Slashdot Mirror


Real Gun Pulled At Counter-Strike Tournament

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."

64 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. Oh man.... by hookedup · · Score: 3, Insightful


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

    1. Re:Oh man.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Oh man.... by KanshuShintai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Oh man.... by MBCook · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:Oh man.... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh man.... by Fred+IV · · Score: 3, Funny

      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

    6. Re:Oh man.... by cicatrix1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 morals to hold them back. Put a bunch of people together to compete for cash with nothing to lose and crazy shit WILL happen.

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    7. Re:Oh man.... by darthwader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 beating another student to death. I hate to sound like an old man, but what's going on here? "Back in my day", when you kicked the shit out of someone you didn't like in school, you would stop kicking once the person was lying down and not getting back up. 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.

      I can't be certain why violence by kids is so much more serious now, but I think video games are at least part of the problem. Because they are interactive, they condition you to act out to harm others and that makes them a large part of the problem.

      I think the games can be improved without radically changing them. The martial arts games could have a rule that if you hit your opponent while s/he was down, you forfeit the game. The game should be just as challenging and fun, but it would encourage a somewhat more sportsman-like attitude than the current "kick them until they stop moving" attitude.

      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
    8. Re:Oh man.... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Oh man.... by RevAaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    10. Re:Oh man.... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    11. Re:Oh man.... by Tiassa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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 submit that this kind of thing simply did not happen as often. Yes, there was violence fifty years ago, and a hundred, and five hundred years ago. But it seems to me that excessive aggression used to be stronger inhibited than these days. Just as a wolf will not bite another wolf that had rolled over in submission, a boy fighting with another boy would not kick the kid once he had it on the ground. He had won the fight and the wooden spinning top, there was no need (and no precedent!) to hurt and possibly kill the loser.
      For further Food For Thought I point you to "KIDS TODAY ARE BETTER TRAINED TO KILL".
      Me? I blame TV.
      No, I kid you not.
    12. Re:Oh man.... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    13. Re:Oh man.... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    14. Re:Oh man.... by neocon · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also, of course, a complete work of fiction, long since discredited.

    15. Re:Oh man.... by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Oh man.... by alaeth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Brilliant. If I had mod points, they would be for you. I could never put into works my discomfort over the whole "video games cause violence" issue.

      On the surface, I could rationalize...
      They are just games, The average age of players is 26 (or 28 depending on what you read).

      Deep down, I suspected video games and violent movies do cause increased amounts of violence. I know that I personally drive more aggressivly after playing Need for Speed.

      Heh, I remeber when GTA (the original) came out, I was driving to the mall after playing for a while and I almost jumped out of my car to carjack a cop car...

      Luckily I'm old enough to know better and control my game induced impulses. Perhaps the 'Mature' rating needs to be stronger (photo I.D. maybe?) to protect those too young to know better.

      Maybe if buying 'Blood Fist Fight of Painful Death' required a picture I.D. and 21+ years on this planet, parents will think twice before buying it for their pre-teens :-/

      --
      Sig goes here.
  2. The American Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The American Response by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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, trench coats, whatever. The fact of the matter is that the blame lies with one and only one person...the idiot who decided to use a gun to win an argument.

    2. Re:The American Response by AtaruMoroboshi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...you can't just hold a bat to someone's head and have a slight change in finger pressure kill them.

    3. Re:The American Response by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      The safety is the three feet between you and the guy with the bat. That space should be preferably filled with a door.

    4. Re:The American Response by thelexx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -St. Augustine

      "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

      "......Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense ... legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason." -Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE

      "When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace." -Jesus Christ [Luke 11:21.6]

      "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." -Jesus Christ [Luke 22:36]

      "Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence." -Mohatma Gandhi

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    5. Re:The American Response by StocDred · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:The American Response by Tiassa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 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?

    7. Re:The American Response by Gigs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 elected official too! I guess because of that we should have just had a discussion with him and asked him to step down. Whoops... because we had that discussion the SS just took us out and shot us. And guess what we had no means of defense cause we all voted to take away the civilian guns. But not to worry about those millions that died at the Nazi's hands. In your puppy dog's and snowflake world we'll just "start over". I feel so happy :-)!!!

      ...place would have long lost all appeal to live there, and I'd have started packing.

      Good luck getting across that wall that divides east and west Berlin! You know you must be the only smart person in the world cause no one in Iraq ever thought of leaving when they started throwing people into plastic shreaders. And lets not even get started with those "stupid" jews and not leaving Germany.

      Besides, your Desert Eagle won't help a lot once the Air Force starts playing...

      No my one weapon will hardly make a difference, but the 50 million+ in the hands of my fellow countrymen certainly will make a pretty big dent in the first air force base we come across.

      Its interesting how you make a point about the mass killing potential of modern weapons at the start of your post and then totally discount its power in the hands of a large group of people at the end. Can you explain that to me?

