Games Seized Following Murder

GamePolitics reports that M-rated games have been taken as evidence a case involving the death of a 55-year old man in Louisiana. The connection? Jack Thompson says: "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer." GP goes on to point out the lunacy of this claim. From the site: "Funny, that. A quick Google search on 'shot in the face' turns up 921,000 entries."

Comments

Cue the Dick Cheney jokes

[Rob T Firefly]

in 3.. 2.. 1..

Doesn't the Pres play Duck Hunt?

[WillAffleckUW]

if so, then he must be a murderer too, cause that's a game.

Why is that Jack

[moe.ron]

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."

Is this a comment on similar mentalities between hitmen and videogamers or is Jack trying to say they're the only people with good enough aim to hit consistent head shots?

Seriously though, how is this news? If the police are building any sort of murder case against anyone, they are going to sieze everything remotely related to murder and killing. Whether it be videogames, music, movies, books, etc. anything that helps the DA say, "this person has murder on the mind, and here is what I have to back that up."

Re:Why is that Jack

[Indefinite, Ephemera]

The way Game Politics puts it, the police seized the games as a result of Thompson's input; if that's correct then he's been influencing police activities, which makes matters more newsworthy.

TFA: 'The WFPSO took Thompson's information and used it as a basis to search the home of a 16-year-old suspect in the crime. A police official told the newspaper that deputies seized several M-rated video games from the residence. Captain Spence Dilworth, however, drew no conclusions from his findings.'

Re:Why is that Jack

[MonkeyPaw]

"Seriously though, how is this news? If the police are building any sort of murder case against anyone, they are going to sieze everything remotely related to murder and killing."

That's true.
A friend of mines brother and his best friend stabbed someone to death. The police arrested the pair the next day and mostly cleaned out this kids room (he still lived at home). The police took the bathroom sink in the basement next to his room even though it contained no visible trace of blood.

I guess the police figured they washed up there.

Re:Why is that Jack

[moe.ron]

This just in: While searching a murder suspects home police have come across various boxes containing data discs. These boxes are covered with violent imagery and words like "Hitman, Grand Theft Auto, and True Crime". While authorities have declined to comment on any connection, we here at the Associated Press feel that without the help of one Jack Thompson, the police officers would have completely overlooked such obscure and truly puzzling pieces of evidence and would have never drawn any connection between them and the suspects alleged violent behavior.

Also from TFA: "I think (the murder) goes beyond video games, but who's to say?," Dilworth commented, adding that the question of whether video games lead to youth violence might be "more of a debate for the living room rather than the courtroom."

Doesn't sound like the local police are too amused with Jack Thompson's "theories". Once again, this isn't news because the games that were siezed will play no role in the murder trial. The cops are like, "Yea we found M-rated video games, who cares? The kid confessed."

Jack Thompson is a crackpot and the only reason he gets any attention at all is because people see his name in an article and suddenly its a top story.

Shot in the face

[slashflood]

There are clearly some unrelated results from Google search - if you turn off SafeSearch.

Re:Shot in the face

[ElleyKitten]

So murder is "safe" but we must be protected from cumshots?

Yeah, it's hard to even feign surprise, but dammit, things are fucked up.

Re:Shot in the face

[Anonymous Custard]

/agree

I think it's very sad that a violent game about killing police, stealing cars, and shooting pedestrians with shotguns only becomes M-rated if a male character can get intimate with a female character.

Would you rather expose your kid to sexual themes, or murder themes?

Re:Shot in the Face

[soft_guy]

Does that mean we can shoot Jack Thompson in the face?

I hereby give you permission. Go for it.

Re:Shot in the Face

[rainman_bc]

I hereby give you permission. Go for it.
Careful - the US is a land of litigious bastards, and you might just find yourself with an accessory to murder charge :)

You just need to disclaim all liability in a 1.5pt unreadable font to be absolved of liability haha...

Re:Shot in the face

[shaitand]

"Would you rather expose your kid to sexual themes, or murder themes?"

Both? I find that exposing my child to both allows me to make sure that my child has a mature understanding of the matter. I have never understood parents who thought that censoring life from their children would somehow magically result in them being BETTER able to cope when they encounter the censored aspects of life.

Life is life and kids will discover it, you can be upfront with it from the very beginning (sex is no more difficult for a children to cope with than any other bodily function at a very young age) or you can wait. Waiting presents a wonderful opportunity for thier 5 year old friends to share bad information and misunderstandings, parts or which may not be corrected for years. The older children are the less absolutely they trust their parents and the more they trust friends and other sources of information (the is especially true if parents have told them fairytales and censored their lives as young children). Those misunderstandings could even lead to deep set behavioral patterns since the primarily functions of the brain are still developing when the child learns this information.

As for violence. Humans are violent creatures. Children will discover violence even if they never saw any outside input. It is only a matter of time before they commit violent acts of their own based on instinct alone. This is again another opportunity to expose them and explain the truth of the world to them. You can argue that children shouldn't have to worry about serial rape and murder. I would counter that neither should you and I. That doesn't change that these things are a fact of life and my child is going to wary of the man trying to coax him or her into a car while your child will be ignorant of the danger.

Censoring what a child is exposed to is not doing that child a favor, it is promoting ignorance and false values.

Re:Shot in the face

[aadvancedGIR]

From an external point of view, the US doesn't seem to have made the good choice:
*Almost anyone has "self-defense" handweapons so many children are killed by their parents' gun (and the risk of being shot is about 100 times bigger than in my country).
*Any sexual reference is taboo, and then you see all those average drunk student in Cancun doing things that many pornstars here would be ashamed of. Maybe if they had a proper sexual education instead of just puritanism and hardcore...

Google stats are meaningless

[BadAnalogyGuy]

So what if "shot in the face" turns up 900,000 hits (it only shows 13,000 hits in my browser). "Jews did 911" turns up almost 900,000 easily.

The point of this is that you can't extrapolate something like a Google search into evidence. Police who have experience with crime probably have a somewhat better perspective on the hows and whys of crime than you Joe Searchbot does.

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[Indefinite, Ephemera]

In this case the claim is that there exists no person who shoots someone in the face and is not a hitman and is not a gamer - so what's required to debunk that claim is a counterexample (someone who shoots someone in the face and is neither a hitman nor a gamer), and only one is logically required; presumably the Google numbers are for rhetorical force. ('How can he have overlooked all these easily found counterexamples?')

TFA's paragraph in full: 'Funny, that. A quick Google search on "shot in the face" turns up 921,000 entries. Here's a quick sample just from the past week. We see nary a video game or a hitman among them.'

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[Dmala]

The point of saying this is to highlight the absurdity of the comment. There have clearly been thousands of incidents where someone got shot in the face. Is it really plausible to believe that all of them involved a hitman or a videogamer?

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[Analogy Man]

How can he have overlooked all these easily found counterexamples?

The government doesn't have the tools necessary to validate this counter-example. It is clear from the governments desire to get at the logs of google searches they do not have access to google. Otherwise the government could determine from their own firewall and server logs the rate of pr0n links returned from innocuous searches.

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[Intron]

It could happen totally by accident. Here are two examples:

"Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face." - Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction

"It was one of the worst days of my life." - Dick Cheney on Fox

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[mrferrier]

A Google search for:

"shot in the face"

Returns 759,000 right now. However a search for:

"shot in the face" -game -hitman

Returns 244,000. So the claim that "We see nary a video game or a hitman among them" is suspect.

Better yet:

"shot in the face" -game -movie -hitman -cheney -soldier

Returns just 143,000.

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[Ungrounded Lightning]

In this case the claim is that there exists no person who shoots someone in the face and is not a hitman and is not a gamer - so what's required to debunk that claim is a counterexample (someone who shoots someone in the face and is neither a hitman nor a gamer), and only one is logically required;

Which makes it trivial.

Crooks of all sorts have been routinely shooting for the face since a media blitz made them aware that essentially all police (and some civilians) are routinely wearing kevlar bullet-resistant vests.

Interestingly, the media blitz was part of the gun-ban movment's "cop-killer bullets" hysteria. The so-called cop-killer bullets were teflon coated - not to pentrate vests - but to avoid barrel wear. In fact:
  - The teflon coating didn't help them penetrate vests.
  - Essentially nobody but cops HAD them. (The particular bullet that started the flap was intended to penetrate sheet metal rather than bouncing off into bystanders or back at the shooter - an important matter when somebody is shooting at you from inside a car or through a little window in a fire door.)
  - No such bullet had ever killed a cop.
  - Police organizations PLEADED with the the media NOT to go on with this kick and thus inform the crooks that they were bullet resistant on the core body and unprotected on the head - and were ignored.

So now head shots are routine - BECAUSE of the media. (Using them in a video game is just adding a touch of realism.) So of course (as with violent TV programs and movies inspiring copycats) media operators want to deflect criticism toward their major competitors: video games, graphic novels, police procedural fiction, and the internet.

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[corbettw]

First off, it was Vincent Vega who shot Marvin, not Jules. But no, ya gotta blame the brutha. I see how you is.

Second, considering that Vega was a hitman, and Cheney is an avid gamer (what, you didn't know?) this isn't the best set of counter-examples.

Re:Google stats are meaningless

[identity0]

You, sir, are a genius for somehow linking Samuel L. Jackson, the most badass gangsta on film, and Dick Cheney, the palest, stiffest Vice-President of The United States ever - and having it be totally on-topic! And modded Insightful! I salute you, good sir.

However, I should point out that it was, in fact, the John Travolta character who shot Marvin in the face. I will not even attempt to think about the implications of a John Travolta-Dick Cheney connection, which would be truely frightening.

Now for a on-topic addition:

"Oh sorry, didn't mean to shoot you in the face yet" - Ron Jeremy
"Mr. Arafat? Hey, guess what I'm doing right now!" - Bill Clinton

which is the vice president then?

[Surt]

Hitman, or gamer? Hitman might be pretty accurate, I guess.

Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

A real gamer wouldn't even be strong enough to lift the gun.

Re:Please.

[Browncoat]

Only two types of people would tilt a sword to slice someone's neck: swordsman, and gamers.

There can only be one, Highlander!

Re:Please.

[GweeDo]

What if they owned a first gen-Xbox controller?

921,000 Results...

[smbarbour]

But how many are "gun-related"? I can think of a 3 letter word that would precede "shot" that would account for that number of hits.

Re:921,000 Results...

[commander_gallium]

But how many are "gun-related"? I can think of a 3 letter word that would precede "shot" that would account for that number of hits.

gun?

Cheney plays videogames?

[drewzhrodague]

C'mon, I can't believe that Dick plays videogames, although it would make sense if he were playing Age of Empires, Warcraft, and the like. I haven't shot anyone in the face. Yet.

Re:Cheney plays videogames?

[rwven]

You just hit the nail on the head. If gamers shoot people in the face, why is it that there are hundreds of millions of gamers and only a handful of them have murdered someone...let alone by shooting them in the face.

Re:Cheney plays videogames?

[88NoSoup4U88]

You just hit the nail on the head. If gamers shoot people in the face, why is it that there are hundreds of millions of gamers and only a handful of them have murdered someone...

The stats are very much skewed: Stealth games like Metal Gear Solid are getting very popular, so they clearly still go on random murdering sprees; they just got -alot- better at disposing of the bodies/evidence. :D

Off topic; The [p] -tag now just acts like putting in a linebreak [br] : Weird stuff.

Re:Cheney plays videogames?

[sorak]

I wonder if, statistically, gamers are more likely to commit murder than non-gamers.

Why doesn't someone just figure out that statistic and then we'll have an answer to whether games promote violence? Oh, because that would be the logical, non-fearmongering thing to do.

And because that would be like trying to figure out if people who watch television commit violence. Twenty years ago, games were toys and gamers were a small subset of the population. now they have become mainstream entertainment. I'd probably wonder more about the family that __doesn't__ have a video game system, because they are probably of low socioeconomic status, living in a bad neighborhood, where shooting someone in the face is a career move, or they are either hippies or amish. Either way, they do not represent a state of "normal" that we would return to if we just threw our televisions away.

Re:Cheney plays videogames?

[schon]

I hate the wide kerning.

My pet peeve is the extra horizontal space between lines, but I think they have the same root cause:

The text is too damn small to be legible without them.

PLEASE can we have an alternate stylesheet that respects our browser font settings?

Re:Cheney plays videogames?

[shotfeel]

Why doesn't someone just figure out that statistic and then we'll have an answer

They have! (that was the first link I found to the story/study).

Researchers from the University of Oklahoma recently found that two-thirds of school fights were instigated by regular video game players, but only 4% were started by children who had never played such games.

Two-thirds started by regular video game players! Only 4% by kids who never played such games! Fast, ban them! Ban them NOW!

But wait, aren't like 80% of kids regular video game players? And they're only responsible for 67% of incidents? Is it possible only 2% of kids have never played such a game??? That means non-gamers are significanlty more likely (per individual) to instigate fights! We need new school programs fast to make kids play more video games! Somebody call the press!

Note: I have yet to find a reference to the above study that actually mentions what % of kids in the study were "regular video game players". Nobody seems to realize the results are meaningless without that.

Thompson is a Moron.

[Vo0k]

Every gamer and hitman knows you shoot in the BACK of the head!

Re:Thompson is a Moron.

[MrSquirrel]

Now now, violence is not the answer. Public humiliation is much more fun. I can't wait til his supporters realize what a whacko he is:
"In 2006, two Michigan gamers began a project dubbed "Flowers for Jack", soliciting donations to deliver a massive floral arrangement to Thompson's office. The flowers were delivered in February along with a letter aimed at opening a dialogue between Thompson and the video gaming community. Thompson responded by forwarding the flowers to some of his industry foes, with such comments as "Discard them along with the decency you discarded long ago. I really don't care. Grind them up and smoke them if you like."
In 1992 Thompson faced disbarment over allegations that he lied while making accusation against prominent Dade County lawyer Stuart Grossman. He'll do whatever he has to in order to accomplish his goals.
The man is ignorant, uncooperative, and a lawyer... but he can still be broken -- if he became disbarred, lost his fandom, and studies were released proving that there is no link between videogames and violence... that would be a fate for him worse than death.
P.S. If you do want to shoot him, don't add fuel to the fire -- get a hitman who's never played a videogame :) thank you

Re:Thompson is a Moron.

[Billosaur]

The man is ignorant, uncooperative, and a lawyer... but he can still be broken -- if he became disbarred, lost his fandom, and studies were released proving that there is no link between videogames and violence... that would be a fate for him worse than death.

No, if any of that happens, he will simply become a politician and run for Congress. He's a fanatic, and fanatics rarely back down, even when proved wrong. Look at all these Doomsday cults where the "leader" predicts the end of the world and miraculously, it never comes. Do their "followers" abandon them? No -- they believe the new tripe the leader makes up to explain why his prediction comes true. See? Same thing as politics...

Re:Thompson is a Moron.

[Captain Sarcastic]

There was an "Addams Family" episode - the old black-and-white TV series - where Uncle Fester, in his outrage at someone, grabs his gun and announces his solution: "I'll shoot him in the back!"

In this episode, Morticia responds, "Now, now, Uncle Fester, you'll do no such thing."

"In the side?" suggests Fester.

"No," Morticia answers firmly. "We shall settle this issue through legal channels."

Fester looks doubtful. "Shooting's safer," he points out.

Sometimes I agree with Fester.

Re:Thompson is a Moron.

[aitikin]

IIRC He has been disbarred in Florida, he's lost a number of his fandom, but not nearly enough of it, and there have been studies proving there is no link between videogames and violence, while at the same time there have been studies proving the opposite. As for the hitman...we're working on it.

Re:Thompson is a Moron.

[karandago]

Nah, to truly humiliate Thompson would be to get a picture of him pre-ordering GTA4.

Hitmen?

[Scrameustache]

Since when do hitmen execute people by shooting them in the face? Back of the head/neck is traditional.

Jack don't know anything.

The proof this is false...

[Mister Whirly]

A videogamer could never shoot someone in the face - there isn't a "crosshair" to aim with in real life....

Re:The proof this is false...

[sco08y]

(Not an expert marksman by any means, but I can hit what I shoot at...)

seriously though, what do you think a guy like me would find so hard about pulling a handgun up, aiming down the sights,

You forgot to get a proper stance.

and squeezing without flinching (set your aim off)

You forgot breathing. (Not to mention loading the damned thing...)

- or holding a rifle square in your shoulder,

Err... did you zero that rifle? And, again, you need proper posture whether you're standing up, in the prone or sitting down.

aiming down the sights,

Cheek to stock weld? Sight picture?

holding his breath, and

Holding your breath is the opposite of what you want to do. You breath normally and after a few breaths you pause to acquire your sight picture and fire.

squeezing again without flinching?

Of course, since you were breathing *after* you aimed your sight picture has moved around. And you have to "follow through" as golfers say when you squeeze the trigger so that it's fully depressed.

now shooting with a person in front of the barrel and living with it - thats a different story - you could go to a shooting range all the time, be an olympic class marksman, and it'd still drive you to a mental ward...

As I understand, combat vets will develop PTSD after extended combat, and very few PTSD sufferers are institutionalized.

So I'm pretty sure shooting one person isn't going to put you in the loony bin. Grief stricken, maybe, but if someone was trying to kill me I think I could handle it.

Actually...

[Vo0k]

Most hitmen avoid headshots. Very messy and often with a good chance of survival of the subject. Load the brain with 5 bullets and the victim may still live, despite losing the ability to speak spanish, tell apart apples from oranges and move left leg. They will likely enter a coma though, which looks very much like they are dead, and they will come to and start talking at the least convenient moment. Real hitmen avoid headshots (from close distance at least, sniping is a different thing) and definitely prefer going for the heart. Nobody survives a hole in the heart and placing the third bullet precisely in the heart from a short distance is quite easy once shock from the first two paralyses the victim.

On the other hand, most games register heart shot as just another chest shot, scoring pretty low damage, while headshots, from any direction, including the face count as serious damage multiplier.

That would narrow it down... ;)

Re:Actually...

[RSquaredW]

Cue Lost, season 1:
"I was aiming for his heart."
"Well, you missed."

The only thing I can think of the OP referring to is the phenomenon where the bullet skims the cranium underneath the skin, popping out the other side and giving the victim a hell of a headache. Tends to happen with low-powered rounds that literally richochet off the skull. It's a freakish enough occurance that I doubt you'd avoid shooting someone in the head.

It is true, however, that self-defense courses do not teach to aim for the head; it's a small target, and you're not going for style points. I remember being asked, "When do you stop firing in a self defense situation?"

The answer? "When the magazine is empty."

Re:Actually...

[slashflood]

Note to myself: never mark Vo0k as foe.

Re:Actually...

[jwiegley]

IANAHM: While I agree a perforated cardiac muscle is nearly 100% fatal I would argue that a direct head shot is equally fatal (possibly more so).

I found this article http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0406web/shock.html about a trauma surgeon's experiences with gunshot victims in several urban areas. Most notable to support my belief are two passages:

"The thing we're looking for when we slash the chest open is a bullet injury to the heart where the bleeding has been only in a modest amount, but it's accumulating inside" the heart, Cornwell explains. "Then he's in cardiac arrest not because he's bled out, like most gunshot victims, but because the motor can't pump anymore."

If you're the surgeon at such a moment, what you do is simple yet sublime. You slash a hole in the human heart. You watch while the stopped-up blood spills out. Then you stick your finger over that slash like it's the proverbial hole in a dike, and you race to an operating room where you sew up the heart you just slashed, only by now it's thumping stronger and steadier with each stitch.

Which leads me to believe that a reasonably large number of cardiac perforations are not fatal. In fact there seems to be a routine, if slightly barbaric, method for restoring the hydraulic functionality of the heart and that the perforation does not, in itself, disable the heart.

"No new medicine or advance in surgical technique will ever save a patient with a direct gunshot wound to the head,"

And that leads me to believe that at least this trauma surgeon views such wounds as more hopeless. (Though his statement doesn't discriminate between the location of entry and exit points which I think might make a difference since a bullet entering the face at certain points has to travel through several layers of bone and much more soft tissue before damaging the central nervous system compared to an entry wound in the back of the head.)

I guess, of course, that my recommendation for hitmen (or hitwomen) for obtaining the greatest chance of success is, given sufficient time and opportunity, to perform both.

GamePolitics?

[Chrismith]

Not that I'm doubting the validity of the article (at least, any more so than usual), but couldn't the submitter have found a more reputable source than a news blog on LiveJournal? You'd think that a real news site would have, y'know, a real news site.

One Question...

[Digital Vomit]

One Question: when is Jack Thompson going to prison? His abuse of the legal system and profound negative influence on society has to end.

The surest sign that the litigation indust--, er, justice system in the US is broken is that this guy hasn't been disbarred yet.

Shot in the Face

[drewzhrodague]

Agreed. Does that mean we can shoot Jack Thompson in the face? Maybe this is his way of expressing his need for this. Any takers?

I can imagine a mob of gamers swarming this guy, all shooting him in the face with those Nintendo light guns.

"The best weapon is a sharp mind"

[Mr. Samuel]

Jack Thompson is an absurd excuse for a lawyer. The entire gamer Internet community should be well aware of this by now. His actual motivations for his war on video games probably go no further than a quest for power and publicity. Unless, of course, he's actually out of touch with reality to the extent of believing what he says.

So what's our best defense against him? Frankly, I think the last thing Jack Thompson would want is to be ignored. He probably likes the animosity he's building with the gaming community, and he'll like making headlines many times more. Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters ("Nobody wears blades that sharp...unless they want to kill.").

Re:"The best weapon is a sharp mind"

[Red Flayer]

"Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters"

I'm sure he likes the animosity somewhat. But gamers are not who Jack is targeting for action -- he is targeting non-gamers to get them to pass laws we (in general) do not like.

If *everyone* would ignore him, he'd no longer be a pest. But the major problem is that there are plenty of people who either agree with his opinions, or too apathetic to disagree with him. So, if you want Jack gone, you've got to play his game and beat him at it -- make sure Joe Sixpack understands that games don't kill people, irresponsible parents and unstable kids and easy access to guns and a ton of other factors (and sometimes just accidents!) kill people.

Jack Thompson is a useless twit.

[MaWeiTao]

These people really need some perspective. Let's say games contribute to a few murders every year. Of all the murders committed in the US in a year, what percentage of those were motivated by games assuming there's even a clear link? I'd venture to say it isn't even as high as 1%.

But we have this stupid jerk who's gone on a personal crusade against games. He'd better serve the public by going after crime in general. But I guess that wouldn't grab the headlines quite like his vendetta against games.

As for the police seizing games for evidence, I think thats perfectly reasonable. I expect the police to leave no stone unturned in any murder investigation.

Re:Jack Thompson is a useless twit.

[Aladrin]

The problem is that if we (as gamers and other computer users) ignore him, he'll manage to convince people that he is right and we won't be there to provide the counterbalance.

We can't afford to ignore him, but we CAN afford to make as much fun of him as possible and make sure EVERYONE knows just exactly how preposterous everything he says is. This means everything from simple 'gamers have a tendency to copy their games' to 'gamers are evil, disgusting creatures that would as soon shoot you in the face as look at you' and everything in-between. His tamest-sounding speech is poison to the minds of anyone involved with law. Every single thing that he gets someone to believe is a blow to the freedom of gamers around the USA. (Luckily, he hasn't spread world-wide yet.)

We cannot afford to be lax because the only 'experts' in this field are us. If we ignore him, he gets to run rampant.

Why not both?

[Admiral Frosty]

I always equate "Hitman" with "gamer" anyways, prefering stealth-based games myself...

I really need to get out more...

How come...

[nsmike]

How come every time I see a picture of Jack Thompson it looks like he's pinching a rather large and stubborn loaf?

In all seriousness, I'd like to see just how many "video gamers" were convicted of shooting someone in the face.

I'd also like to see how many people have been shot in the face prior to violent video games. Throw in how many violent crimes were committed in the US since the advent of violent video games vs. prior to violent video games. Add to that the average yearly income of the person responsible for a violent crime who is not a dependent, and see if they could even afford video games. Add to that a demographic study of who plays video games vs. a demographic study of who commits violent crimes. And one more thing... Take the demographic of video gamers and see how many people in that demographic have actually committed violent crimes.

I'd be very interested to see the results of THAT study. I imagine Mr. Thompson, however, would not.

Logic 101

[Anti_Climax]

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."

Ok Class, I'd like you to open your Logical Arguments texts to the chapter of fallacies and begin reading from the heading False Choice

Does this count?

[Klowner]

What about the backside of the head. Does that count too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

Someone care to edit that wiki page to include Booth's suggested "mad 1337 GTA sk!llzs"?

ehh?

[jtalerico]

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer." Nobody masturbates unless they are bored or a videogamer. Nobody bathes unless they are dirty or a videogamer. etc.. Forget the terrorists, I am worried about all the videogamers out there!

Hmmm.. the Mozambique drill. Not from gamers.

[Rifter13]

The Mozambique Drill is a 2+1 drill, where you fire 2 to center mass and 1 to the head. It is designed to stop those people hopped up on adrenalin or drugs. You generally fire "into the face" for this drill. Jack is really out there. He is becomming more shrill and pathetic as time goes on.

Trends

[giminy]

Google trends shows that there is no correlation between video games and being shot in the face. I rest my case.

more logic

[matt328]

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."

And no one utters anything that fucking stupid unless they're pushing an agenda, or a lawyer, or both.

Face-shooting aside...

[Hervard]

Jack Thompson shoots himself in the foot all the time.

OT: the paragraph tag

[geobeck]

The [p] tag works normally if you close the previous paragraph with a [/p] (which has been the preferred way to close a paragraph for several years, although unclosed paragraphs still work for the most part.

921,000 hits? Holy crap.

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

The better question is: How did the murderer lug around 921,000 rounds of ammuniition without being noticed?

Re:the CSI Miami connection

[WillAffleckUW]

a. you watch way too much CSI: Miami (yes, I loved that the young woman was the winner);

Haven't seen that one. Tell me about it?

oh, there was a game development firm that had a "live" contest with their new game, where Univ Miami students competed to rack up points by playing the game "live" and robbing banks, shooting people, etc, all while wearing hockey masks spraypainted. Turned out the winner was a young woman, one of the player helpers died while playing online for 72 hours straight, and the game firm was supplying full auto weapons and armor-piercing bullets.

This is why much of America thinks that gamers are murderers, IMHO. It's a very popular show.

Head Shot!!

[Lord51N15T3R]

So they got a Head Shot!! but did they get a Godlike!! ??

Classic Misdirection

[Hercules Peanut]

"Funny, that. A quick Google search on 'shot in the face' turns up 921,000 entries."

Quick seize Google.

No, wait, seize the Internet.

No, wait, seize this.

Hitman or Gamer

[PantherDX]

And its pretty easy to tell the two apart, as only one of them screams out HEADSHOT!!! after performing the deed.

In puritanical America...

[bADlOGIN]

...sin commits you!