backtop

Blog: Software Man Stabbed Outside Lineup for GTA IV
Marcus Yam (Blog) - April 30, 2008 1:20 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by LatinMessiah.. on May 6 at 1:45 PM

A promotional poster made for street-marketing  (Source: Rockstar Games)
Crime occurs outside GTA IV midnight launch

It might be just a part of the circle of art and real life, but a terrible but not entirely surprising act of crime happened around the launch of Grand Theft Auto IV. Police say that a 23-year old man was walking past a queue of people in the UK waiting for the midnight release of the latest game from Rockstar, according to the BBC.

The victim was eventually found and taken to hospital for treatment of several stab wounds. Witnesses described the suspect “as being a light skinned black man aged about 21, 6ft 5ins tall, of medium build wearing a light grey hooded top.”

No mention was made if there was any connection between the victim or attacker, nor if there was anything linking either party to the launch of Grand Theft Auto IV. But the mere fact that the attack occurred right outside a crowd waiting for the latest chapter in the most controversial videogame of all time could have the anti-videogame sharks circling.

A stabbing of any sort is troubling, but the media deliberately noted that it took place outside the release of what it believes could be the fastest-selling game of all time says something about the reputation of GTA and the people that play it.

Thankfully, I haven’t seen anyone attempt some sort of gross connection between those wanting to buy GTA IV and stabbing someone. I mean, after all, people have been stabbing each other for many more millennia than playing any sort of videogame.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Oh no!
By TomCorelis (blog) on 4/30/2008 3:56:13 AM , Rating: 3
We should ban knives!




RE: Oh no!
By nosfe on 4/30/2008 4:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
why? i mean, "Parents More Appalled by Sex Than Severed Heads"(http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11458 ), right?


RE: Oh no!
By Mudvillager on 4/30/2008 5:28:34 AM , Rating: 5
We should ban sex!!!


RE: Oh no!
By djkrypplephite on 4/30/2008 6:58:04 AM , Rating: 5
Ban sex, of course! That would be crucial to the survival of the human race!


RE: Oh no!
By bighairycamel on 4/30/2008 11:41:25 AM , Rating: 5
Well at least it would free up some freakin parking spaces.


RE: Oh no!
By CrasHxxx on 5/1/2008 3:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
HA!!!!! YES! You made my day! Wish I read this earlier though.. it's been a rough one.


RE: Oh no!
By soydeedo on 5/2/2008 3:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
So would violence. Looks like we're working toward the same goal on more than one front, eh? =)


RE: Oh no!
By onwisconsin on 5/1/2008 10:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
Give this guy a 6


RE: Oh no!
By Sulphademus on 5/1/2008 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
Oh won't you PLEASE think of the children!!


RE: Oh no!
By VoodooChicken on 4/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oh no!
By Adonlude on 5/5/2008 7:07:13 PM , Rating: 1
You should probably go ahead and try either one just to be sure, then get back to us :-)


RE: Oh no!
By MozeeToby on 4/30/2008 11:08:06 AM , Rating: 4
When you think about it, doesn't being more upset about sex than violence make sense? I didn't think of it at the time but that news should be praised and paraded by people wishing to distance violent behavior from violent media.

Teenagers don't go out and kill people, parents are confident that their parenting will prevent that behavior and that 15 years of parenting can't be overridden with a video game. However, teenagers do have sex; therefore parents are concerned about that and want to limit their childrens exposure to it.

You could interpret that study as saying that most Parents agree that violent games do not cause violent behavior. It actually makes sense if you think about it that way.


RE: Oh no!
By DeuceHalo on 4/30/2008 11:39:43 AM , Rating: 1
Please tell me you were joking or forgot a /sarcasm tag.


RE: Oh no!
By ChronoReverse on 4/30/2008 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
He does make a point. Most of us believe that violent games don't beget violent behavior. But teenagers are definitely having sex.

Under that light, assuming the parents are savvy about the "violent games begets not violence" issue, their concern are placed correctly.

Of course, being logic, this depends on the premises being correct (which may or may not be true).


RE: Oh no!
By DeuceHalo on 4/30/2008 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
On that same point, sexually explicit games don't beget sexually explicit behavior either. I don't think Video Strip Poker helps/causes anyone go out and have sex.


RE: Oh no!
By jlips6 on 4/30/2008 7:10:27 PM , Rating: 5
no, but it restricts the use of one hand for awhile.


RE: Oh no!
By soydeedo on 5/2/2008 3:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
...which hinders your ability to fend off any surprise sexual advances. Your purity is at stake here, vigilance is key!


RE: Oh no!
By 4wardtristan on 5/6/2008 2:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
i literally watched the words be taken right outta my mouth


RE: Oh no!
By johnsonx on 4/30/2008 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
No, of course he wasn't joking. While I don't agree with his assessment in exact detail, that pretty much is why parents (and anyone else with an ounce of sense) objects more to depictions of sex in video games and movies than to violence. As well they should.

Violence in games and movies depicts something that for most people will never happen in real life; it's fantasy, not really any different than watching harry potter cast a spell, or Thomas the Tank Engine talking to other trains.

Sex on the other hand is something that all of us will experience many times in our lives. Parents desire for their children to have healthy attitudes about sex, because it is the key to a happy marriage and stable families. 90% of the time, sex as depicted in movies and video games is not conducive to that goal.

If you don't get that, then clearly you aren't a parent, and hopefully won't be one any time soon.


RE: Oh no!
By DanoruX on 4/30/2008 3:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
Teens have been having sex long before videogames. Except now a lot of them are busy playing GTA IV instead of getting laid.


RE: Oh no!
By DeuceHalo on 4/30/2008 4:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand that, but I think that we've become such a prudish society that we've taken it to an extreme level.

Folks in Europe don't bat an eye at public nudity. Years ago, during the Super Bowl halftime, everyone was in an uproar saying "OMG - Janet Jackson showed her breast" instead of "OMG - Janet Jackson has saggy breasts". Is junior really going to be affected negatively by seeing it? If he's in his teens, he's most likely already seen much better.


RE: Oh no!
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2008 6:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Folks in Europe don't bat an eye at public nudity. Years ago, during the Super Bowl halftime, everyone was in an uproar saying "OMG - Janet Jackson showed her breast" instead of "OMG - Janet Jackson has saggy breasts". Is junior really going to be affected negatively by seeing it? If he's in his teens, he's most likely already seen much better.


I'm far from a prude, but while I wasn't personally offended by what Janet did, I agree it was completely uncalled for. And if you really stopped and thought beyond your " it would of been OK in Europe " mentality you would understand why.

No kid was traumatized by it. It was just in poor taste, didn't fit the occasion, and frankly it wasn't that attractive either. There are many many outlets for us to easily see womens breasts in this country. The Superbowl halftime show isn't, and should not be, one of them.


RE: Oh no!
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 10:19:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Superbowl halftime show isn't, and should not be, one of them.
I think that's one the best times to see a woman's breasts!!


RE: Oh no!
By tastyratz on 5/1/2008 9:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
maybe that's the way you think, and maybe that's the way society SHOULD think, but don't be so naive as to believe that truth is any less of a fantasy than the violent video games spoken of.

The reality of the situation is that the media is raising children and parenting has gone down the drain being replaced with a television. Nobody can take responsibility for their actions so they blame the media and only teach their kids to say no.

Just telling your kids to say no and saying on the news it was all Marilyn Manson and Mortal Kombat is what makes parents sleep at night.

Teenagers have had sex for a long time and guess what they are gonna still have sex for a long time to come.

Teaching smart sex works a lot better than forced morals on someone at a time they are establishing their own (and could give a damn about yours).

Instead of making condoms harder to get, pulling sex education from the classrooms, and hushing the media from allowing certain things on film lets try something different.

Let's do the opposite of that... make free condoms available in high schools, give them a healthy dose of sex ed class, stop telling other people what to do and govern your own damn children's by parenting.


RE: Oh no!
By winterspan on 5/2/2008 3:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
Most of your post is just plain FALSE.

quote:
Parents desire for their children to have healthy attitudes about sex, because it is the key to a happy marriage and stable families.


