Man Kills Friend Over Call Of Duty Argument

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by JJOR64 (18909 posts) -
#2 Edited by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -

Yeah, but the question is, did he kill the murderer in-game beforehand?

#3 Posted by TooWalrus (13137 posts) -

I killed my friend in CoD almost a hundred times. Oh, wait...

#4 Posted by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -

Not true.
The actually article states they were playing COD when the arguement occured, nothing more.

Anyway, it baffles me.  How can you be good enough friends to play with someone yet then go shoot them?  Weird.

#5 Posted by Double0hFor (410 posts) -

people just need help............LOTS of help

#6 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
JJOR64 said:
Omfg...  Well I'm glad that he isn't my friend."

hahahaha
#7 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
JJOR64 said:
Omfg...  Well I'm glad that he isn't my friend."

hahahaha, anyways, this is from the article 
Johnson was also wanted on a fugitive warrant out of North Carolina, police said. 
so yeah, choose your friends wisely. you neeever know. 
#8 Posted by TomA (2531 posts) -

The headline says man killed over a CoD argument, but in actual fact they just happen to have an argument while playing CoD.

#9 Posted by METALM1LITIA91 (259 posts) -

More fuel for the videogames = criminals argument.

There are so many other causes for violence but videogames always get listed when it is suspected

#10 Edited by Agnogenic_delete (1034 posts) -

The shooter probably has something mentally wrong...

#11 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -
Agnogenic said:
"The shooter probably has something mentally wrong..."
No shit, Sherlock.
#12 Posted by LazerLuger (19 posts) -

Call of Duty is serious business.

#13 Posted by FrEeZe (301 posts) -

If the victim was holding cake would the headline be

Man Kills Friend Over Cake Argument

#14 Posted by Maxszy (2064 posts) -
TomA said:
"The headline says man killed over a CoD argument, but in actual fact they just happen to have an argument while playing CoD."
Go go media trying to spin video games as evil! Always!
#15 Posted by CenturionCajun (1461 posts) -

Yeah, this seems to be a case of trying to word a headline so that it gets more traffic.

#16 Posted by Fr0Br0 (3089 posts) -

OMFG... They called the controller a Joystick. What are we living in the stone age!? Come on, people have evolved far past a joystick!

#17 Posted by CenturionCajun (1461 posts) -

I have people come into my store asking for handles all the time. It took me awhile to figure out they were referring to controllers.

#18 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -
He was just proving to his friend that a single rifle round to the chest would, in fact, kill you.
#19 Posted by Snail (8580 posts) -

Like that kid who murdered his Mom and wounded his parent because they didn't let him play Halo 3.

#20 Posted by Euge (108 posts) -

Why the hell did he have a gun in the first place and also take it round his mates house. All sounds pre meditated to me not on the off chance that he argued with someone over call off duty.

#21 Posted by Gamer_152 (14051 posts) -

The article says nothing more than that they were playing an Xbox game and it was probably Call of Duty. There is no proof whatsoever that the argument was over the game.

Moderator
#22 Posted by RichardLOlson (1852 posts) -
Wow what a idiot.....it just goes to show you that people with no common sense and half a brain go hand and hand.  I'm sure after he shot him in the head he said, "HEAD SHOT"! LOL!!!
#23 Posted by EVO (3864 posts) -

Some people take martyrdom worse than others.

#24 Posted by angelkanarias (1440 posts) -
@FrEeZe said:
" If the victim was holding cake would the headline be

Man Kills Friend Over Cake Argument

"
that
#25 Posted by Wolverine (4278 posts) -

That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country.

#26 Posted by OmegaPirate (5523 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" He was just proving to his friend that a single rifle round to the chest would, in fact, kill you. "
Haha
#27 Posted by cinemandrew (711 posts) -

What's sad is that I remember reading another story just like this a few months back. Two friends were playing some shooter, and it ended with one of them getting shot in the head. Why does this happen?

#28 Posted by The_A_Drain (3910 posts) -

Wait wtf... This is the second time this has happened. Wasn't a very similar event reported just a few months back, with two soldiers playing xbox in their barracks, following an argument one of them shot the other in the head with his sidearm.

Once, fucked up, but twice WTF IS GOING ON?!?!

#29 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

Huh, he just lost 10 real life exp.

#30 Posted by Adamantium (885 posts) -

Man I want to crack some jokes but that just isn't even funny. What a f*cking douche.

#31 Edited by Illmatic (1358 posts) -
@FrEeZe said:
" If the victim was holding cake would the headline be

Man Kills Friend Over Cake Argument

"
Oh come on now, seriously? I know we all love our chosen form of entertainment but don't let that blind you to cops and detectives doing their fucking job, using the evidence displayed at the scene of the crime to come to some sort of explanation as to what happened. If a dude dies on the street with a wallet in his hand, it only makes sense to assume the death was money related, if theirs crack sprinkled on his lips (props to whoever gets that reference) we have to assume its drug related. If the two were at home, sitting in front of a tv, playin xbox the most logical assumption is that some argument ensued concerning the game. There are plenty of examples of gamer rage out there in our own personal lives. Don't act all shocked and bewildered that an argument over games could lead to physical complications.
#32 Edited by Adamantium (885 posts) -
@Illmatic said:
"Oh come on now, seriously? I know we all love our chosen form of entertainment but don't let that blind you to cops and detectives doing their fucking job, using the evidence displayed at the scene of the crime to come to some sort of explanation as to what happened. If a dude dies on the street with a wallet in his hand, it only makes sense to assume the death was money related, if theirs crack sprinkled on his lips (props to whoever gets that reference) we have to assume its drug related. If the two were at home, sitting in front of a tv, playin xbox the most logical assumption is that some argument ensued concerning the game. There are plenty of examples of gamer rage out there in our own personal lives. Don't act all shocked and bewildered that an argument over games could lead to physical complications. "
Chappelle FTW. "Doesn't it seem a little suspicious... that every dead black guy the cops find has crack sprinkled on them? Who gets shot and sprinkles crack on themselves?"

Good point though. It's not a stretch to say that game rage caused a crime. That doesn't mean that games cause violence though, it just means that crazy motherf*ckers cause violence when they get angry enough over something.
#33 Posted by eclipsesis (1242 posts) -

Thats what he gets for taking two turns when he should have passed the pad

#34 Posted by Euge (108 posts) -

He might have done what I did in the sniper section of modern warfare with the dogs, passed the pad to him whilst simultaneously lobbing a grenade into a car :D

#35 Posted by Alex_Murphy (1184 posts) -
@Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too?
#36 Edited by Icemael (6312 posts) -
@Alex_Murphy said:
" @Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too? "
Thing is, cars are designed for tranportation, and do a lot more good than guns do. Guns are designed to hurt people - they don't have any other purposes.
#37 Posted by Godwind (2597 posts) -
@Icemael said:
" @Alex_Murphy said:
" @Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too? "
Thing is, cars are designed for tranportation, and do a lot more good than guns do. Guns are designed to hurt people - they don't have any other purposes.
"
And getting rid of Hitler is a bad idea?  Taking the lives of others can be a good thing you know.

Also, this looks fake.
#38 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -

A new height in humanity, people.

#39 Posted by ververdan0226 (1573 posts) -

FUCK, people are stupid. Who does that?? Over COD? I feel bad for the guy's family, that's just tragic.

#40 Posted by Illmatic (1358 posts) -
@Alex_Murphy said:
" @Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too? "
I'm sorry, that was a really dumb and flawed response. Both sides of the argument have valid points but relating guns to cars is a weak tactic. The statistic that matters is purposeful deaths/injuries from guns against purposeful death/injuries from cars. Don't bend a fact to fit the mold you prefer, its why arguments like this never get far in the public eye.
#41 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

How would anybody possibly know the argument was about the game itself? Oh wait they don't but since they were playing it will still be blamed on games. This must mean any man murdered while eating was arguing about food.

#42 Posted by choffy21 (1376 posts) -

Pshyco's give video games a bad name. This is why games will never be widely accepted as a medium. You don't hear about someone shooting someone else over a movie.

#43 Posted by Alex_Murphy (1184 posts) -
@Icemael said:
" @Alex_Murphy said:
" @Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too? "
Thing is, cars are designed for tranportation, and do a lot more good than guns do. Guns are designed to hurt people - they don't have any other purposes.
"
Guns aren't designed to hurt people. Guns are designed to move small pieces of metal at supersonic speeds, what you do with it is up to you. I will say that guns are a very good tool to hurt people because you don't have to be right next to them to do it. Saying that guns don't serve any purpose other than to hurt people is a ludicris argument. Plenty of people have guns for hunting, target practice, or they just like to collect them as a hobby. As far as what helps people more, cars or guns, I'd have to say guns by far. Cars are a convince, but how many people would really say that their lives had been saved by a car, versus people who's lives were saved by a gun? The country I live in wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't have the freedom's I have, if it weren't for guns. A 110 pound woman is never going to be a match for a 200 pound man. The police don't have a one second response time. Everybody should have the right to defend themselves from anybody that would threaten them, including the government.
#44 Posted by Nasar7 (2606 posts) -
@Alex_Murphy said:
"Guns aren't designed to hurt people. Guns are designed to move small pieces of metal at supersonic speeds, what you do with it is up to you. I will say that guns are a very good tool to hurt people because you don't have to be right next to them to do it. Saying that guns don't serve any purpose other than to hurt people is a ludicris argument. Plenty of people have guns for hunting, target practice, or they just like to collect them as a hobby. "
You must know you're fighting a losing argument. Or you really are that dense. A gun is a weapon. Weapons are made for killing, end of story. Any other use of a gun is secondary to its inherent purpose, no matter what the reason. If you want to argue in favor of gun rights thats your perogative but please don't base your argument on such ridiculous leaps of logic.
#45 Posted by Alex_Murphy (1184 posts) -
@Illmatic said:
" @Alex_Murphy said:
" @Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too? "
I'm sorry, that was a really dumb and flawed response. Both sides of the argument have valid points but relating guns to cars is a weak tactic. The statistic that matters is purposeful deaths/injuries from guns against purposeful death/injuries from cars. Don't bend a fact to fit the mold you prefer, its why arguments like this never get far in the public eye. "
I don't think it's a flawed response at all. When you say "The statistic that matters is purposeful deaths/injuries" you're setting up a straw man argument. Why is that the statistic that matters? Because you say it is? You're misrepresenting my position to make it easier for you to prove your point. What I was saying was that yes, bad things are going to happen. People are going to get killed. This world isn't made out of pillows and rubber where nobody gets hurt. But just because some people are going to get hurt in no way justifies EVERYBODY loosing their rights. Taking away people's freedom, even if it saves lives, is just not right. That's why banning violent video games is bullshit, that's why the war on drugs is bullshit, and that's why gun control is bullshit.
#46 Posted by Alex_Murphy (1184 posts) -
@Nasar7 said:
" @Alex_Murphy said:
"Guns aren't designed to hurt people. Guns are designed to move small pieces of metal at supersonic speeds, what you do with it is up to you. I will say that guns are a very good tool to hurt people because you don't have to be right next to them to do it. Saying that guns don't serve any purpose other than to hurt people is a ludicris argument. Plenty of people have guns for hunting, target practice, or they just like to collect them as a hobby. "
You must know you're fighting a losing argument. Or you really are that dense. A gun is a weapon. Weapons are made for killing, end of story. Any other use of a gun is secondary to its inherent purpose, no matter what the reason. If you want to argue in favor of gun rights thats your perogative but please don't base your argument on such ridiculous leaps of logic.
"
Negative. I feel confidant I can defend my position :)

A weapon is defined as ' something used to injure, defeat, or destroy ' so Anything can be a weapon. If I stab someone in the neck with a pencil, that's a weapon. If I put a padlock in a sock and hit somebody in the head, that's a weapon. If I smother somebody with a pillow, that's a weapon. If anything can be a weapon then your statement "Weapons are made for killing, end of story." is false. You'll probaly argue that guns are hardly used for anything other than hurting people. But if you do, you'll be wrong. Most people who own a gun don't ever shoot anybody with it. The ATF says that there are 4.37 milion guns produced in the US every year, but only 20,695 people were killed with a gun that same year (1995, most recent stats I could find). So most people who own guns are not using them as weapons. If you decide you want to kill somebody, a gun might be the best tool for the job. But if you look at the stats, that's not how most of them are being used.
#47 Posted by freakin (404 posts) -

The only thing keeping most people from killing people while playing COD is the lack of a available gun.  Fuck those grenades.


#48 Posted by Nasar7 (2606 posts) -
@Alex_Murphy:
" @Nasar7 said:
" @Alex_Murphy said:
"Guns aren't designed to hurt people. Guns are designed to move small pieces of metal at supersonic speeds, what you do with it is up to you. I will say that guns are a very good tool to hurt people because you don't have to be right next to them to do it. Saying that guns don't serve any purpose other than to hurt people is a ludicris argument. Plenty of people have guns for hunting, target practice, or they just like to collect them as a hobby. "
You must know you're fighting a losing argument. Or you really are that dense. A gun is a weapon. Weapons are made for killing, end of story. Any other use of a gun is secondary to its inherent purpose, no matter what the reason. If you want to argue in favor of gun rights thats your perogative but please don't base your argument on such ridiculous leaps of logic.
"
Negative. I feel confidant I can defend my position :)

A weapon is defined as ' something used to injure, defeat, or destroy ' so Anything can be a weapon. If I stab someone in the neck with a pencil, that's a weapon. If I put a padlock in a sock and hit somebody in the head, that's a weapon. If I smother somebody with a pillow, that's a weapon. If anything can be a weapon then your statement "Weapons are made for killing, end of story." is false. You'll probaly argue that guns are hardly used for anything other than hurting people. But if you do, you'll be wrong. Most people who own a gun don't ever shoot anybody with it. The ATF says that there are 4.37 milion guns produced in the US every year, but only 20,695 people were killed with a gun that same year (1995, most recent stats I could find). So most people who own guns are not using them as weapons. If you decide you want to kill somebody, a gun might be the best tool for the job. But if you look at the stats, that's not how most of them are being used.
"
That definition is incomplete. The full definition is, according to the Oxford American dictionary, 'a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage." The key word here being designed. Yes, you can kill someone by smothering them with a pillow, and then the police might call the pillow the murder weapon, but since pillows are not designed for this purpose, they are not commonly labeled as weapons in general. Obviously, anything can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't mean they are inherently weapons. 

Also, let's discuss the use of euphemism in the dictionary's definition of a 'weapon'. Both of our (imperfect) sources state they inflict harm of some kind, but the Merriam-Webster dictionary (the one you reference, I believe) uses the important word 'destroy' to explain what weapons do. Well what is the definition of 'destroy'? To put out of existence; KILL. 

So not to put too fine a finger on what is clear, a weapon, therefore, is something designed to kill. 

Besides these two main points, which really I'm just reiterating in further detail from my first post, I have nothing else to say. You go on to say that most people that own guns never actually use them, but that's beside the point. Whether or not you use a weapon for killing doesn't underscore the fact that that is precisely what it's designed for. If you want to collect guns, swords, or whatever weapon you have a romantic attachment to, feel free. But there's no use in denying that guns and swords were invented in order to more efficiently kill other living things. 

You seem to be anti gun control. And that's fine, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. All I'm asking is that you defend your position without trying to argue that a gun is not a weapon. Is that really so hard?
#49 Edited by Illmatic (1358 posts) -
@Alex_Murphy said:
" @Illmatic said:
" @Alex_Murphy said:
" @Wolverine said:
" That is pretty fucked up. I wonder what the arugement was about. This is why we need more gun control in this country. "
More people are killed by cars, you want to take them away too? "
I'm sorry, that was a really dumb and flawed response. Both sides of the argument have valid points but relating guns to cars is a weak tactic. The statistic that matters is purposeful deaths/injuries from guns against purposeful death/injuries from cars. Don't bend a fact to fit the mold you prefer, its why arguments like this never get far in the public eye. "
I don't think it's a flawed response at all. When you say "The statistic that matters is purposeful deaths/injuries" you're setting up a straw man argument. Why is that the statistic that matters? Because you say it is? You're misrepresenting my position to make it easier for you to prove your point. What I was saying was that yes, bad things are going to happen. People are going to get killed. This world isn't made out of pillows and rubber where nobody gets hurt. But just because some people are going to get hurt in no way justifies EVERYBODY loosing their rights. Taking away people's freedom, even if it saves lives, is just not right. That's why banning violent video games is bullshit, that's why the war on drugs is bullshit, and that's why gun control is bullshit. "
Its the statistic that matters because we're trying to figure out how dangerous these guns actually are in the wrong hands. I'm in no way in favor of banning guns. I believe they are important in self-defense and in the hands of police who are meant to protect but at the same time I am not going to say something is more dangerous simply because it kills more people on average. The reasons behind the numbers are important too which is why I said stating the exact statistic that is being compared is important. One bullet will usually only harm one person while one car can harm the people inside and those who are hit during the path of whatever crash we are considering. Of course the numbers are going to be widely in the direction of cars in terms of sheer numbers. The reasons behind the deaths will give us a better understanding of each "weapon" and their dangers though. We are constantly making measures to make cars safer with computerized mechanisms that slow down cars, ways to keep the driver awake, seat belts, air bags on various sides of the car, classes required, and licenses required. For guns we have the need for a license and a safety. Why not be pro-regulation in making guns safer and harder to obtain for situations like these? I don't want to ban them, but more protocols concerning them has the ability to do more harm than good.
#50 Posted by Absurd (2934 posts) -

Rage quitter

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.