    8. Re:The American Response by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:The American Response by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    10. Re:The American Response by ggwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 joke (there is a great AC post about this above) - but that is exactly what the founders intended.

      They specifically state that to be the only reason the right to bear arms is protected. That gone, we should not have that right, so sayeth the founders.

      We have decided to keep the weapons, anyhow. We have the highest murder rate in the world (per person). Go figure.

      The number of weapons in the US is staggering. Any plan to significantly reduce the ammount of weapons (beyond, say, buy back programs which are effective, yet limited) would be herculean in scope. Yet even modest proposals are rejected.

      Right now Republicans are tyring to push through a bill to destroy all the "Brady bill" data within 72 hours. (Brady bill info: the info you must give to buy a gun outside of a gun show, in the US, at the moment. Given for a background check to ensure you are not mentally ill or have felony convictions). This at a time national security is at it's highest (arguably) since the end of the second world war.

      This illustrates how ingraned the "right to bear arms" is in America. Even though it is totally tangential to the intent of the founders, and apparently extremely detremental to the public, the current right to run out and buy a gun (say, a hand gun, easily concealed) will remain unfettered for the forseable future.

      Violent video games, on the other hand, are in serious danger of being banned. See, for example, this.

      Simple, logical yet tough solutions exist and are not implemented. Example:

      Jonny accidentally shoots Jimmy with Jonny's Dad's gun, Jonny's Dad's should be lookin at multiple years in prison. Still wanna have a gun? Sure, go ahead just be certain your kids can't get it, or if they can that it isn't loaded and they can't load it.

      Sounds reasonable, sounds not too hard, buy a master lock, lets say.

      Yet every year about 4000 children die from gunfire, and about 20,000 are injured in the USA. See thisfor an example with citations. And of those 20,000, about 4,000 are accidental injuries.

      Okay, so people try to lock up guns and keep them away from children, but about 4,000 times per year it doesn't work. Still want to risk jail time for owning a gun? It would be your call. Remember, you kid is a kid for a long time (the statistics use 20 years but let's say 15) so during that time interval 60,000 kids will get shot accidentally with guns and (assuming few repeats) that is loads of families effected, perhaps about 1% overall. Statistically, you kid is about 10 times more likely to get shot if you own a gun than if not. I'm sure you can see where this leads. But like I said, be my guest but my kids aren't going to be playing with your kids (at your house) if you keep guns in the house, and I know about it.

      Amazing how the Republicans who, nominally, favor personal responsibility cannot inact a law punishing parents for gross neglegence in keeping firearms away from their kids.

      And, of course, the Democrats who propose stronger and stronger gun control laws find those efforts thwarted.

      I personally don't care which road you follow. Pick one. Follow both. I don't care. Both parties have, at least nominally, some solution to this.

      During the

      --
      a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
  3. Definately NOT a Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by kaellinn18 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    2. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Rewtie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ever Onward, Forward Bound
    3. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Lshmael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 into a street fight, I would not be able to reflexibly point and click my opponents away. If the people in this incident were playing, say, Duck Hunt, you *might* have a point.

      The same incident could have easily happened at a basketball tournament, a football game, or any other competitive event.

    4. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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.

    5. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Lshmael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My "calm and logical" thoughts make me think that according to that reasoning, all people who are trained to react quickly (whether they be police officers, soldiers, video gamers, or even players of certain card games) would be more violent. As I do not believe this to be the case, it must be assumed that the original poster (not sure if this person is the same as the parent or not) was unfairly singling out video game players.

    6. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by obsid1an · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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 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.

    7. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Phleg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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, this is a complete nonsequitur.

      --
      No comment.
    8. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Fred+IV · · Score: 2, Funny

      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

    9. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by Xenopax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 realistic simlulation of firing at another human being. Anyone who would fire at another person had it in them before they played any game.

    10. Re:Definately NOT a Surprise by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. We've sent them to Iraq under the pretense of self-defense (notice how Bush and Rumsfield said, MANY TIMES, they knew exactly where the WMDs were, but wouldn't tell the UN and can't find any trace of them now?), where they're claiming to kill 54 insurgents when the locals say they kill 8 citizens.

      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.

  4. Scapel please... by gregoryj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Another reason for forced sterilization... oh wait, these guys were already at a gaming convention.

  5. The CS Crowd by hattmoward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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! :)

  6. Come On.... by Sangloth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Games DON'T Cause Violence! by MBCook · · Score: 5, Funny
    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!

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Games DON'T Cause Violence! by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about: you've not demonstrated causality!

      Thats ironic, because neither have all the "Videogames are teh bad!" people ;)

  8. RTFA by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  9. If this guy had the Presence of mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. pass me a bat... by jermyjerm · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --
    --- "Yeah, I'm a bit stressed out. I have a research paper due tomorrow and it has to be +5, Insightful."
  11. Obligatory Professor Farnsworth quote: by Naikrovek · · Score: 2, Troll

    "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.

  12. Causation vs. Correlation by molafson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Causation vs. Correlation by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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 dozen fouls every time up and down the court, they aren't really playing hard.

      Now, I've never seen a pickup game result in a shooting, however, I'm doubtful it's never happened. I'd be very impressed if a gun has never been pulled after a college football game.

      I think it has more to do with the nature of the attitude of people of that age, then it does with people who play computer games.

    2. Re:Causation vs. Correlation by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  13. "Family" groups by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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...

  14. Re:Welcome to the American Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, way to generalize man... I manage a coffee shop and have been a very gentle person most of my life. (I was kinda mean to my younger brother until around 17 when I realized how lame it was.)

    I resent your comments and if I ever see you in person I'm gonna take a claw hammer and...

    I mean... have a nice day!

  15. Way to take out of context. by Inoshiro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ""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.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Way to take out of context. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      An action is violent when it causes injury to another.

      When a racoon comes near a bird's eggs, birds will frequently try to drive off the racoon, even though they are smaller and at physical risk. They are attempting to do violence to the racoon. They are not, however, cowards in any kind of the traditional sense -- they are risking their lives to protect their eggs.

      I disagree that cowardice is beating up people who are merely disagreeing. To do so may be aggressive, but certainly not necessarily the act of a coward. I might attack a professional boxer with my bare hands because I disagree with him. Such an action might be quite stupid, but not that of a coward.

  16. Re:Welcome to the American Way by mohaine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get a clue. I have lived in the states my whole life(30 years), and have NEVER seen a gun pulled in a violent maner.

    --
    (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  17. Re:Welcome to the American Way by zulux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what? This sort of behaviour is common in the States, nothing new to see here, move along now.

    No this behaviour is bot common. That's why it's considered news.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  18. Re:Welcome to the American Way by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This sort of behaviour is common in the States...

    Actually, I only know two people who own guns. One is a guard at Rikers Island, and the other is NYPD. Neither, to my knowledge, has had need to use their firearms, but would only use their firearms in the defense of themselves or innocent bystanders.

    While these incidents are painfully common in the US, they're not everyday occurences. Many of us are non-violent people. Admitedly, we're very annoying people, though, which makes it a wonder you don't hear about more violence. :P

    But you've already seen Bowling for Columbine. You know that these incidents are less common than the US media makes them out to be. In the NYC area we see a few reports of violent acts on the news every night, but in a metro area of several million people, the odds are pretty good that somebody's gonna fly off the handle every day. Even if this violence is a on-in-a-million shot, we're still guaranteed to see it every day at those odds.
    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  19. Stuff that doesn't matter by barrettlight50 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Sports not plagued by shootings: by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your words imply that you believe that it is somehow on the unlikely fringe that "pussy sport" would cause violence; indeed, the noble quest for pussy has been responsible for more violoence between two men than any other big-name sport. Ever.

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  21. You're missing entirely the meaning. by Inoshiro · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 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.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  22. The frightening nature of CS by Phantasmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --

    The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
  23. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Prove it.

    If you're going to meet my emotional demands and annecdotal evidence with things like reason and a call for a statistical basis, I guess you "Just don't get it".

    It's people like you with your dispassionate "Wait and see" attitudes that are part of the problem. When you decide to follow your heart instead of your head, and be part of the solution, we'll be here. Until then, just know that you're down there and there is nothing you can do about it.

  24. Re:Welcome to the American Way by metamatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, I've lived in a major US city for over six years now, and I've never seen a gun outside of "sports" shops. I've walked through "the hood", wandered Chinatown at night, traveled by public transit everywhere, and I've still not seen a single gun. I do know someone who was mugged, and I heard about an armed robbery at a store a few blocks from our house and saw the police cars, but that stuff happens in the UK too.

    My family came over to visit, and were amazed to discover that kids of various races played peacefully on the street, running in and out of the unlocked houses. As "Bowling For Columbine" explains, the media paints a completely distorted view of America. Sure, NYC has 8x the per capita murder rate of London, but that still only means 17 murders per 100,000 people. Or to look at it another way, you could live there your whole life and only have a 1% chance of being murdered--and remember that most murders are committed by people known to the victim, so the chances of some random person shooting you are even lower than that.

    I volunteered at a local public school. UK readers may be surprised to hear that there were no bars on the windows, no metal detectors, and none of the kids tried to sell me crack or knife me.

    The funny thing is that "Bowling For Columbine" IS NOT ANTI-GUN. Yes, it takes the NRA to task for being grossly insensitive, but its main conclusion is that it's the MEDIA that's mostly at fault in perpetuating the culture of violence. Sheesh, you'd think the gun nuts would have enough brain cells to follow the movie and work out that it supports their position, but no, they assume that any documentary which criticizes their beloved NRA must be anti-gun Commie propaganda.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak