Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Triple Ace on December 29, 2008, 07:33:55 pm
-
This is serioulsy messed up. He sneaks out of the house and buys the game. Then, when he got caught with it, his father locked it up in a lock box along with a loaded handgun. He gets the key, unlocks the box, takes the game and gun, and shoots his parents killing his mother and severely wounding his father. He then tries to place the gun in his faters hands and then takes off.
This is the kind of crap that gives people like Jack Thompson fuel. Read the full story.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html)
-
I mean, they took away Halo 3 man ! Maybe he was on that last level, that's a real pain at the end there... :p
-
What a ****ing retard, my parents made me wait till the end of the week it came out to play it
and I'm still here, and so are my parents, mother****er deserves to go and rot in jail, ITS JUST A GAME!
-
Stick him in a jail cell for the rest of his life with nothing but a TV (no cable or antenna) and an X-box with one game. Guess what game. It should become a very boring life after about 2 days.
-
At 16, I wouldn't call him a kid. There's a big difference between an 8 year old ho may not understand the full consequences of his actions and a 16 year old who should be perfectly able to.
However, there is a large cultural component to this. Shootings like that don't happen in countries where weapons are not an integrated part of the culture.
-
This...wow.
-
On the one hand, it probably wasn't the wisest choice to lock the game in a box with a loaded handgun with a very angry and emotionally unstable teen in the house...
Not that I'm excusing the boy's actions in the slightest. I... honestly cannot find the words to express my horror and outrage at this. This is truly ludicrous.
Another bad thing though is that it's going to give all those anti-videogame activists that much more ammo. Soon it'll be Halo (and, by extension, all videogames) that killed the mother, not some ****ing stupid kid throwing a tantrum, just you wait.
-
On the one hand, it probably wasn't the wisest choice to lock the game in a box with a loaded handgun with a very angry and emotionally unstable teen in the house...
Another bad thing though is that it's going to give all those anti-videogame activists that much more ammo. Soon it'll be Halo (and, by extension, all videogames) that killed the mother, not some ****ing stupid kid throwing a tantrum, just you wait.
Agree...
Not that I'm excusing the boy's actions in the slightest. I... honestly cannot find the words to express my horror and outrage at this. This is truly ludicrous.
Disagree. Incidents like this are bound to happen in a country where there is no complete restriction on firearms possession.
I wouldn't say it was ludicrous after the university shooting incident. I would say that it makes me think of the chamberpot.
-
Well, ****. All the Jack Thompson-alikes in the States are going to be aaallllll over this one.
-
It's not firearms restriction. Firearms restriction is bad, m'kay (look at the UK and Washington, DC)? The problem is the lack of education in firearms.
Oh, and Halo too. The kid probably played Halo and enjoyed it, thus manifesting a physical brain disease.
-
What, his staph infection? What is that anyway? I just looked it up on Wikipedia, but the article there seems to imply a by-product of food poisoning...
-
Staph infection? Who said anything about a staph infection? The kid's brain reacted so poorly to the sheer amount of stupid contained in such a small package. The only protection it had was to kill most of itself off to prevent his head exploding in a divide-by-zero method of unintelligence.
-
I really think there was a bit more going on with this guy than "I don't get my game so I'm going to shoot people." Of course that's the simple story, so that's what everyone will be told.
-
They did report that he had a snowboarding accident a month before the shooting that resulted in a staph infection, I think. :nervous:
-
Staphylococcus is the name, I think. Bacterial infection usually caused by uncleaned wound. Not sure how that could matter.
Silence, Scuddie.
-
Staff is a common bacterial infection that most people probably have right now. The problem occurs when either a certain resistant strain hits or it gets into the bloodstream. Then it can kill.
Either way a snowboarding accident and a staff infection are no reason to develop a mental condition where you shoot someone over a video game even if your board for a year because of it. Maybe it was just diagnosed and he had a 108 fever an was delusional or something but not after being treated. Now developing depression because of it is a possibility but still shooting someone for a video game. There had to be problems before the accident.
Oh and for you people with the video game and guns are bad would you feel better if the kid had used a sword over a baseball glove?
-
That guy is an idiot. He crossed the line.
-
He must have part-timed at the local post office.
-
I really think there was a bit more going on with this guy than "I don't get my game so I'm going to shoot people." Of course that's the simple story, so that's what everyone will be told.
Hey, I found the only comment in the thread that makes any sense. Do I get a treat or something?
-
lol @ irony
cry @ everything else
EDIT: You know what? I'm not going to blame this on video games or guns, I'm going to blame a mal-formed relationship between the parent's and the kid. I don't know what might have caused this relationship, but:
A) People don't get that angry about a video game under normal circumstances. Even teenagers don't get angry enough to ****ing shoot both of their parents because they took a game he's been playing for a few hours.
B) The game was taken away from him in September, yet he shot his parents a month later. Even if he was angry enough to shoot his parents when it was taken away from him, that anger wouldn't have lasted a month unless something else was happening.
C) He was recovering from a staph infection. Being home-ridden for a long time, tensions build up, on top of the stress of being sick itself. But judging by the fact that he was able to sneak out and by the game, the only thing affecting him was just starting being able to go back outside. My guess is that his parents wanted him to take it easy more, but Daniel felt well enough to go out and do stuff, that disagreement causing bad friction.
-
Well his father is a minister but I didn't see what type. Maybe he was really strict and wouldn't let the kid do anything at all fun his entire life. Nothing says he was allowed to snowboard either. Again still no excuse for killing someone.
-
Well his father is a minister but I didn't see what type. Maybe he was really strict and wouldn't let the kid do anything at all fun his entire life. Nothing says he was allowed to snowboard either. Again still no excuse for killing someone.
Just for clarification, I wasn't trying to vindicate what he did in any way, I was just pointing out that it's unlikely that violent video games or an abundance of guns that caused the problem.
I'm not sure how this would have turned out if there wasn't a gun there. I'm not so naive that I think that he would've take the game and done nothing else (the article made him seem far too cynical for that to be possible, assuming that the article was accurate), but perhaps his mother wouldn't have died. In all likely-hood, if he hadn't stopped to shoot his parents, he would've been able to sneak out and run away without being found.
Let's look at it this way:
Cause: Friction between family members.
Effect: Dead parent.
Alternate reality 1
Guns banned
Cause: Unsolved
Effect: It's very likely that the mother wouldn't have died, but given the circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if he found a way.
Alternate reality 2
Violent video games banned
Cause: Unsolved
Effect: It's possible that it would be solved, in the same way that preventing the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have prevented WWI completely.
-
Well his father is a minister but I didn't see what type. Maybe he was really strict and wouldn't let the kid do anything at all fun his entire life. Nothing says he was allowed to snowboard either. Again still no excuse for killing someone.
What I don't understand, is why the Father wouldn't just let the kid play the game, I'm not sure about the American Rating system, but here in Aus it's restricted for sale to people 15 years or older, unless in the company and guidance of an adult, the kid was 16. So therefore, the child should've been allowed to be playing the game anyway, and the Minister was just over exercising his authority as a parent. And the website says,
"His father forbade the games, saying that were too violent and sexually explicit."
WTF! Sexually explicit? His dad-
In short, is a narrow minded-son-of-a-*****, had he been more open minded, And aware of the law allowing his son to legally purchase and play the videogame, and understanding the importance of that medium to his child's generation and maybe understanding the interests of his son, he wouldn't have this mother****ing mess.
IMO, the Minister is the immature one here, along with his son
-
Disagree. Incidents like this are bound to happen in a country where there is no complete restriction on firearms possession.
yeah too bad he didn't beat his family to death with a bat or stab them. oh, some day we will have that civilized world.
-
Stabbing someone takes a bit more effort I think, beating certainly takes a lot of will.
-
Let's face it. There is obviously a lot more going on than "Want game, shoot parents" However the media always like to try to make a story into something much more simple so that's the way they're painting this.
From the article it looks like we're dealing with someone who was basically housebound and whose only release was playing computer games. Doesn't make it right to shoot someone over a game but it does make it much more clear how a situation could easily escalate to that.
It's not firearms restriction. Firearms restriction is bad, m'kay (look at the UK and Washington, DC)?
Yeah. Look at the UK. Where the homicide rate from gun crime is lower than the States.:rolleyes:
Now while the almost total ban we have in the UK might not be the solution that is needed in the States I can't see what you possibly could hope to prove by talking about the UK in that fashion. Except proving that you obviously haven't bothered to do any research.
-
Some people are just naturally psychotic, and it doesn't take much to push them over the edge. Not that the parents did anything wrong other than putting the game next to a loaded gun (which shouldn't be loaded when it is in storage anyway, READ THE BASIC GUN SAFETY RULES!!!!!!!).
-
In that case, is it safe to say that this happened because of a number of mistakes compounded together? :nervous:
-
In that case, is it safe to say that this happened because of a number of mistakes compounded together? :nervous:
Well yeah IMO, the kid might not have been that bad, but the issue with him being bed-ridden, his dad being a narrow minded SOB, and his inability to do anything outside of watch tv and play games may have been driving him slowly over the edge, which came to a climax when his only outlet was locked in a box (for no good reason IMO).
That probably would've pushed me over the edge, however as my family doesnt own a gun (or wants to...) there's really nothign I could've done about it, especially when my bedroom is at the back of the house, so sneaking out would mean crawling in front of dozens of windows.
-
What he should have done is use the gun to kill Jack Thompson.
-
Thompson's disbarred. He's not a threat anymore.
-
Some people are just naturally psychotic, and it doesn't take much to push them over the edge. Not that the parents did anything wrong other than putting the game next to a loaded gun (which shouldn't be loaded when it is in storage anyway, READ THE BASIC GUN SAFETY RULES!!!!!!!).
Somehow, I doubt that unloading the gun would've prevented this murder. It's not hard to load a gun, even for someone as crazy as Daniel P.
(look at the UK and Washington, DC)
Yeah. Look at the UK. Where the homicide rate from gun crime is lower than the States.
You really can't compare the two. Mathematically you can do it, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the UK is a fifth of the US's population, much smaller, far fewer major population centers, less diversity... The list goes on. You can't factor that in mathematically, and that does make a difference.
-
Which is what made the comparison pointless in the first place.
But how the hell are you claiming the UK has less diversity than the states?
-
What I don't understand, is why the Father wouldn't just let the kid play the game, I'm not sure about the American Rating system, but here in Aus it's restricted for sale to people 15 years or older, unless in the company and guidance of an adult, the kid was 16. So therefore, the child should've been allowed to be playing the game anyway, and the Minister was just over exercising his authority as a parent. And the website says,
"His father forbade the games, saying that were too violent and sexually explicit."
WTF! Sexually explicit? His dad-
In short, is a narrow minded-son-of-a-*****, had he been more open minded, And aware of the law allowing his son to legally purchase and play the videogame, and understanding the importance of that medium to his child's generation and maybe understanding the interests of his son, he wouldn't have this mother****ing mess.
IMO, the Minister is the immature one here, along with his son
I don't know what the whole story is with this kid, unless he is a sociopath or something then i doubt this incident was driven completely by his need for Halo. I won't be surprised if they dig up some underling cause for this that isn't related to video games. That said until your ass grows up and moves out of the house, your parents are your guardians. They feed you, cloth you and provide shelter and teach you how to behave and survive. So unless you pay rent or contribute in some meaningful manner your basically leaching of them for 18 years. So if they decide you can't play halo guess what? Existing doesn't give you the inalienable right to play Halo :P
-
But how the hell are you claiming the UK has less diversity than the states?
The Wikipedia said so.
UK
92.1% White
4.0% South Asian
2.0% Black
1.2% Mixed Race
0.80% East Asian and Other
US
White alone: 74% or 221.3 million
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million
Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million
Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
You have to some hunting to find the US figures, though.
-
I smell a lawsuit. And the people who made Halo 3 will get blamed.
Really, Maybe the relationship got strained and the guy just wanted to play halo 3.
Like me. I get angry, I play a game. The guy parents denied his entertainment and the guy flipped out.
I say blamed the parents for doing this.
EDIT: He can't go out because he got a infection so playing games is a option for him.
-
I smell a lawsuit. And the people who made Halo 3 will get blamed.
Really, Maybe the relationship got strained and the guy just wanted to play halo 3.
Like me. I get angry, I play a game. The guy parents denied his entertainment and the guy flipped out.
I say blamed the parents for doing this.
EDIT: He can't go out because he got a infection so playing games is a option for him.
Oh hi, Daniel P. :nervous:
-
First he didn't just flip out this was something he planned. The game was taken a month before. It's not like it was taken 5 minutes ago and he flipped out. Second if you think that is justification for murder then you need to seek some help and fast.
-
Second if you think that there is justification for murder then you need to seek some help and fast.
-
Oh hi, Daniel P. :nervous:
That is not my real name and who user his real name in any forums.
Also that is my cybernation Leader name.
People get bored when they are sick and they can't go outside and talk/play with other people. He says that the game was took away a month ago. So he got bored and got flipped over by doing nothing but stay in the house.
I wonder the loneliness made him do it. (who want to talk to your parents for a month and if his friends came over to talk to him)
-
OH MY GOD!!! :eek: Gun crime in the United States!!! :eek2: What the hell! When did this happen? What is this crazy Bizarro world I've woken up in!!!
:doubt:
You make your bed, you lie in it.
-
---- -- --- my real name and --- use- --- real name in any forums.
Also ---- is my cyberna--- Leader name.
People get bor-- when they are sick an- they can't go out---- and talk/play with other people. -- ---- ---- the game was took ---- a month ago. -- -- got bored and --- flipped over by doing nothing but stay in the house.
- ------ --- loneliness made --- do it. (who want to talk to your parents for a month -----------TRANSMISSION LOST
*backs away slowly* :shaking:
-
:wtf: Er, what?
-
I approve of the new direction that this thread is heading.
-
Posting in not-so epic thread.
Seriously Daniel P, why did you do it? Where did you get the bomb?
-
---- -- --- my real name and --- use- --- real name in any forums.
Also ---- is my cyberna--- Leader name.
People get bor-- when they are sick an- they can't go out---- and talk/play with other people. -- ---- ---- the game was took ---- a month ago. -- -- got bored and --- flipped over by doing nothing but stay in the house.
- ------ --- loneliness made --- do it. (who want to talk to your parents for a month -----------TRANSMISSION LOST
*backs away slowly* :shaking:
Funny. :)
Anybody will get crazy if they had nothing to do for months end. Still I blamed some what to the parents did to him.
@Black Wolf: Gun crime is in every Nation.
-
OH MY GOD!!! :eek: Gun crime in the United States!!! :eek2: What the hell! When did this happen? What is this crazy Bizarro world I've woken up in!!!
:doubt:
You make your bed, you lie in it.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Stuff like this happens everyday. I guess that makes it okay.
-
First he didn't just flip out this was something he planned. The game was taken a month before. It's not like it was taken 5 minutes ago and he flipped out. Second if you think that is justification for murder then you need to seek some help and fast.
Of course! Because using counseling as a below-the-belt insult to win an argument is really going to convince people that they don't need to hide their problems, and there is no social stigma associated with seeking help.
-
If the kid had not possessed a gun, he would have punched his parents regardless...
-
Why would the dad put the gun in the locker in the first place?
-
Why would the dad put the gun in the locker in the first place?
The gun was already there. The dad considered it the safest place in the house.
-
Why would the dad put the gun in the locker in the first place?
The gun was already there. The dad considered it the safest place in the house.
I guess that would be a good place. Until you realize that the kid has the key. And why would someone do that?! It's just a game. I'm sure you could find something equally as good with a lower rating that your parents would let you play (something like FreeSpace maybe?...)
-
People get bored when they are sick and they can't go outside and talk/play with other people. He says that the game was took away a month ago. So he got bored and got flipped over by doing nothing but stay in the house.
I wonder the loneliness made him do it. (who want to talk to your parents for a month and if his friends came over to talk to him)
Boredom is not a good enough excuse. How many other people have you heard about getting sick and then bored enough to pull a stunt like this? That is if they can even pry themselves out of bed. Most sick people have a tendancy to stay in bed. Also, he was not restricted to the house. He first played the game at a friends house, then he snuck out of his house at night to buy the game, which he was old enough to purchase.
I also see the father as a hypocrite. He kept a loaded gun in the house, but would not let his son 17 year old son play a game that has guns in it.
-
Yeah because keeping a gun for self-defense and playing Halo 3 are one in the same.
-
I tend to agree with nuclear1, the two aren't really comparable.
I do think the father was probably out of his right to deny the game, but it certainly wasn't something that made him deserve what happened to him. There's obviously more to this than many seem to be making of it.
-
I do think the father was probably out of his right to deny the game
Lot's of parents won't let their kids play Halo 3 (and sometimes for good reasons.) It just depends on the family structure and what the parents think of the game.
but it certainly wasn't something that made him deserve what happened to hims.
Agreed.
Boredom is not a good enough excuse. How many other people have you heard about getting sick and then bored enough to pull a stunt like this?
None.
-
I think the dad had every right to deny the game. People ***** and moan about parents blaming gaming companies and TV for broadcasting violence, and so this father did the responsible thing: parented.
-
Meh, the only reason I disagree is because in less than a year, that kid could have bought whatever he wanted. It seems silly to have that much restriction when it can't be maintained
-
I think the dad had every right to deny the game. People ***** and moan about parents blaming gaming companies and TV for broadcasting violence, and so this father did the responsible thing: parented.
While I would usually agree with you, if his father did as the article suggest and removed Halo 3 from the kid cause he believed it was too sexually explicit then he wasn't playing with a full deck either. I've not played the 3rd one but if it's anything like the first two then either that quote referred to other games or we're dealing with the sort of person who complains about the Venus de Milo being naked.
While I'm the first to complain about bad parenting, enforcing arbitary rules which the child knows make little sense isn't good parenting either.
-
While I would usually agree with you, if his father did as the article suggest and removed Halo 3 from the kid cause he believed it was too sexually explicit then he wasn't playing with a full deck either. I've not played the 3rd one but if it's anything like the first two then either that quote referred to other games or we're dealing with the sort of person who complains about the Venus de Milo being naked.
The article said that the father thought it was both too violent and sexually explicit. And from what I know of media, I'd sooner say that the media took what the father said out of context than say that the father is crazy.
-
I think that something may have happened between the three that isn't being said. The main reason I say this is why would he shoot the dad once in the head when he shot the mom in the head, arms and chest?
-
I could think of one logical reason why she was shot more than once. The dad was shot first at point blank. No chance of missing. The mother wouldn't have been a stationary target after this. Thus a couple of rounds were needed to subdue her before the final shot to the head.
Not a pretty picture which makes the actions seem even more cold and calculated.
-
I could think of one logical reason why she was shot more than once. The dad was shot first at point blank. No chance of missing. The mother wouldn't have been a stationary target after this. Thus a couple of rounds were needed to subdue her before the final shot to the head.
Not a pretty picture which makes the actions seem even more cold and calculated.
Yeah fair enough, but you'd think he'd lay it all on the father, because HE was the one who banned the game, and his father says the kid was his 'Mom's boy', you'd think he would've emptied the magazine on his dad
Unless, like what most people think, there's something that isn't being told
-
The dad was shot first at point blank. No chance of missing.
And yet he somehow managed to not kill him...
-
The dad was shot first at point blank. No chance of missing.
And yet he somehow managed to not kill him...
Guns aren't magic wands that if you're shot you most likely die (IIRC, in the Vietnam war, if a wounded US soldier was gotten to a field hospital within 60 minutes of being wounded, he had a 90% chance of survival). Given the way he's acted in this situation, I'd assuming that he believed the opposite to be true.
-
Perhaps he wanted his old man to watch before he finished him off.
-
No words can decribe this thing... :eek2: :eek2:
I agree on the opinion that sg is hidden here :wtf:.
But my only question is: Why did the father locked the gun to exactly the same place as the game? And if he has a locked gun and a thing thah his child wants soooo badly, then where did he keep the key that the boy was able to find it? Why didn't he carried the key with himself?
-
Trigger locks or locked cases are required in some places and are pretty much suggested everywhere else. Most people only have one security type box in their house. Putting 2 thing that you want to lock up in the same place would be logical. Leaving the key where it could be easily gotten now that's the real question.
If you have a loaded firearm for security (the only reason I can think of to have a loaded gun) that is locked up you would need to keep it somewhere easy to access by the person that has the key. Which means you either hide the key somewhere also easy to access or keep it on your person. Sleeping with a key = ouch so again logic would say a hidden key in a limited search area and a not so hidden lock box. Only a matter of time until the key is found if you know it's in a certain area.
-
And that's why a few people have taken the liberty to inject a chip into their wrist so that they can open it with little hassle at a moment's notice, but nobody else can without a blow torch or large sharp object.
Good luck working up the will to stick a needle nearly as big as an office pen into your wrist, though.
-
But my only question is: Why did the father locked the gun to exactly the same place as the game? And if he has a locked gun and a thing thah his child wants soooo badly, then where did he keep the key that the boy was able to find it? Why didn't he carried the key with himself?
I guess he trusted his son. And apparently, that trust was undue. :(
-
What I suspect is that he took a whole bunch of games away for that reason.
As for him not being cra zy, well he did raise a son who tried to kill him, so we could very easily be in Joan Crawford territory here. :p
-
@Black Wolf: Gun crime is in every Nation.
Do you really need to have the statistics quoted again? Gun crime in the US is the worst of any developed nation.
If the kid had not possessed a gun, he would have punched his parents regardless...
Yeah, probably. And in all likelihood, all 3 would still be alive today.
-
@Black Wolf: Gun crime is in every Nation.
Do you really need to have the statistics quoted again? Gun crime in the US is the worst of any developed nation.
The highest percentages (by far) of firearms related crimes in the US occur within a city with strong gun regulation. Washington, DC has a global ban on handguns. It is also the city with the most gun crimes in the United States, period.
Your argument goes right out the window with that one.
-
From what I understand, the kid was recovering from an injury and had been house-bound for several months, with limited entertainment.
Personally, I'm thinking more along the lines of a very unfortunate case of cabin fever.
Hiding the game in the same container as the gun probably didn't help matters.
-
Actually Supreme Court just struck that gun ban down, at least with regards for handguns. Anything bigger is still illegal.
-
The highest percentages (by far) of firearms related crimes in the US occur within a city with strong gun regulation. Washington, DC has a global ban on handguns. It is also the city with the most gun crimes in the United States, period.
Your argument goes right out the window with that one.
What argument? :confused:
How does your statistic have any effect on the fact that the US has the highest gun crime rate of the Western world?
Maybe you should read back and check what his argument actually was before you start slapping yourself on the back about having beaten it . :p
-
Hmmm, I could have sworn I saw something back there about gun control and the like...
Maybe I'm seeing things :nervous:.
-
Hmmm, I could have sworn I saw something back there about gun control and the like...
Maybe I'm seeing things :nervous:.
I'm guessing you took a page out of Nuke's book
(Got high and posted)
-
I never get high, I'm too lazy.
-
Stabbing someone takes a bit more effort I think, beating certainly takes a lot of will.
Rubbish. All you need is one good swing/stab. Hit someone with a lead pipe on the head in the right place - he's dead. Just like with a bullet.
What weapon you use against an unarmed man - pretty much irrelevant. You can kill a man with ANY weapon in just one hit
-
How about bread? A baguette, perhaps? :drevil:
-
Stabbing someone takes a bit more effort I think, beating certainly takes a lot of will.
Rubbish. All you need is one good swing/stab. Hit someone with a lead pipe on the head in the right place - he's dead. Just like with a bullet.
What weapon you use against an unarmed man - pretty much irrelevant. You can kill a man with ANY weapon in just one hit
While it does happen, this is surprisingly and fantastically difficult, and it almost never occurs.
-
Neither do people get killed from 1 small caliber bullet often.
You usually need more. Like you usually need more lead pipe swings or knife stabs.
-
Yes.
-
Yeah, but with a knife or a pipe you need some skill (excluding surprise attacks), or you end up getting your ass beaten.
With a gun its just point and squeeze - and it doesn't make any difference who is the target (unlike with knifes, pipes etc).
-
Yeah, but with a knife or a pipe you need some skill (excluding surprise attacks), or you end up getting your ass beaten.
With a gun its just point and squeeze - and it doesn't make any difference who is the target (unlike with knifes, pipes etc).
I don't think it's quite that simple. Handguns are notoriously difficult to use, and, conversely, it doesn't take a lot of skill to stab someone a lot.
-
Handguns are notoriously difficult to use
:wtf:
-
They can be if you aren't used to them. After my Dad died I had to look up how to unload his on the internet. Was a pain in the but since it was a revolver that was recalled at one point for a defective part that allowed it to fire on it's own. Also you had to cock it to spin the barrel and pull the trigger while releasing the hammer slowly so it wouldn't fire to turn the chamber to unload it. Luckily my Dad must have know about the problem as he left that chamber empty. Now the little semi-auto wasn't very difficult and it too didn't have one in the chamber. Fully loaded clip of hollow points. I now keep it and the clip by my bed. Clip not in the gun but can be in a second.
Oh and the small caliber thing isn't accurate. A .22 long tends to bounce around in the body and do more damage. Yea a higher caliber will leave a bigger hole on a straight through shot.
-
Handguns are notoriously difficult to use
:wtf:
Ever shot one? They're very hard to aim. Shooting someone up close probably wouldn't be a challenge, but they're not point-and-click death dealers.
-
You said "use," not 'aim.'
-
Neither do people get killed from 1 small caliber bullet often.
You usually need more. Like you usually need more lead pipe swings or knife stabs.
Okay. I'll shoot you three times with a 9mm at point blank range and we'll see how you fare.
Oh and the small caliber thing isn't accurate. A .22 long tends to bounce around in the body and do more damage. Yea a higher caliber will leave a bigger hole on a straight through shot.
Does that really happen? I know I read it in a book somewhere and I thought it was neat, but given how fictitious the book was I wasn't sure if it was true.
-
They're certainly difficult to use compared to knives or clubs!
-
They're certainly difficult to use compared to knives or clubs!
Maybe difficult to use well.
Untrained, people would be lucky to even hit a guy at 20 yards. Untrained, someone with a knife can pop a lung or slit a throat
Trained, you could hit a guy in the head from 50 yards with a bullet from a pistol. Trained with a knife, someone could probably throw it at you from 20 feet and pop a lung.
-
If the knife is made for throwing, I doubt chucking a kitchen knife or something would work well. :confused:
How about bread? A baguette, perhaps? :drevil:
:nervous: :p
Try as we might, we just can't make this friendly thing work, Teacher. Even your idea about exchanging the ritual gifts, the `Fruit Cakes' has had problems. It seems that nobody actually wants to eat the Fruit Cakes however, on the plus side, due to the Fruit Cakes' density and other physical characteristics they make excellent projectile weapons!
-
Oh and the small caliber thing isn't accurate. A .22 long tends to bounce around in the body and do more damage. Yea a higher caliber will leave a bigger hole on a straight through shot.
Does that really happen? I know I read it in a book somewhere and I thought it was neat, but given how fictitious the book was I wasn't sure if it was true.
No, it does not. A .22 is more likely to embed in your body, yes, because most bones will stop it. This does not equate to greater lethality; much the opposite.
-
Jeremy Clarkson once said to Dame Helen Mirren that he liked to throw food when he was young due to its "aerodynamic efficiency".
-
Oh and the small caliber thing isn't accurate. A .22 long tends to bounce around in the body and do more damage. Yea a higher caliber will leave a bigger hole on a straight through shot.
Does that really happen? I know I read it in a book somewhere and I thought it was neat, but given how fictitious the book was I wasn't sure if it was true.
No, it does not. A .22 is more likely to embed in your body, yes, because most bones will stop it. This does not equate to greater lethality; much the opposite.
Bones don't tend to stop them as much as break them into fragments or cause them to ricochet. They also tend to only have the power to penetrate one layer of bone. Basically if shot at the head they tend to go into the skull, hit the other side, and fragments bounce around. Same for ribs and other bones..
-
Bones don't tend to stop them as much as break them into fragments or cause them to ricochet. They also tend to only have the power to penetrate one layer of bone. Basically if shot at the head they tend to go into the skull, hit the other side, and fragments bounce around. Same for ribs and other bones..
Got a source for that? Because a .22 pistol round is not actually likely to penetrate the skull at most angles from any sort of range. At point-blank, perhaps, but it will embed, not fragment. Bullets don't fragment in the human body under any normal circumstances, unless delibrately designed to do so or of exceptionally poor manufacture.
-
I've found couple of sources but nothing I'd bet money on. Anyway I didn't say anything about a pistol round. Both my pistol use long rifle rounds. Well at least one will use either. Also I did see several references to the common (cheap) lead bullets being the ones that fragment most often.
-
Yeah, but with a knife or a pipe you need some skill (excluding surprise attacks), or you end up getting your ass beaten.
With a gun its just point and squeeze - and it doesn't make any difference who is the target (unlike with knifes, pipes etc).
I don't need skill to bash you on the head, especially if I make a surprise attack.
Hitting someone with a gun at point blank range is no easier than stabbing someone at point blank range.
-
Neither do people get killed from 1 small caliber bullet often.
You usually need more. Like you usually need more lead pipe swings or knife stabs.
Okay. I'll shoot you three times with a 9mm at point blank range and we'll see how you fare.
Only if I stab you 3 times first.
As always, it how and where you hit that is the deciding factor.
-
Hitting someone with a gun at point blank range is no easier than stabbing someone at point blank range.
Maybe.. But at least personally, if I get to choose, I'd rather take someone coming after me with a knifer or a pipe rather than a gun :P
-
I'd like to use an umbrella for self-defense purposes. With a very sharp point. :drevil:
But that's beside the point. :doubt:
-
Or you could just run the hell away. Getting in a fight with a gun or a knife -- especially a knife -- is a really good way to die, no matter how much training you have.
-
Hitting someone with a gun at point blank range is no easier than stabbing someone at point blank range.
Maybe.. But at least personally, if I get to choose, I'd rather take someone coming after me with a knifer or a pipe rather than a gun :P
I'd choose someone with a wooden spoon.
-
Neither do people get killed from 1 small caliber bullet often.
You usually need more. Like you usually need more lead pipe swings or knife stabs.
Okay. I'll shoot you three times with a 9mm at point blank range and we'll see how you fare.
Only if I stab you 3 times first.
As always, it how and where you hit that is the deciding factor.
So it's a fight? Okay, fine. I'll have the gun and you can have the knife. We'll see which one is more lethal.
-
At point blank range a person with a knife actually has very good chances of dispatching a person with a gun. Unless you are trained for it people's ability to shoot effectively in CQB generally sucks. So much so that police officers are instructed that at close range a person with a knife has the advantage.
-
At point blank range a person with a knife actually has very good chances of dispatching a person with a gun. Unless you are trained for it people's ability to shoot effectively in CQB generally sucks. So much so that police officers are instructed that at close range a person with a knife has the advantage.
I guess I must be trained for it then. :p
Well, I am around guns more than many people. At least in countries where there's blanket bans on guns.
-
At point blank range a person with a knife actually has very good chances of dispatching a person with a gun. Unless you are trained for it people's ability to shoot effectively in CQB generally sucks. So much so that police officers are instructed that at close range a person with a knife has the advantage.
I guess I must be trained for it then. :p
Well, I am around guns more than many people. At least in countries where there's blanket bans on guns.
I doubt you're trained for it. No matter what you might think about how well you'd do, please never get in that situation.
Every time I've been in a krav class where we did knife-vs-guns (or even knife-vs-knife) fighting, both people ended up 'dying' pretty much randomly regardless of skill.
-
I doubt you're trained for it. No matter what you might think about how well you'd do, please never get in that situation.
Every time I've been in a krav class where we did knife-vs-guns (or even knife-vs-knife) fighting, both people ended up 'dying' pretty much randomly regardless of skill.
From what little I know of Krav, most people will have trained in both. I guess I should have specified what I was referring to, but I'll do that now instead.
A while back in the thread, something about in untrained CQB, ie random people with no fighting experience fighting with knives and guns. If indoors airsoft with liberal amounts of using random objects as melee weapons doesn't count as random people with no fighting experience, then I don't know what would. Pretty much every time, the person with the pistol makes the other guy run away before the other guy even gets close enough to get a hand on him, so unless we're actually talking about trained situations, unless by CQB you mean more specifically fighting in closets, and if knives are actually two feet long, then I've been in situations that would lead me to believe otherwise.
I doubt either Daniel P or his parents knew how to fight with knives, and I'm willing to bet that the dad would've known how to handle his gun had it been in his hands rather than his son's.
But regardless, the situation would've been the same if Daniel P had a knife because the parents were unarmed. Like with a gun, most people figure just stabbing someone anywhere in the torso is a death sentence, so I doubt that anything but luck would've changed the situation's outcome.
EDIT: I take it you've only fought people gun vs. pistol sparring in Krav class, right? I'd be willing to bet that most people in your class could easily take someone out that has a knife, but no instruction on actually fighting someone who has a gun with it.
-
Wait, you're not equating airsoft with real combat right?
-
No doubt that pistols are ineffective from melee and close to melee range. But you don't need to be an expert with guns to realize that, so most will try and take the shot long before getting that close..
-
Wait, you're not equating airsoft with real combat right?
So Battuta used real guns with live ammo while sparring?
-
Yes but that was formalized training not playing airsoft with your mates.
-
I suppose you have a point. But I figured that since I was able to hit people with a $20 airsoft gun in the head several times and make them turn and run, I'd be able to do the same with a real gun. But real guns are much more accurate, something I'm not used to with airsoft guns, real guns are a little heavier than plastic their plastic counterparts, and if hit in the head real guns kill you.
I guess I wouldn't call myself untrained with firearms, though. I go to a shotgun range every once in a while for clay pigeons, I can easily hit 12/12 pigeons (the standard sequence for the place), I have a .22 rifle at my families cottage that I shoot at stuff regularly at my cottage. I can get hit golf balls at 20 yards, and once I blew up a couple aerosol cans at ~50 yards. I also used my grandfather's .22 pistol a good amount one summer before we sold it.
And anyway, it's not like much of this applies to the kid anymore. For one, what happened with the kid wasn't exactly combat, it wasn't a gun vs. knife fight, a knife vs. knife fight, or even a gun vs. gun fight. It was gun vs. people with their eyes closed that expected a pleasant surprise, not getting shot by their son.
I doubt either Daniel P or his parents knew how to fight with knives, and I'm willing to bet that the dad would've known how to handle his gun had it been in his hands rather than his son's.
But regardless, the situation would've been the same if Daniel P had a knife because the parents were unarmed. Like with a gun, most people figure just stabbing someone anywhere in the torso is a death sentence, so I doubt that anything but luck would've changed the situation's outcome.
-
thesizzler, the factor you're probably missing here is that in real combat people are scared ****less, which leads to weird effects.
Shooting someone won't always kill them. Stabbing someone rarely does. Generally both parties get stabbed and shot and then (barring prompt attention from someone else) they both die.
If you (or I, or most anyone else) were in a life threatening situation involving violent attack, we'd likely panic, no matter how well-trained. Everyone wants to be a badass (not singling you out, thesizzler), but the costs are high, the damage permanent, and the benefits minimal.
-
thesizzler, the factor you're probably missing here is that in real combat people are scared ****less, which leads to weird effects.
Shooting someone won't always kill them. Stabbing someone rarely does. Generally both parties get stabbed and shot and then (barring prompt attention from someone else) they both die.
If you (or I, or most anyone else) were in a life threatening situation involving violent attack, we'd likely panic, no matter how well-trained. Everyone wants to be a badass (not singling you out, thesizzler), but the costs are high, the damage permanent, and the benefits minimal.
That's another thing: This isn't combat. The parents weren't scared ****less because their eyes were closed, and by the time the father realized what was actually going on, things were too late to do anything. If it were a knife the kid had, the situation probably would've ended with the same outcome.
Even if it were combat, would a person who was shot, even if he's not dead, be in a situation to do stabbing? Let's say he was shot in the leg, and it was a really lucky shot and his femur snapped. He's not walking anywhere. Let's say his femur didn't snap. That means it probably went into his muscle or joints, in either case he can't move as fast and his knifing abilities are hampered. He's still capable of doing damage, but would he A) be too preoccupied with pain to continue fighting, B) be too preoccupied getting killed and run, or C) possibly be willing, but physically unable to move. In any of the 3 said cases, the person with the gun would most likely win. And given the fact that these people are untrained, they most likely would panic and have one of the three happen.
Depending on how close the guy with the knife is when he's seen, several things could happen:
>30ft - hallways, large room. Guy probably gets shot at least once, I'd think the guy with the gun has a big advantage here.
20-30ft - hallways, some rooms. Less chance of a guy getting shot, proportionally higher chance of person getting stabbed.
10-20ft - family rooms, kitchens, medium sized rooms. Generally really cluttered. It's possible that the gunmen might have a hard time getting a shot off in a kitchen because of counters and cabinets, but the knifer might have a problem getting to the gunmen. Depending on the amount of obstructions, my money is on the kniver. If everything is at the edge of the room, then I'd imagine the gunmen has at best a half chance of being untouched.
3-10ft - most rooms in mid-priced houses I've been in. I'd say that this is fairly similar to below.
0-3ft - closets, bathrooms, small rooms. My money is on the knife guy, depending on how messy the rooms are. Either way, the guy with the gun would probably get stabbed at least once. But there is a chance that with the guys so close, that people will get lucky and shoot someone through an eyesocket, or snap the neck causing an instant death, or even them getting stabbed in the eye socket. Slit throats would probably incapacitate the gunmen, and while it'd take some time to bleed to death, I doubt any untrained person would be capable of shooting the attacker to death.
Really, I'd think the first hit decides the fight with untrained people. But at ranges less than 5 feet, if they're not both dead, then the gunmen is dead.
Relating this back to the topic at hand, I don't know the makeup of that family room. Either way, even if the father had a knife, or the kid had a knife and the father had a gun, I doubt the situation would be different. Even if there was a scuffle, the kid had the element of surprise, although he probably wouldn't have expected a fight.
-
Not to mention the knife doesn't make that big bang so his mother might not have known what was happening at all. You end up with 2 slit throats instead of 2 gunshots to the head.
-
Yeah, sorry, thesizzler -- I kind of missed the political context and didn't realize there was this whole backdrop about gun control. I'm not arguing that a gun or a knife or anything else would largely have changed the context of the murder; my points were more about gun and knife violence in general. I apologize if I wasn't being very topical, my fault.
That kind of wargaming is tempting but pretty difficult to pull off accurately. We're told in krav that it's unsafe to be within ten meters of a man with a knife as a gunman -- anywhere inside that radius and the knife guy will get to you before you can safely drop him. This is the same rule of thumb most police forces have.
-
Not to mention the knife doesn't make that big bang so his mother might not have known what was happening at all. You end up with 2 slit throats instead of 2 gunshots to the head.
Oh. Well I figured that slitting a throat would make some suspicious gurgling noise, but I guess (I'd hope) that neither of us would really know if it makes enough of a noise to be alarming.
Yeah, sorry, thesizzler -- I kind of missed the political context and didn't realize there was this whole backdrop about gun control. I'm not arguing that a gun or a knife or anything else would largely have changed the context of the murder; my points were more about gun and knife violence in general. I apologize if I wasn't being very topical, my fault.
It's fine. I guess I wasn't being very clear about the context I was using earlier as well, and that probably caused the confusion in the first place.
That kind of wargaming is tempting but pretty difficult to pull off accurately. We're told in krav that it's unsafe to be within ten meters of a man with a knife as a gunman -- anywhere inside that radius and the knife guy will get to you before you can safely drop him. This is the same rule of thumb most police forces have.
Just out of curiosity, how good are Krav classes for you? Like, do you feel they're really worth the time and money spent on the classes? I've been doing some research on this stuff for a few weeks off and on, and I figure I'd like to try taking some kind of classes like that. Do you have any suggestions?
-
I get the classes free, due to some very lucky circumstances.
Background: there is a large cluster of krav classes available on the West Coast. Generally these are quite inferior to classes taught by Israeli instructors. Unfortunately, those instructors are largely only available in New York and the Tri-State area.
I would say -- yes, it's great exercise, and yes, it's a good confidence booster.
But please, no matter how violent and practical the moves may seem, no matter how realistic and gritty the training is -- don't let it fool you into believing that you're more prepared for a fight. The more I take krav the more I realize how fragile we are and how utterly pointless violence is. The most important thing I've learned is that in a fight I would freeze up and panic.
My instructor, a woman named Amanda Wingate (krav is better when taught by women -- since they can't rely on strength, they absolutely must get the form perfect), told us all about how badass she felt when she started krav maga. She warned us against the kind of egotism that comes from training.
I was a teenage guy when I started. I really wanted to be badass, a kind of Jack Bauer/Sam Fisher/ninja figure with the power to kill in brutal and creative ways. I think most teenage guys want this, at some point or another. Do not be deceived!
I've learned counters against knives, holds, and all sorts of other hypothetical attacks. I would never use them on the street. If I were mugged I'd give up. 'Training' in a martial arts class is no match for desperation, size, and brutality.
If I thought I was in danger of being murdered or raped, I'd fight, and krav techniques might give me some edge if I could recall them -- even with muscle memory, the upper parts of the brain shut down during panic, and that makes recall tough. But in every other circumstance, krav has taught me to run or surrender wherever possible.
It's been a great experience. But it's also very scary. After learning some knife moves, or certain groundfighting techniques, I've found myself trembling simply because I've realized how very likely my own death or disfigurement would be if the situation was real.
Also, if your instructor seems like a bad person, don't let him push you too far. Some krav instructors -- one in particular, I forget his name -- suffered severe psychological trauma during Israeli military service, and they'll teach torture techniques (spitting on knife wounds) and other shady stuff.
So, yeah, sorry to wax eloquent. It is a blast, but don't let it go to your head!
-
Completely understandable. I'm planning on taking fencing in college, and I doubt that has much application to srs bzns self defense, if any.
-
Completely understandable. I'm planning on taking fencing in college, and I doubt that has much application to srs bzns sword fighting, if any.
Fencing per se, no. But weren't there some pretty elite swordfighters back in the day? I wonder how they learned.
Sorry for the extensive post-editing on my rant.
-
Oh! I took fencing this past semester. It was great fun. It's definitely a sport more than any kind of swordfighting simulation, since there's no slashing and you're fighting on that narrow strip.
-
Doesn't sabre have some slashing?
-
krav has taught me to run or surrender wherever possible.
In that case, I already have all the training I need! :lol:
-
Pretty much. If a guy's holding a knife to your throat, don't try anything, just give him what he wants. Similarly with a gun in the back.
-
Doesn't sabre have some slashing?
Maybe. We only did foil fencing.
-
Doesn't sabre have some slashing?
I'd hope so, a sabre is more or less a slashing sort of weapon.