"Healthy attitude"? What country do you live in? You certainly aren't referring to the United States. A good part of the country wishes to keep their children completely IGNORANT of *anything* to do with sexuality. My god, most parents don't even dare mention THE WORD "SEX", much less helping them have a healthy attitude about it.
There is now even an organized movement, mostly from the christian fanatics, to ELIMINATE proper sexual education from public school for god sakes! Isn't "abstinence-only sex education" an oxymoron? These people are completely out of touch of reality.. its the "not my kid" syndrome. How are kids supposed to learn about safe sex, contraception, etc with this self-righteous "it's a sin" non-sense.

I am ALL for proper sex education and parent's teaching their children how to have a healthy sexual lifestyle when they are ready -- free from all the religious dogma and other nonsense.

Teenagers are going to continue to experiment with sex just as their fore bearers have been doing for thousands of years. It is up to parents to get real about the situation and take responsibility for this important issue.

And I take exception to the statement that
quote:
"90% of the time, sex as depicted in movies and video games is not conducive to that goal."


Although in this "over-sexed" culture you can certainly find many examples of negative sex and/or relationships, much of the non-nudity/partial nudity simulated sex scenes on television and in most movies I've seen are not bad in any way. They are usually depicting two loving people having intercourse, nothing that particularly requires censorship from teenagers. Trust me, most of them have seen MUCH WORSE than anything parent's would allow them to see.

Bottom line of my rambling is that you sound like a parent who believes that censoring children from sexual situations in the media somehow contributes to them gaining a healthy attitude about sex. What I am saying is that that may be a small component of it, at least for exceedingly inappropriate material, but most of all parents just need to focus on actually having the courage to teach their children about sex and relationships.


RE: Oh no!
By Nik00117 on 4/30/2008 4:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you 100%

I think most kids parents are confident in the knowledge the their kids will not become mass killers...

I think most parents are more worried about becoming a grandparents before their kids finish school.

Make sense the parents would rather kids play violent video games then sex games. I gotta tell you sex drives me a lot more then games. Trust me, i'd give up games anytime for sex, never give up sex for a game though, even if it was bad sex.


RE: Oh no!
By robinthakur on 5/2/2008 7:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, the kind of parents that care enough to ban either sexual content (misguidedly purely in my opinion) or violence for their own children are not the problem here. The issue comes where the parents abdicate all responsibility for policing what their children watch and play and allow them to play games like GTAIV. I have played GTA4 and the level of violence on offer as well as the realism shocked me somewhat at first (i'm 28).

Now while you could say that its the players choice on how they want to play the game, I think that it does open up some very pertinent questions on what exactly this sort of thing actually does to influence people and especially children's formative moral decision making process. These are not hypothetical fantastical scenarios; for alot of people they are extremely realistic and whilst I think its very wrong yet understandable for gamers to staunchly defend our medium with "I played it and I'm not going round killing hookers" its misguided because you're assuming that everybody will be affected by it identically to you and is starting from the same background.

Very few parents would ever admit to themselves, let alone to others, if they can see their children growing up to be killers, but all the warning signs are usually there if one wants to see them...

This lesser of the two evils approach is only socio-economics based, hoping your kids get the best jobs, turn out straight and have kids etc, all nice American values whereas taking life or extreme violence would seem to trump this in importance because its a finality thing.
For example, little Britney/Taylor won't have the opportunity to become a teenage parent if he/she's shot/knifed at school or runover by teenage joy-riders when he's 10.

I was watching a story on american soldiers so hideously injured on the British news last night and it really made me think, that if those pictures were to be distributed as widely by the military as its other promotional literature whether they could entice anybody whatsoever to join up to fight. Violent games do glorify violence because they are not realistic in the crucial respect that if you die, its final or you could be horribly injured, or the psychological effects on those that witnessed the violence etc. but if we ever start to approach that level of realism and immersion I think we should all be quite worried...


RE: Oh no!
By onwisconsin on 5/1/2008 10:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
teenagers do have sex; therefore parents are concerned about that and want to limit their childrens exposure to it.


Which is ironic seeing they (parents) probably did that at their age, and worse things than that (eg., smoking, drugs...).

Many parents aren't even good examples even at 40-50 years old (eg., drinking in front of their children and having fun...leading to underage drinking when they're in HS). Since they consider it perfectly fine, they just blame it on (the crap) they see on the local news (IT'S GON RAIN, WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!!) and blame 'the media'


RE: Oh no!
By nofranchise on 4/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oh no!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/30/2008 8:28:32 AM , Rating: 5
Banning such things only stops the regular people. Those that use such weapons to commit crimes get them anyways. This in turn leaves regular law abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

I would be curious to see the crime rate of a place that bans guns, versus a place where everyone carries one with several more in the car or at home. I'm betting the level playing field would lead to a decrease in overall crime rate but that's just a theory.


RE: Oh no!
By tanishalfelven on 4/30/2008 8:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
to open the package your sarcasm detector is in so you can use it.


RE: Oh no!
By BMFPitt on 4/30/2008 1:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Some mysterious force causes sarcasm detectors to not work on DailyTech.

No matter how obvious it is, large numbers of people will take it 100% seriously, and some even try to defend their lack of sarcasm detection by trying to prove the OP was serious when it is pointed out to them.


RE: Oh no!
By nosfe on 4/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh no!
By cblais19 on 4/30/2008 9:09:40 AM , Rating: 3
I know that the UK which bans guns has a 9% crime rate involving firearms (note that this is compared an actually lower crime rate before they banned guns), where Switzerland where people walk around the streets carrying assault rifles has a lower murder a robbery rate then the UK.

Access to weapons is not the issue here. Also has some interesting info on kids+guns.

Link: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime...


RE: Oh no!
By cblais19 on 4/30/2008 9:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
Edit: I meant the below link has some interesting info on kids+guns.


RE: Oh no!
By spluurfg on 5/1/2008 9:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know that the UK which bans guns has a 9% crime rate involving firearms (note that this is compared an actually lower crime rate before they banned guns), where Switzerland where people walk around the streets carrying assault rifles has a lower murder a robbery rate then the UK.


Yes, but Switzerland is a small, affluent country and has a highly civilized culture, which also serves to lower crime. They do not have areas with the same level of population density or poverty that exist outside in the vicinity of some of the UK's largest cities.

Further, people walk around with assault rifles in Switzerland because there is mandatory military service and citizens must attend target practice...

Correlation does not imply causality.


RE: Oh no!
By arazok on 4/30/2008 9:51:32 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Banning such things only stops the regular people.


We should ban irregular people!


RE: Oh no!
By maven81 on 4/30/2008 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the typical crazy response that we would all be so much safer if everyone just carried a gun.
My guess is that people who say such things don't really have much exposure to what life in a big city (in my case NYC) is like.
Now every time a fight breaks out anywhere, instead of bruised egos and broken bones we'll have lots of body bags.
Now we'll have civilians hit by stray bullets every time someone panics and opens fire if they feel someone is threatening them.
And if this happens in a confined space we'll have everyone drawing their guns and shooting eachother because it's really hard to figure out who the gunman is in a room full of people... even special forces find it a challenge, and they train for this stuff!
Now those wackos who merely joke about shooting up their workplace if they get fired may actually be able to pull it off.
What a wonderful world you describe. I feel so much safer already.


RE: Oh no!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh no!
By maven81 on 4/30/2008 5:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
History has already proven you wrong. There have already been plenty of times and places where a big chunk of the population was allowed to walk around with with weapons. Let's use just one example in our own country, the wild west. That sure turned out to be a high point for public safety didn't it? Or did it bring us such wonderful things as duels in broad daylight, gangs of outlaws, lots of dead innocent bystanders, a huge number of armed robberies and other crimes... and signs that read "don't shoot the piano player" (well that last one is a joke... sort of...
Yeah you can argue that it was a different time... but human nature hasn't changed all that much... Most sensible people can see that. But go ahead and downrate my posts people... it makes you look really intelligent.


RE: Oh no!
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2008 6:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
History has already proven you wrong. There have already been plenty of times and places where a big chunk of the population was allowed to walk around with with weapons. Let's use just one example in our own country, the wild west. That sure turned out to be a high point for public safety didn't it? Or did it bring us such wonderful things as duels in broad daylight, gangs of outlaws, lots of dead innocent bystanders, a huge number of armed robberies and other crimes... and signs that read "don't shoot the piano player" (well that last one is a joke... sort of...


Your not a historian.

Real historians have stated the " Wild West " wasn't as wild as its made out to be. The crime rate was EXTREMELY low, and everyone wasn't going around shooting everyone mindlessly.

Care to find an example that isn't over a hundred years old ?

Can you explain to me why the cities where its almost IMPOSSIBLE to legally buy a gun, have the highest gun crime rates ? And why the ones where you can buy a gun have far less crime ?

I pray to god people like YOU never own a gun. Because I think your far more likely to shoot someone than I am.


RE: Oh no!
By maven81 on 4/30/2008 10:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Real historians have stated the " Wild West " wasn't as wild as its made out to be.

And of course all historians are right all the time... Not... It all depends on who you ask. The numbers I've seen for California during that period show rates 7 times higher the current numbers... if that's your idea of Extremely low, well... I've got a bridge to sell you.

quote:
Care to find an example that isn't over a hundred years old ?

Thankfully no one in this country has felt that arming entire cities is a good idea since then so you got me on that one. I could point you in the direction of Afghanistan, but they've got bigger problems.

quote:
Can you explain to me why the cities where its almost IMPOSSIBLE to legally buy a gun, have the highest gun crime rates ? And why the ones where you can buy a gun have far less crime ?


Unfortunately it's not that simple. Places with high crime rates tend to be big cities. Places with lower crime rates tend to be small towns. Big cities are bound to have more murders just by virtue of their larger populations.
But you're reading too much into this. All I'm saying is that arming millions of people in a big city with guns strikes me as a really bad idea. It may even work fine in small towns, but out here, I don't see it working.

quote:
pray to god people like YOU never own a gun. Because I think your far more likely to shoot someone than I am.

I don't think it's a good idea for New Yorkers to own guns, so I'm more likely to shoot someone? Brilliant logic there.


RE: Oh no!
By masher2 (blog) on 4/30/2008 10:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "And of course all historians are right all the time... Not"

In this particular case, they certainly are. The myth of gun-toting cowboys engaging in constant duels is a myth created by Eastern dime-novel authors. Washington D.C. has more gun-related murders in a single year than did the entire "Wild West" over its entire history...and nearly all cowboys at the time didn't even carry a gun.

Take for instance the most famous "shootout" in Wild West History-- The O.K. Corral. There were only three people killed in that incident (we'd hardly even notice one that small today) and the incident didn't arise out of a duel, but rather during an attempted arrest (as indeed most such shootouts did).


RE: Oh no!
By maven81 on 5/1/2008 10:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Washington D.C. has more gun-related murders in a single year than did the entire "Wild West" over its entire history


Ah yes, the patented Masher exaggeration. Why you say such things when they are demonstrably false is beyond me. I can't track down all the numbers, but for 2006 the murder rate in the D.C area seems to have been around 30 per 100,000. The various numbers for the wild west (tricky since record keeping wasn't nearly as good back then) seem to point to around 60 per 100,000. I grant you that this isn't nearly as scary as what
one might see in a typical western, but it's still twice as high!


RE: Oh no!
By masher2 (blog) on 5/1/2008 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "Why you say such things when they are demonstrably false is beyond me."

The statement is quite true; unfortunately you've misread plain English. I very clearly stated gun-related homicides, not all murders in general.

> " but for 2006 the murder rate in the D.C area seems to have been around 30 per 100,000"

The murder rate for DC in the early 1990s, however, was three times this. A single year could see nearly 500 victims. That is indeed more gun-related murders than the "Wild West" saw, when one discounts such things as attacks on or by Indians, incursions from Mexico, and the like.


RE: Oh no!
By maven81 on 5/1/2008 11:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you have trouble reading your own words... the numbers I presented were in fact for only one state, California. The wild west included an area much larger then that. To claim that only 500 people were killed in the entire western area, over several decades is completely insane. And that's exactly what you claimed.


RE: Oh no!
By xsilver on 5/2/2008 8:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
masher exaggeration? actually I dont think that occurs often; but the sidestep, got to watch out for that one! ;)

What you are arguing is not really on point. The gun ownership issue comes more down to "do you agree with the concept of martial law?"

What if a relative of yours decided to rob a convenience store with a gun? Do they deserve to get double tapped in the head by a "good samaratan"
Or do they deserve the "benefit" of jail?

In the scenario of everybody having guns; the chances of an offender carrying a gun being shot while committing a crime are probably going to rocket up. At least the courts wont be so clogged anymore! Crime will probably go down because criminals wont be game enough to do regular crimes anymore.
However you may see more cases of "insane" crimes (people that just arrive at a public location and spray everyone with an AK)

In the other scenario of only criminals having guns, the rights of the criminal are probably being kept intact more because their brains arent going to be strewn on the sidewalk so often. Deaths of innocent people are probably going to go up a little because they wont be able to defend themselves. If the law cannot apprehend these people crime rates go up.

While both scenarios have their merits, in a large free city , allowing everybody to have a gun has the problem of making it more difficult for the authorities (police) and has loopholes of being able to murder under the guise of "self defence"

I guess only allowing criminals to have guns is the lesser of two evils.
/wow sorry for long rant.


RE: Oh no!
By Sulphademus on 5/1/2008 11:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
Also being from the area (grew up in Bowie) I think its also a racial cultural issue. In 'PC' speak its called "Urban".

Not saying European-Americans don't hatchet each other from time to time but it seems much higher between African-Americans.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm


RE: Oh no!
By soydeedo on 5/2/2008 3:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Those statistics make me sad. Thanks for posting them, though.


RE: Oh no!
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2008 9:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
There was an article I saw not too long ago that showed statistics for areas that banned guns and those that didn't. Crime rose/is higher in areas where guns were/are banned. Why? Because criminals have less to fear. I believe its Arkansas where its legal for everyone to walk around with a gun on their hip? Not surprisingly, they have very low crime. In Florida since the "Shoot First" law went into effect, crime has gone down.

A gun ban doesn't stop criminals from having them. Only law abiding citizens. Look at Britain for proof of that. Or DC which has some of the worst crime in the country. Dead criminals can't become repeat offenders. Don't punish the innocent. A person shouldn't have to wait until they're threatened with serious injury or death to defend themselves.


RE: Oh no!
By maven81 on 5/1/2008 10:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're looking for a correlation where none exists. Even cops get shot with their own weapons, and these are trained professionals. I don't think you're realize that what you advocate doesn't just put guns in the hands of concerned citizens, it puts guns in the hands of everyone. So people who previously were less likely to commit a violent crime are now more likely to do so. And it's harder to compare things here... different places, with different populations, different living conditions, population densities, level of gun knowledge and so on.


RE: Oh no!
By cblais19 on 5/2/2008 9:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think my favorite reply to this is: "Would you rather defend yourself with a gun, or wait for somebody else with one to show up."

Also note: the Swiss are able to have such a high rate of guns/person due to their culture of promoting gun safety at all ages. Reminds me of places like Montana (which if I remember correctly has more guns/person then anywhere else in the US), where kids are taught to shoot, and proper gun safety early on. If you raise people to be used to weapons, how to use them properly, and things like the "escalation of force" you would have a safer society then simply limiting law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.


RE: Oh no!
By homerdog on 4/30/2008 8:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bann it all people - it's a national curse.

2+2=5


RE: Oh no!
By Bruce 1337 on 4/30/2008 8:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you need a knife for in the city anyway?


Just tonight, I used one to make dinner...


RE: Oh no!
By Misty Dingos on 4/30/2008 8:34:28 AM , Rating: 3
This just in from the AOF (Aristocracy of Fear).
You should fear your neighbors. They are probably beating their spouses and children. They could be serial killers! Strangers are to be feared and run from! Do not trust anyone! Especially if you know them. Most people are killed by loved ones! Do not let them near you! Lock your doors and do not turn your back on anyone. Don't go to church, pastors and priests are all malingering pedophiles. Don't let your kids go to school, teachers are just waiting for your innocent children to walk into a class room to prey on them for sex or some other perverted purpose. Don't let anyone nearer that 10 feet of you. That is 3 meters for the people using the metric system, remember the AOF loves you too. Remember to maintain your personal space! It is vital for your safety.

The AOF will be working hard on banning guns, swords, knives, bows and arrows (crossbows too), forks, sharp spoons, baseball bats, cricket bats, hammers, screw drivers, crowbars, hand saws, chainsaws, glass containers, razors, light bulbs, rope, all dogs, cats bigger than 5 pounds/ 2 kilos (must be declawed), cars, trucks, red meat, old people, children, vitamins, household cleaning products, some fire extinguishers, god and oil.

Remember the AOF is looking out for you! Be afraid, very afraid.


RE: Oh no!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 4/30/2008 9:46:37 AM , Rating: 3
What about sporks?


RE: Oh no!
By BladeVenom on 4/30/2008 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
Ban knives? I guess you've never actually cooked even once in your life. Does your mommy cut up your food for you before it's even served?


RE: Oh no!
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 10:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does your mommy cut up your food for you before it's even served?
"Mom!! Bathroom!!! Bathroom!!"


RE: Oh no!
By Screwballl on 4/30/2008 12:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Let ban hands and arms... make everything interactive by thought...


missing paragraph?
By johnsonx on 4/30/2008 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It might be just a part of the circle of art and real life, but a terrible but not entirely surprising act of crime happened around the launch of Grand Theft Auto IV. Police say that a 23-year old man was walking past a queue of people in the UK waiting for the midnight release of the latest game from Rockstar, according to the BBC.


quote:
The victim was eventually found and taken to hospital for treatment of several stab wounds. Witnesses described the suspect “as being a light skinned black man aged about 21, 6ft 5ins tall, of medium build wearing a light grey hooded top.”


I'm assuming a stabbing occurred sometime between those two paragraphs? Why did the victim need to be found?




RE: missing paragraph?
By bdewong on 5/1/2008 5:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the exact same thing, like I had skipped a bunch only to find out it really wasn't there.


No Jack?
By BMFPitt on 4/30/2008 12:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thankfully, I haven’t seen anyone attempt some sort of gross connection between those wanting to buy GTA IV and stabbing someone.
Jack Thompson must have been sleeping in today.




RE: No Jack?
By nosfe on 4/30/2008 1:26:13 PM , Rating: 4
no, he's probably playing GTA4 right about now


By Vanilla Thunder on 4/30/2008 11:52:31 AM , Rating: 3
We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
America is now under marshall law.
All constitutional rights have been suspended.
Stay in your homes.
Do not attempt to contact love ones, insurance agent or attorney.
Shut up.
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.
Stay in your homes.
Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
Anyone caught outside of gates of their surveillance sectors after curfew
will be shot.
Remain calm, do not panic.
Your neighborhood watchofficer will be by to collect urine examples in
the morning.
Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine examples will be
shot.
Stay in your homes, remain calm.
The number one enemy of progress is question.
National security is more important than individual will.
All port broadcasts will proceed as normal.
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
Use only the drugs described by your boss or supervisor.
Shut up, be happy.
Obey all orders without question.
The conformental mandor is now mandatory.
Be happy.
At last everything is done for you.




By Bruce 1337 on 4/30/2008 8:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
... that I could just stab someone! Just the thought of playing a violent video game can be dangerous. That would be an interesting connection for the media to make.

People get in fights while waiting to get into clubs all the time, too. I'm thinking we should just ban lines.




RE: Oh no!
By cmontyburns on 4/30/2008 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
why cant we'awwlll be more like... uh... Homer Simpson?
quote:

Shut up brain, or i'll STAB you with a Q-Tip!!!

end of quote.




By Screwballl on 4/30/2008 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thankfully, I haven’t seen anyone attempt some sort of gross connection between those wanting to buy GTA IV and stabbing someone. I mean, after all, people have been stabbing each other for many more millennia than playing any sort of videogame.


You know that these morons will use this as an example of how violent video games and TV shows make violent people. Regardless of the actual circumstances relating to this stabbing, they will use their "modified logic" to conclude that the stabbing was caused by the game, even before it was released.
The scary part is these people are passing along this crap to their kids...




The blame
By kyleb2112 on 5/6/2008 2:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
No one's blamed Canada yet? You guys are slipping.




Makes sense.
By LatinMessiah on 5/6/2008 1:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
Monkey see, monkey do.




the truth
By dare2savefreedom on 4/30/08, Rating: -1
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki