Real Gun Pulled At Counter-Strike Tournament 355
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."
Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
The CS Crowd (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh man.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh man.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pathetically sad that your statement is true.
Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
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 game.
Also, look at other sports like hockey, baseball, football, hell pretty much any. There are far more injuries in those games due to fights between players than there ever has been with gaming.
This incident while trajic, hardly reflects gaming as a whole. There are 1000s of lans happening both big and small, and every single one I have been to has been filled with tons of great and non-homocidal people. I can't say that about the baseball games I have seen.
Re:Games DON'T Cause Violence! (Score:2, Interesting)
Thats ironic, because neither have all the "Videogames are teh bad!" people
Re:The American Response (Score:1, Interesting)
Way to take out of context. (Score:3, Interesting)
Violence is cowardice. Cowardice is beating up people who are merely disagreeing. Cowardice is pulling a gun on someone because you disagree.
Re:Oh man.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Definately NOT a Surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
The Bush/Rumsfield BS has nothing to do with what the typical grunt is doing.
Furthermore, the point the guy is making is that said soldiers are in an environment where people that are indistinguishable from civilians are attacking them. Sometimes they make wrong judgement calls, but they are still making decisions in the desired situation -- in combat.
If there was a problem, you'd have Marines combing down the streets with submachineguns in Springfield, Illinois whenever they got peeved.
Re:The American Response (Score:2, Interesting)
"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 based on your average braindead fucker being able to blow somebodies brains out at long distances with modern weaponry. I'd rather lots of checks and balances surrounding that kind of power, giving it only into the hands of a trusted group of people controlled by the people as a whole. Or does everyone on your network have admin rights?
"Tyrants can be *shot*."
But your tyrant is my democratically elected president! The point where somebody becomes a tyrant and should be removed from office is open for discussion, but nobody should be granted a veto right in form of a gun. That's what a democracy is: discuss it, vote on it, go with the majority. If the whole thing turns out to have been a bad idea, start over - don't start shooting.
"Surely you agree that maintaining guns of equal strength in the police and citizenry is important?", in other words: "But who will protect me from the Army/Police/Coast Guard/National Guard/...?"
If the whole process deteriorates to the point where those that bear arms to Protect And Serve the population follow orders to subjugate said population, the place would have long lost all appeal to live there, and I'd have started packing. Besides, your Desert Eagle won't help a lot once the Air Force starts playing, so forget about the "equal strength" thing: there's always gonna be a bigger kid on the block. And you do trust the Air Force not to start carpet bombing in the US, right?