06:02PM (#7673399) Homepage Journal
          Look, if I play D&D, does that mean I'm going to get involved in the occult? Well, I haven't yet. But if I already were involved in the occult, D&D would have a special attraction for me.

          If I listen to Heavy Metal, will I start to worship Satan? Hardly. But Satanists who listen to music are probably not going to be listening to Amy Grant now, are they?

          Now if I am a violent person with a substantial gun collection, which video game do you think I'm going to play?

          a. Pikmin
          b. Yoshi's Island
          c. Counter Strike
          d. Bejeweled

          I think it's more accurate to say that the correlation between violence and violent TV programs/violent video games/violence in movies is that violent people are going to be more attracted to those forms of entertainment than other forms. A person who plays Quake isn't a problem; a person who ONLY plays games that lets him shoot people in nasty ways may have an issue.

          I would think that this is obvious.

      • Re:Oh man.... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Fred IV ( 587429 )
        I gave someone a bloddy nose with a Bible once, outside of a church. (Vacation Bible School and I did not get along). Does that mean that Bible Study causes violence too?

        Idiots will do what idiots do. The vast majority of gamers will never hurt anyone, much less carry a gun around "just in case".

        When all, most, or even a tenth of gamers start acting violently, maybe I'll consider that there's some kind of relationship between gaming and violence.

        - FIV
      • It did, but what else has occurred to me, which is far more plausible, IMO, is that the people who are so fanatical about these games are the kind of people that would be prone to violence in the first place.

        Correlation does not mean causation.

      • Re:Oh man.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @11:17AM (#7668385) Homepage Journal

        And the ultimate nullifier to this pointless, tired argument:

        Prove it.

        One incident every now and then does not prove anything. More people pull guns outside of nightclubs than video game tournaments. Maybe nightclubs are the cause of all the world's ills? Heck, while we're jumping to conclusions with absolutely no evidence, maybe DRIVING is the cause of increased violence? I've heard of lots of incidents where drivers pulled guns and other weapons on fellow motorists. A guy here at work just went to jail because he chased some guy down and stabbed him half a dozen times for honking a horn. Maybe car horns are the cause of all the world's ills?

        Until credible studies appear that consumers of violent media have a statistically higher tendency to violence than the rest of society, you and all the "parent" and "family" groups are just blowing smoke and looking for convenient scapegoats for what is more easily attributed to failed parenting. All the studies so far are biased in one direction of the other, so the net result is that the entire thing is unknown. If you want to form a hypothesis based on empirical evidence and invesitgate, that's fine, but don't try to treat it like a theory until you've got proof. That's exactly what you're doing and what parent and family groups do, and that's exactly why I treat it like the wash it is. I'm willing to consider the possibility that you and the groups are right, but don't start saying you actually are until you have some evidence to back it up.

    • Re:Oh man.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by KanshuShintai ( 694567 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:29PM (#7665494) Homepage
      Except that the same kinds of things happen outside of sports events when someone's team loses (even for highschool games, where parents attack each other), and they don't complain about that (much). They'd have to shut them down first, since the people running samller video gaming events can still point fingers at the bigger guys. And we know that sports games are not about to be cancled because of some 'family' or 'parent' groups, because there is too much profit from them.

    • Re:Oh man.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:32PM (#7665514) Homepage
      Yeah. It's not like there has ever been violence or shootings after football, soccer, baseball, lacross, (insert sport here) games; especially when there is a monetary prize involved (like here). It's only VIDEO games that cause a few nut-jobs to become violent. It's couldn't possibly be the violent PERSON'S fault.

      It's pathetically sad that your statement is true.

    • "Family" groups (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @12:18AM (#7665787) Journal
      Actually, I thought the CXG guy came across as really touchingly fatherly -- it reminded me of the father-and-son team who tried to help Homer Simpson -- which probably means I should spend more time interacting with my own family and less time watching TV.

      The real Grade A morons here, by the way, have to be the teammates encouraging the other Grade A moron with the gun to fire...

    • Re:Oh man.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darthwader ( 130012 )
      Well, I know that in the ./ world I'm going to be jumped on for saying this, but there may be some truth to it.

      Obviously playing a video games does not guarantee the player will become homicidal. Just like smoking one cigarette won't give the smoker cancer.

      But I think the link is there. Repeatedly acting out realistic scenes of violence against realistic people must desensitize someone to violence, and that cannot be a good thing.

      In my town we've just had our another case of a bunch of teenagers beatin

      • Re:Oh man.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <revaaron AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @03:38AM (#7666511) Homepage
        Obviously playing a video games does not guarantee the player will become homicidal. Just like smoking one cigarette won't give the smoker cancer.

        That's the worst attempt at an analogy. Ever. It would've been more accurate to say that "Obviously playing a video games [sic] does not guarantee the player will become homicidal. Just like seeing someone smoke on TV won't make you become a smoker yourself."

        Yes, people did get beaten on for having the wrong skin colour or for being in the wrong clique, but they didn't die as a result of the beatings.

        Bullshit. It isn't the kids that have changed, rather the media reporting on those kids.

        There is an order of magnitude more coverage on this kind of stuff these days. Perhaps even more. The sensationalist media of today has no qualms about letting everyone in the world know about some poor kid who got beat to death after school. Before, this sort of thing was often kept hush; who wants everyone in the world to know that your child, your sibling, your friend, a fellow community member did such a thing?

        You may not have killed anyone, and you may not know anyone who died as a result of getting their asses kicked back then, but it certainly doesn't mean it's never happened. I don't know anyone who has beat someone to the point they were even on the ground- but that doesn't prove people don't get their lives beat out of them sometimes.

        • Re:Oh man.... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Tiassa ( 632878 )

          Bullshit. It isn't the kids that have changed, rather the media reporting on those kids. There is an order of magnitude more coverage on this kind of stuff these days. Perhaps even more. The sensationalist media of today has no qualms about letting everyone in the world know about some poor kid who got beat to death after school. Before, this sort of thing was often kept hush; who wants everyone in the world to know that your child, your sibling, your friend, a fellow community member did such a thing?

          I

  • The American Response (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:08PM (#7665365)
    Clearly the problem is the game, which makes people violent. Not in the fact that this particular lunatic owns, and is ready to point a gun at somebody's head.
    • Not in the fact that this particular lunatic owns, and is ready to point a gun at somebody's head.

      So if he has just smashed his head in with a baseball bat, that would be better? Or perhaps the problem is that things that can be used to kill (cars, rat poison, blenders, etc.) can be bought by anyone in the US, including lunatics and...heaven forbid...gamers.

      All types of political groups will try to spin this story to shift blame to whatever it is they're trying to ban. Video games, guns, violent movies,

      • Re:The American Response (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AtaruMoroboshi ( 522293 ) <AnthonyNO@SPAMoverwhelmed.org> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:55PM (#7665666) Homepage
        ...you can't just hold a bat to someone's head and have a slight change in finger pressure kill them.

        • True, but then again, a bat doesn't have a safety...
        • Are you really less afraid of a lunatic holding a bat or a knife than one holding a gun? At least if the guy with the gun decides to take you out, it'll be quick.

          • Re:The American Response (Score:4, Insightful)

            by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @11:31AM (#7668543) Homepage Journal

            You're out of your mind. First of all, even if you get cut, as long as you're not stupid enough to expose tender areas (like... don't block stabbing motions with your stomach and slashing motions with your wrist...), you have a much better shot at survival than if someone puts a bullet between your eyes.

            Second, deflecting a shot from a bat coming in at your head with your arm, though I'm sure it's exceptionally painful, isn't even likely to break a significant bone, much less cause any serious injury. Hell, the human skull is obnoxiously hard. It probably wouldn't even crack it on the first swing. I took a baseball bat to the side of the head once at full swing (by accident - guy taking practice swings). Fucking thing sent me sprawling in the dirt, made me throw up, and I couldn't see for a few minutes (but, amazingly, no concussion), but it didn't do any serious damage.

            Third, I'm willing to bet I'm a pretty speedy guy if someone is looking to cut my throat or bash my skull in. I'm also willing to bet that, no matter how speedy I am, I can't outrun a bullet if someone is looking to take a headshot at me.

            Note, however, I'm not arguing a personal position on guns. Just saying I'd much rather face a guy with a sharp or blunt object than a .44

      • So if he has just smashed his head in with a baseball bat, that would be better?

        Add in a "tried" before "smashed" and, quite simply, yes.

        A man with just a little bit of marital-arts training--I mean, someone who's EVER blocked a punch of ANY kind--can mitigate the blow from a single baseball bat enough to not die.

        There's no way to block a bullet.
    • If the game did not cause the fool to lose it, please explain to me exactly how a gun did. Personal responsibility can't be legislated into people. And I resent the implication that because SOME people are emotional retards who cannot handle the responsibility of owning a firearm, NOBODY should be allowed to. Australia disarmed their population, check out their crime stats before and after. (Here's a start: http://www.ssaa.org.au/buybackindex.html)

      Have some quotes to think on:

      "Though defensive violenc

      • Re:The American Response (Score:5, Insightful)

        by StocDred ( 691816 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @12:42AM (#7665902) Homepage Journal
        Figures supplied by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia may not be the most unbiased source of information on gun control.

        Even if we do accept those numbers as true, the number of murders pre-gun buyback (99 in 1996) is still more than the number of murders in the most recent year shown (49 in 2001). Why isn't that shown to be a happy side effect of the buyback program?

        Answer: because it's all in how you spin it. One little table and a bunch of out-of-context quotes do not an argument make.

        And, at the risk of clouding all further rational discussion, do you really think that Jesus (if he wasn't fictional) had any notion of how powerful the weapons of the future would be? The difference between a sword and a gun is incredible, which makes quotes dealing with swords-and-violence not exactly comparable to the modern situation of guns-and-violence. Heck, our founding fathers couldn't even fathom the high-powered, super-accurate, full-automatic weapons of today.

        • The difference between a sword and a gun is incredible, which makes quotes dealing with swords-and-violence not exactly comparable to the modern situation of guns-and-violence. Heck, our founding fathers couldn't even fathom the high-powered, super-accurate, full-automatic weapons of today.

          First of all, I will grant that our founding fathers are not infallible. Just because they felt that something was a good idea doesn't mean that it actually is. They do deserve some respect, though, because their syst
          • See, that's where I disagree.

            "Getting shot with an 1700s pistol or a modern Glock can both produce a fatal result."
            JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if they had lived at the time of the founding fa-- Er. *cough*
            JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if the weapons available in the 60s were restricted to those that the founding fathers had available at their time. This is just a guess, of course, but this whole "Voting from the Rooftops" thing is ba

            • Re:The American Response (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Gigs ( 127327 )
              JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if they had lived at the time of the founding fathers...

              Just like Julius Caesar, huh?

              JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if the weapons available in the 60s were restricted to those that the founding fathers had available at their time.

              You mean like Abraham Lincoln?

              But your tyrant is my democratically elected president!...That's what a democracy is: discuss it, vote on it, go with the majority.

              Hilter was an e
        • StocDred says, "Heck, our founding fathers couldn't even fathom the high-powered, super-accurate, full-automatic weapons of today

          This is exactly to the point. They held weapons of equal power to the government. Today private citizens with, say, shoulder launched stinger missles would be insane. (Don't like your business competition? Shoot the company plane down.) This is a far cry from a dueling pistol.

          The scope of weapon power has increased to the point where armed overthrow of the government is a
      • ""Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence." -Mohatma Gandhi"

        Violence is cowardice. Cowardice is beating up people who are merely disagreeing. Cowardice is pulling a gun on someone because you disagree.
        • Wait, so when two people disagree, it's impossible for one to be more right than the other?

          • You're missing entirely the meaning. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @04:58AM (#7666720) Homepage
            Gandhi never advocated violence. Many people/reporters/etc would try and give him theoretical situations where he would be "forced" to choose a violent course. The quote was, "Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence."

            And if you bother to read the history of where this statement originates, the next thing he said was, "But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....
            But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
            We do want to drive out the best in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.
            The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.            "

            Go read for yourself [mkgandhi.org] his philosophy.

            If you are busy trying to argue wether people cane or can't be more or less right, then you've missed why I pointed out that quote which was taken out of context.
            • I'd mod the parent up, but I think I'd rather add a reply and say in support of Inoshiro that the Gandhi quote, IMO, is an admonishment of cowardice, rather than an advocation of violence. To be anti-gun does not make one a coward, however (any more than being pro-gun makes one a hero), so I must confess that the relevance of the quote in this context eludes me.
        • Violence is cowardice. Cowardice is beating up people who are merely disagreeing. Cowardice is pulling a gun on someone because you disagree.

          No. You may find cowardice distasteful, and the violence used in this story also distasteful. That does not let you equate cowardice and violence, however. The two are definitely different.

          An action is considered an example cowardice when someone weights risk of loss involved the an action overly highly relative to potential gain, and acts based on that judgement
      • "When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace."

        Surely this just equates to "If thou shalt guardeth thine shit with weapons and shit, dude, it shall verily not get ripped off"?

        You've certainly looked out a few (mostly) pertinent quotes there, but the fact remains (and at the risk of sounding like Michael Moore) that the US has the highest per-capita murder rate in the world.
        This does not seem to be a direct result of the number of weapons owned, so what *is* the cause, and

  • Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:12PM (#7665393)
    I'm sure this will get modded to troll immediately, since I'm saying something most /.ers don't want to hear, but this is really something to be expected.

    People sit and spend days and days playing games like this where they learn to shoot at almost anything that might be a threat. Just like an athlete that practices for years to hone their reflexes so they don't have to think about actions, but just do -- or like a musician that practices for years so their skills are sharp -- gamers teach themselves to solve problems with violence and to use weapons quickly and easily.

    So it's no wonder one of them decides that's the best way to solve their problem and that the others around actually egg him on to shot another human being.

    People practice basketball for years to develop skills and be able to react without thinking. Musicians practice for years to learn how to use their instruments without having to think about what they do. In both cases, people are training their neurons by repeated action. And somehow we don't think practicing using a gun day after day doesn't do the same thing?

    Get real. Violence leads to more violence, even if it starts with fantasy violence.

    • Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kaellinn18 ( 707759 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:16PM (#7665419) Homepage Journal
      Soldiers practice using weapons everyday so they can solve problems with violence, yet our streets aren't overrun with platoons of soldiers shooting civilians. It's used as a last resort. Don't be stupid.

    • Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rewtie ( 552738 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:17PM (#7665423) Homepage Journal
      You don't have to play video games to be a 'tard who points a gun at someone's head. What about the team mates encouraging him? That's the more worrisome part to me. Any fool can shoot someone.

      • Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:44PM (#7665591)
        "What about the team mates encouraging him? That's the more worrisome part to me."

        Not much different from your typical high school students egging on a fistfight. Of course, nobody bothered to take notice of situations like this until students started to point the guns at each other instead of themselves.
        • NO, this is entirely different.

          In a fist fight (fought fairly) there is only a slight chance that the situation will end in death. Also, fist fights are easier to control than a gun. If a gun is placed against a persons head, it is fairly certain that the situation will result in death.

          There is a considerable difference in the moral fabric of a person that would advocate the certain death of another person, and a kid egging on a fistfight.

          That said i hope that the coward with the gun gets to feel the ful

          • "In a fist fight (fought fairly)"

            And when was the last time you saw such a fight with a referee? I'm not talking about some fictional honor duel, I'm talking about situations where at least one of the participants wants to seriously hurt the other for whatever reason.

            "there is only a slight chance that the situation will end in death."

            If they were rational enough at the time for the possibility to even cross their minds, they're probably rational enough not to get involved in the fight to begin with.
    • This theory makes no logical sense. Yes, if I were to throw a ball at the head of a professional basketball player, he would probably respond by catching it before it hit his head.

      But if I threw the same ball at a guy who played NBA Live or similar themed video games all of the time, he would be unlikely to "use his reflexes" to catch the ball. Instead, you would hear a crunch as his nose and/or glasses broke.

      I can spend years of my life pointing and clicking at terrorists onscreen. However, if I got
    • "Get real. Violence leads to more violence, even if it starts with fantasy violence. "

      How often do baseball players take a swing at people with their bat?
    • "People sit and spend days and days playing games like this where they learn to shoot at almost anything that might be a threat. Just like an athlete that practices for years to hone their reflexes so they don't have to think about actions, but just do -- or like a musician that practices for years so their skills are sharp -- gamers teach themselves to solve problems with violence and to use weapons quickly and easily."

      Except, by your theory, these idiots wouldn't even know how to load a real firearm ("W
    • So with that logic, I think I will go tryout for the Green Bay Packers because I rule at Madden 2004.

      Seriously dude, get real. You've obviously never played any sort of FPS type of game so you don't understand that it's not about the shooting. That part gets old soon. It is about the people. It's about using teamwork to try to accomplish your goal. It's about winning. The majority of gamers are in clans because of that. Gaming is not about just about shooting people, it's much like any other team ga

    • Actually, according to your reasoning, the reaction this person would have had would be to challenge the staff member to a Counter-Strike duel.

      Your logic is extremely faulty. You assert that training in sports causes your actions in that sport to become reflex, and training in a musical instrument causes you to become better, but then that training to have a twitch-reflex in moving a mouse at a target trains you to pull a gun on a human being. Irregardless of the validity of the conclusion you've reached
    • I lost my temper once, but my expert mouse clicking and keyboarding skills did me no good at all. All that training gone to waste, pity.

      - FIV
    • I've played FPS games all my life. This spring I went to the citizen's police academy where I got to experience some polic training, including a firearm simulator. In this simulator I was handed a modified gun, and told to react to situations that play out on a screen in front of me. During all three scenerios I reacted poorly, by both drawning my weapon too slowly and inaccurately firing my gun. I've also had plenty of experience firing real guns, and I can tell you nothing prepares you for even a highly r
    • People practice basketball for years to develop skills and be able to react without thinking. Musicians practice for years to learn how to use their instruments without having to think about what they do. In both cases, people are training their neurons by repeated action. And somehow we don't think practicing using a gun day after day doesn't do the same thing? Get real. Violence leads to more violence, even if it starts with fantasy violence.

      I don't buy it. By your argument:

      * Playing football regula
    • gamers teach themselves to solve problems with violence and to use weapons quickly and easily.

      There's a world of difference between knowing how to skillfully and thoughtlessly use a weapon in a video game than in real life.

      Most gamers I know wouldn't even know how to load a real gun.

      In a fantasy virtual world I can race a motorcycle like no other and am a fighter pilot ace. Yet in the real world I wouldn't even know how to operate a motorcycle or how to taxi a plane let alone pilot it. If you're right ma

  • Scapel please... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gregoryj ( 648088 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:17PM (#7665425)
    Another reason for forced sterilization... oh wait, these guys were already at a gaming convention.

  • The CS Crowd (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hattmoward ( 695554 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:23PM (#7665456)
    Personally -- my opinion, not stated as fact -- I don't really like the people who play CS in general these days. They are complete assholes, they steal my shit when I'm hosting/visiting a LAN party, and are generally very violent, aggressive, and standoffish. There are some good players out there, but they're getting sparse. Of course, this is slashdot, and my post is +5, Obvious... We certainly have our share of idiots here! :) It seems to happen to online communities as more people concentrate in them... :/ Sad, really. BTW, has anyone seen those yoda doll trolls? So insane, they're completely hilarious... frickin morons! :)

  • Come On.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sangloth ( 664575 ) <MaxPande@nospam.hotmail.com> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:26PM (#7665476)
    This could just as easily have been a Football game, it just wouldn't have garnered this attention. I remember 3 years ago they pre-emptively tear gassed students at the CU - CSU football game to prevent a riot. When the police were asked for justification, they cited the riots that had happened every year for the previous 5 years.
    For that matter, we tend to have some kind of riot whenever the Av's Hockey team loses.

    The actions of a single individual don't define a group.

    Sangloth
    I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

  • Games DON'T Cause Violence! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:28PM (#7665487) Homepage
    This proves it! Once and for all! Videogames DON'T cause violence...

    It's the pavement!

    Nothing happened untill they went OUTSIDE, to the PARKING LOT, which has PAVEMENT! Let's look at the facts. Nearly EVERY drive-by shooting ever has been within 5 feet of pavement. Most gang violence in urban areas is near pavement!

    It's time to do something about this pavement industry that's causing EPIDEMICS of violence in this country. Back in revolutionary times (when there was no pavement) things like drive-by shootings and gang violence didn't happen! I defy someone to find a whole in my logic!

    Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!

    • You know what?

      You're close!

      It's not the pavement, though, but rather the close quarters. In animal experiments, the closer in you pack mice in over an intermediate or long term environment, the more agressive they become.

      Pavement, being a way to develop infrastructure to drive people closer together, therefore is an indirect cause for violence.

      The moral? Stop packing them in the inner cities, and keep CS players in their own rooms and talking on the net.

  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@@@gmail...com> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:32PM (#7665517) Journal
    From the article:
    The police do have the names of the players and teams associated with the actions and we assume that this will reach a quick conclusion. I can tell everyone that the person that pulled the gun was not part of the BZ team, rather, friends of a certain member of that team.

    I live in a country where people have riots and burn cars because their basketball team loses. Heck, sometimes when their team wins. No one ever blames the violence on basketball. Some nutcase friend of player pulls a gun and it's counter-strike's fault?

    • "I can tell everyone that the person that pulled the gun was not part of the BZ team, rather, friends of a certain member of that team.

      Some nutcase friend of player pulls a gun and it's counter-strike's fault?"

      Did he know the name of this person? If not, did he know the name of their friend the player? Most importantly, has this information passed on to the police?

      If the group is truly "zero tolerance" as they claim to be, complaints and sanctions wouldn't stop outside the building's walls. They clai
      • Did he know the name of this person? If not, did he know the name of their friend the player? Most importantly, has this information passed on to the police?

        It's neat how the sentence before the one you quoted was:

        The police do have the names of the players and teams associated with the actions and we assume that this will reach a quick conclusion.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • They pushed a press release too early with some inaccuracies. The latest news says it was NOT a member of the clan, just a friend. Its unclear if it was the clan telling him to shoot or if it was just more friends.

        Also for the record, not that it matters, ClanBZ is the ones involved. TeamBZ is just a group of friends that play together. Slight difference, but if you feel like harassing them make sure you get the right clan.
        *mumbles something about irc.gamesnet.net #clanbz *

  • If this guy had the Presence of mind (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To go BACK to his car, pull out a (most likely) LOADED gun he had LOADED beforehand and then go BACK to the guy who had pissed him off. He should be a canidate for the electric chair. Not wanting a gibsonesque future but he might not have killed someone already but he sure as hell would have with that MO.

  • pass me a bat... (Score:4, Funny)

    by jermyjerm ( 705338 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:34PM (#7665534) Homepage
    I'd like to kick the ass of that guy and all his idiot friends who egged him on!

    Wait, that wouldn't help solve the problem of gaming being related to violence, would it?
  • ...at least he didn't shoot the guy. I mean, if videogames make you want to kill people, wouldn't this guy just have come back from his car shooting first and asking questions later?

    Of course, it could also be that he just didn't want to lose points for shooting civilians.

  • Obligatory Professor Farnsworth quote: (Score:3, Troll)

    by Naikrovek ( 667 ) <jjohnson@ps g . com> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:51PM (#7665642)
    "who needs courage, when you've got a gun?"

    how weak, to pull a gun on someone, not to mention an unarmed someone. could he not win the arguement any other way? was his ego so easily bruised? how weak.

  • Causation vs. Correlation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by molafson ( 716807 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:58PM (#7665683)
    It is impossible to say whether or not video games promote violent behavior. I do not believe that they do, but I have no evidence to support this believe.

    In any case, what we *can* say with certainty is that a kind of aggressive/macho/anti-social culture does develop around certain online games. You have only to play these games to notice the angry, sociopathic tendencies of many of their participants (e.g. the rampant cheating, trash talking, causing other nuisances, etc.).

    Whether or not the game itself (CS) promotes this kind of behavior is certainly an unresolved question. At the very least, I think we can agree (as another poster pointed out) that certain games attract an element of player who is already disposed toward bad behavior. I do my best to avoid these games.
    • "You have only to play these games to notice the angry, sociopathic tendencies of many of their participants (e.g. the rampant cheating, trash talking, causing other nuisances, etc.)."

      Except is this related to the game, or to the medium in which it is played? All of these tendencies show up on your average IRC host, and if it were the game it would be happening at paintball tournaments as well.
    • Uhhh, have you ever watched a collegiate football game? Rampant might be an overstatement for the cheating, but there are things that are clearly rules violations. A lot of obvious penalties happen that aren't called because that is what the game has degenerated to. I believe trash talking was invented during a football game, if not it's been perfected by 22 year atheletes who are treated like gods by their peers.

      Watch any game of pickup basketball by any group of 25 year olds. If there aren't a half

      • I think it has more to do with the nature of the attitude of people of that age...

        Age? I don't think it has much to do with age so much as the culture that reinforces those behaviours. Those people have probably acted like that since gradeschool.
    • In any case, what we *can* say with certainty is that a kind of aggressive/macho/anti-social culture does develop around certain online games.

      Remove the word online, and you may have a point. The same thing happens among fans and players of other 'sports'. Even among parents of school age players.
  • You know, reading this blurb....was I the only one here who couldn't help but wonder by the end of reading the blurb...."what kind of gun did he pull?"

    Man I need to lay off the CS.

  • Stuff that doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by barrettlight50 ( 236359 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @02:55AM (#7666406)
    I have rtfa and the interview and the submission here and I can't find any evidence that the playing of the game (Counterstrike) caused the gun to be used violently. There was a gun and violence and a game of Counterstrike, so what? Was the gun toting individual affected by playing Counterstrike? Were his actions justified? It's not likely, but we're not given enough information to decide for sure. What about the actual team members that encouraged the associate to shoot? Why didn't they just grab their friends gun and do it themselves if they were so demented from hours of Counterstrike. There is also something about the press release that doesn't add up. The only reason I could think to get to work immediately on such a carefully crafted announcement would be to preempt some type of legal action by either party, but the lack of specific details within it raises some suspicion here. I would be interested to know what action Hill Jr took to 'resolve the matter and stop the fighting'. Maybe neglect in developing any conventional social skills landed him in water over his head? I know I can organise a decent gaming session without any real violence breaking out. Why does trouble seem to follow Jr around? Who's to know? Sr. makes some general speculations about what causes these outbursts. He suggests yep it's our fault, it's the games fault, the empathy of the community is to blame. Not much of a defence... And why defend the gaming community? Because the media told you so? No thanks.

    Marylin Manson said, 'keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume.' Is Mr. Hill milking a bit of free advertising? Would guards and metal detectors repel the gaming masses. Hardly! I wish I could make sense of mindless acts of violence but this story does nothing to help me do so. I love the idea of guns as much as the next FPS gamer, but I could live a lifetime and not own one, let alone present it at someone. There are an estimated 2.5 million plus people that play Counterstrike worldwide - and one of them gets a gun pulled on him by another? Even if this is what happened, the only reason I care, is to chuckle at the over-reaction to it by the gaming community.

  • Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bhima ( 46039 )
    Should I be surprised that not many people are wondering why this man had a gun in his car to begin with?

    Why do you go to a computer gaming contest (of any sort) with a gun in your car?

    How does someone who is obviously not the sort that should have a firearm get a firearm? They get the firearm because the screening processes used when purchasing a firearm in the US are ineffective.

    No wonder other people (Non-Gamers) get touchy about computer violence, when people can go out and purchase these things and ind

  • The frightening nature of CS (Score:4, Funny)

    by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @06:47AM (#7666921)
    Police were particularly concerned because, at a Counter-Stike tournament held last month, ten young men were shot... in the head... with one bullet... through five brick walls.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close