'Grand Theft Auto V' fan stabbed, robbed of game in Britain

Sep 17, 2013

A British man who bought one of the first copies of "Grand Theft Auto V" was stabbed, hit with a brick and robbed of the brutally violent new video game on Tuesday, police said.

The 23-year-old was leaving an Asda supermarket in Colindale, north London, in the early hours of Tuesday just 80 minutes after the latest instalment of the blockbusting game series went on sale.

"The victim had been shopping and was on his way home when he was hit with a brick. He was then stabbed and robbed," a Metropolitan Police spokesman told AFP.

"A copy of 'Grand Theft Auto V', a watch and a mobile phone were stolen."

The man was in a stable condition in hospital following the attack, the spokesman added.

The attacker or attackers remained at large.

Fans around the world have snapped up copies of "Grand Theft Auto V" following its release on Tuesday, with long queues in many countries in Asia and Europe and even a stampede at one shop in the Netherlands.

Rockstar Games spent five years crafting the title with a rumoured production budget of $270 million (202 million euros), dwarfing the outlay on some Hollywood films.

Explore further: Hit 'Just Dance' game goes mobile Sept. 25

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Take-Two announces next 'Grand Theft Auto'

Nov 03, 2011

(AP) -- Take-Two is confirming that its RockStar North studio is deep in development of the next installment of the wildly popular "Grand Theft Auto" shooter series.

Game consoles here to stay despite smartphone onslaught

Sep 17, 2013

Games on tablets and smartphones are better, faster and more varied than ever, but the excitement surrounding the upcoming PlayStation 4—expected to attract big crowds at this week's Tokyo Game Show—proves ...

Activision Blizzard: 'Call of Duty' has made $1B

Jan 13, 2010

(AP) -- Video game publisher Activision Blizzard Inc. said Wednesday that the game "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" has brought in more than $1 billion in revenue since it went on sale in November.

Recommended for you

Hit 'Just Dance' game goes mobile Sept. 25

10 minutes ago

Smartphone lovers will get to show off moves almost anywhere with the Sept. 25 release of a free "Just Dance Now" game tuned for mobile Internet lifestyles.

Indie game developers sprouting at Tokyo Game Show

2 hours ago

Nestled among the industry giants at the Tokyo Game Show Thursday are a growing number of small and independent games developers from Asia and Europe, all hoping they are sitting on the next Minecraft.

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hemitite
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2013
As Gomer Pile used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"
jalmy
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2013
The ultimate irony.
Sinister1811
2 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2013
The irony is strong here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
Too bad he didn't have a gun. Britain is the assault capital of Europe. Or victim capital if you prefer. This is due to the fact that the good people there have no means to defend themselves.
jalmy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
As I said before this is insanely ironic, but in truth there is no evidence to support weather the perpetrator is in fact a gamer or not. Most likely just a thug or druggy looking for quick easily hock able goods. Which a brand new released game will definitely fetch some quick cash at any game-trade or pawn shop. I would like to say that I do not believe the nature of this game actually influences this kind of violence. But it is still ironic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
Too bad he didn't have a gun.
Why? That gamer would be just shotted instead of stabbed. The legal ownership of guns is not advantage for victims only. The legal access to weapons is not win-win strategy.
There are millions of privately-owned guns in the UK but most all of them are in the hands of criminals. Violent crime per capita has skyrocketed since guns were banned there.

I've posted this data and links many times so you should be familiar with it.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2013
Should've pirated instead. ;)
nowhere
3 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2013
Too bad he didn't have a gun.
Why? That gamer would be just shotted instead of stabbed. The legal ownership of guns is not advantage for victims only. The legal access to weapons is not win-win strategy.
There are millions of privately-owned guns in the UK but most all of them are in the hands of criminals. Violent crime per capita has skyrocketed since guns were banned there.

I've posted this data and links many times so you should be familiar with it.

I think what he is saying is in this case, had the victim a gun, it would have definitely been stolen with all his other possessions. Additionally, since the criminal had no problem stabbing the victim, he may have shot him too. It should also be noted that the criminal used a knife not a gun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
No, I think what I'm saying is that citizens in this country use firearms every day to protect themselves and prevent crime. I think what I'm saying is that people who do this, including people like police officers and security guards, dont get their guns or video games or money stolen, or hit with bricks, because they are ARMED.

What I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't see the logic in this way of thinking is grossly self-deluded and incredibly naive.
knife not a gun
Good point. Knives are also illegal in the UK. and as we see, this doesnt deter criminals from carrying them.

The only reliable protection from a thug with a knife or a gun, is a gun.
nowhere
3 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2013
No, I think what I'm saying

I was referring to, teech2. We all know your stance.

dont get their guns or video games or money stolen, or hit with bricks, because they are ARMED.

So you are assuming that if this guy was carrying a gun, he wouldn't have been attacked? Maybe. But if he was still attacked, do you think the criminal would have decided not to shoot him with his own gun?

The only reliable protection from a thug with a knife or a gun, is a gun.

The problem with this thinking is quite complex. Firstly does everyone have training and situational awareness to use a gun effectively? Secondly having a gun on you makes you a lethal threat to the criminal, and may turn a mugging into a homicide. Lastly most crimes are surprise attacks. In a surprise attack the attacker has a huge advantage.
Sinister1811
2 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
Should've pirated instead. ;)


And both "open" and "toot" gave me a 1 for that. No sense of humour.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2013
not to shoot him with his own gun
This is how nowhere thinks: 'I once saw a movie where a guy who had a gun was attacked and the bad guy gave him a karate chop and took his gun and shot him because well he was bad.'

'I once saw on the news where a bad guy grabbed this cops gun and shot him.'

'And so we can see that because of these instances, anybody who has a gun for protection will have it grabbed and used against him.'

-Thats ok nowhere, lots of antigunners think this way using cracked logic. I suggest you watch movies less and use your brain more. Statistics say that things like this rarely happen. Statistics say that good guys with guns are a lot safer than good guys who are defenseless.

Your brain would tell you this if you would only let it.

George Zimmerman is alive because had a gun.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (23) Sep 19, 2013
Liberals and logic don't mix well.

Making guns illegal will only disarm law abiding citizens, not criminals; Being a criminal de facto means not abiding by law.

It is already illegal to use a weapon of any sort in a criminal act, but criminals still use weapons.

Even in the unlikely case that a particular country could expunge itself of ALL illegal back market guns, it would then effectively level the playing field for the benefit of criminals.

having a gun on you makes you a lethal threat to the criminal, and may turn a mugging into a homicide.... most crimes are surprise attacks...


-A criminal who has a survival instinct, is not going to knowingly mug someone with a gun, precisely because they're a lethal threat,... and in fact would be surprised that the person they decided to mug had a gun, and so would lose the upper hand.

-It would not turn a 'mugging into a homicide' in anycase, because it is not a homicide to kill in self defense, by definition.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (25) Sep 19, 2013
The purpose of laws in a free society, is NOT to regulate the unintended consequences of that freedom, but to maintain consequences for criminal acts.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2013
EDIT: "Even in the unlikely case that a particular country could expunge itself of ALL guns, it would then effectively level the playing field for the benefit of criminals."
nowhere
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2013
.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2013
EDIT: "Even in the unlikely case that a particular country could expunge itself of ALL guns, it would then effectively level the playing field for the benefit of criminals."

While the percentage of people with criminal intent will not drop the amount of people affected (and the severity of the effect on them) will.
And in the end that's what counts: protection of the innocent (provided the onus on the rest isn't too great. And I dare say a life without a gun is hardly a great hardship, as guns don't really make the life of the owner easier in any way).

Japan, for example, has very strict anti-gun laws.
http://www.theatl.../260189/

From the article:
In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.
...
Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns;


nowhere
3 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2013
This is how nowhere thinks: 'I once saw a movie where a guy who had a gun was attacked and the bad guy gave him a karate chop and took his gun and shot him because well he was bad.'

Close. But instead of a karate chop, bad guy used a surprise brick slap to the back of good guy guns head. Luckily good guy gun at the last moment caught a reflection of the brick in a building window and cartwheeld outa the way. Before the follow up knife attack was even half way, good guy gun whipped out his un-holstered desert eagle twirled the cocked gun three times and blew a head size hole in bad guys head. Good guys always win in movies.
'I once saw on the news where a bad guy grabbed this cops gun and shot him.'

Where did I make any comment about cops? This is your assertion.
Sinister1811
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
The whole good guy vs bad guy argument is flawed. Where do you draw the line? It only takes someone with an agenda or someone with a grudge. Even someone who has lost it. Guns are made for killing, knives are made for cutting food.
nowhere
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2013
'And so we can see that because of these instances, anybody who has a gun for protection will have it grabbed and used against him.'

I don't make sweeping statements like this. You do.

-Thats ok nowhere, lots of antigunners

Oops you made another mistake. I'm not an antigunner.

think this way using cracked logic.

Sounds a bit like the logic you use for your sweeping statements.

I suggest you watch movies less and use your brain more.[...] Your brain would tell you this if you would only let it.

Insulting me does little to further your argument.

Statistics say that good guys with guns are a lot safer than good guys who are defenseless.

And statistics also say victims that own guns are more likely to be shot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (16) Sep 20, 2013
Here is an example of the difference in pro- and ant-gun thought processes; in the news we read

"Thirteen people, including a 3-year-old boy, were hit by gunshots Thursday night as at least two gunmen opened fire on a group of people who had gathered at a basketball court on Chicago's South Side, the police said."

-and right away antigunners feel they have all the info they need to conclude that once again, the need to disarm americans couldnt be more obvious.

But antigunners will seek more info. They will note that this is from the NYT, a notoriously biased source. And far down in the column they will find

"...the shooting appeared to be gang related. The city has sought to combat such violence in recent months by deploying hundreds of officers on overtime to 20 neighborhoods plagued by shootings and by focusing on reducing the city's endemic gang warfare.."

-and understand that gangs will always have guns, which is why citizens in those neighborhoods may want to be armed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2013
Nowhere says
I don't make sweeping statements like this
-But you use a broom to post
the criminal would have decided not to shoot him with his own gun
-implying that guns are easy to take from their owners. Trayvon martin also thought this way.

Nowhere says
I'm not an antigunner
-but seems to enjoy parroting antigunner nonsense like
statistics also say victims that own guns are more likely to be shot
-not realizing that the obvious counter is that car drivers are more likely to be in car accidents. But even so the statement is not true.

The proper argument is that when citizens are armed, there are fewer assaults.

"There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2013
And I am a little tired of antialias' nonsense
...the amount of people affected (and the severity of the effect on them) will
This is an ASSUMPTION based on no research and a lot of myopic wishful thinking. As I have often shown, just one example - the UK - when guns were banned and the people were no longer able to protect themselves, assaults skyrocketed. No I wont post it again because you didnt read it the last time did you AA? As far as japan goes

"In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own...special law for weapons searches is not necessary, since the police routinely search at will...The confession rate is 95 per cent...police routinely 'engage in torture or illegal treatment'..."

-Americans dont like gestapo police states.
ealex
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923:

"Americans dont like gestapo police states."

You lot must all be sado-masochists then.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923:

"Americans dont like gestapo police states."

You lot must all be sado-masochists then.
In america we wouldnt tolerate this sort of thing:

""In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own...special law for weapons searches is not necessary, since the police routinely search at will...The confession rate is 95 per cent...police routinely 'engage in torture or illegal treatment'..."

-How about you?
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2013
To paraphrase Ghost, owners of knives are more likely to be stabbed. Therefore only police, government officials and gang members should carry knives. Butter knives and steak dinners are a gateway to murder, and must be banned. Zero tolerance!
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2013
'I once saw on the news where a bad guy grabbed this cops gun and shot him.'

'And so we can see that because of these instances, anybody who has a gun for protection will have it grabbed and used against him.


Otto's right... even if you are TRAINED to disarm someone, to even try it is stupid beyond belief, because the chance of success is so low, especially if the opponent was a trained firearm user. even people that have spent their lives doing martial arts and such training would only attempt this as a LAST resort.

it doesn't matter how fast you are, you cant outrun a bullet. the only effective way to disarm an armed opponent is with a gun.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2013
And statistics also say victims that own guns are more likely to be shot.


statistics also say that crime increases with heat... most cops know this... so, you want to ban Florida while we are at it?
making laws against guns will only stop law abiding citizens from having guns. period. there is absolutely no possible way to refute this, as a criminal, by definition, does NOT obey the LAW! Criminals will get guns. where there is a will, there is a way.
I've purchased guns before in Britian. on the street. a nice Glock. where they were illegal.

Anti gun nuts want to live in a utopia. there is no such thing. one mans utopia is another mans hell. who is to decide what utopia is? who's utopia is better?
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2013
the criminal would have decided not to shoot him with his own gun

-implying that guns are easy to take from their owners.

Incorrect. Although I believe in this case his gun would have easily been taken, it wouldn't be logical to apply that to all cases. That would be akin to saying "all crime can be solved with a gun", both thoughts are examples of sweeping statements.

Nowhere says
statistics also say victims that own guns are more likely to be shot

-not realizing that the obvious counter is that car drivers are more likely to be in car accidents.

Bad analogy since the primary function of the gun, to provide better protection vs non gun users, is a failure. Whereas the cars primary function, to provide better transport than non car users, is fully realised.

The proper argument is that when citizens are armed, there are fewer assaults.

Not realising the obvious counter is that the fewer assaults are more violent in nature.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
You believe in this case that his gun would easily have been taken. How did you reach this conclusion nowhere? The story says the was on his way home. Was he on a bus, on the subway, alone, in a car, or what? Was he bigger or faster or older than his attackers? Was the area busy or not, lit or unlit? Was he in a park, an alley, or on the street? How was he attacked - was he surrounded, suckerpunched, chased down, or what?

You seem to be prone to making judgments about things without proper evidence.
gun use... a failure
So you ARE an antigunner. If guns weren't good for self-protection then cops, soldiers, security guards, cops, and gang members wouldn't be carrying them.

And no you don't need special training to shoot the guy who's busting down your bedroom door in the midde of the night.
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2013
Otto's right... even if you are TRAINED to disarm someone, to even try it is stupid beyond belief, because the chance of success is so low, especially if the opponent was a trained firearm user. even people that have spent their lives doing martial arts and such training would only attempt this as a LAST resort.

it doesn't matter how fast you are, you cant outrun a bullet. the only effective way to disarm an armed opponent is with a gun.

Incorrect. You only need to find the weakest target, or the targets weakest moment. A woman is easily disarmed when her bag is snatched with her gun in it. A young man may be surprise attacked from behind, and his gun does little use whem he is knocked unconscious on the first blow. A train military man can even be disarmed when he is pissed drunk, stumbling home. You see my original and only point is that some cases, like the one in the article, can't simply be solved with a gun as otto believes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
the fewer assaults are more violent
This is a nonsense statement. More assaults in Britain are more violent in nature because criminals have more freedom to victimize. Is having your skull caved-in preferable to being shot in the face?
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2013
statistics also say victims that own guns are more likely to be shot


Where did you get those statistics, from your dog named 'statistics'? They most likely included suicides, accidents and domestic crime, in order to obscure the rationality of defense use. In fact they probably did not take into account defensive uses of a gun in which a shot was NOT fired, which amounts to 99% of the cases. This would be necessary to do so as most gun use is as a deterrent to prevent being a victim in the first place.

"According to the National Institute of Justice's report [...] guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense." [but there are not 1.5 million people shot per year]

Washington D.C, Chicago, and New York city have the toughest gun laws, yet also the highest murder rate. This factual data demonstrates that gun laws disarm only law abiding citizens. QED.
nowhere
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2013
You believe in this case that his gun would easily have been taken. How did you reach this conclusion nowhere? The story says the was on his way home. Was he on a bus, on the subway, alone, in a car, or what? Was he bigger or faster or older than his attackers? Was the area busy or not, lit or unlit? Was he in a park, an alley, or on the street? How was he attacked - was he surrounded, suckerpunched, chased down, or what?

You seem to be prone to making judgments about things without proper evidence.

No otto, the judgment is all yours. Your first post clearly implies the crime would have been averted had the victim a gun. Where's your evidence? Please explain how you reached
your conclusion?
gun use... a failure
So you ARE an antigunner.

Quote the context. I was simply showing how poor your analogy is.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2013
You only need to find the weakest target, or the targets weakest moment. A woman is easily disarmed when her bag is snatched with her gun in it. A young man may be surprise attacked from behind, and his gun does little use whem he is knocked unconscious on the first blow. A train military man can even be disarmed when he is pissed drunk, stumbling home. You see my original and only point is that some cases, like the one in the article, can't simply be solved with a gun as otto believes.


So your argument is that since EVERY single case of self defense doesn't work out, the rest of those cases shouldn't be allowed to either?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2013
statistics also say victims that own guns are more likely to be shot


They most likely included suicides, accidents and domestic crime, in order to obscure the rationality of defense use. In fact they probably did not take into account defensive uses of a gun in which a shot was NOT fired, which amounts to 99% of the cases.


I'll add also that they also likely included gun ownership by criminals, i.e. included gang violence, ...which actually should be EXCLUDED because the debate* is of gun ownership for legal defense not illegal confrontation or escalation.

Liberal anti-gun statistics are dishonest propaganda.

* actually there is no debate given the 2nd amendment.
nowhere
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2013
You see my original and only point is that some cases,[...] can't simply be solved with a gun


So your argument is that since EVERY single case of self defense doesn't work out, the rest of those cases shouldn't be allowed to either?

Did you even read what you quoted? Or is some synonymous with every?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2013
You see my original and only point is that some cases,[...] can't simply be solved with a gun


So your argument is that since EVERY single case of self defense doesn't work out, the rest of those cases shouldn't be allowed to either?

Did you even read what you quoted? Or is some synonymous with every?


???? Your above argument in favour of gun control appears to be that because "some" cases don't work out, ...... that we should prevent all the other cases from working out also by banning guns. At least that is the logical conclusion to be derived from your point.

Some people who wear red shirts fail to turn at a red light,... should we ban red shirts or red lights?
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2013
You see my original and only point is that some cases,[...] can't simply be solved with a gun


So your argument is that since EVERY single case of self defense doesn't work out, the rest of those cases shouldn't be allowed to either?

Did you even read what you quoted? Or is some synonymous with every?


???? Your above argument in favour of gun control

No

appears to be that because "some" cases don't work out, ...... that we should prevent all the other cases from working out also by banning guns.

No

At least that is the logical conclusion to be derived from your point.

No

Some people who wear red shirts fail to turn at a red light,... should we ban red shirts or red lights?

No

A simple no would have suffice.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
"all crime can be solved with a gun",


I am not saying this... I am saying you have a better chance of not being a victim if you are armed and you know how to use it. I am saying that you can look at the statistics and see that for yourself.

using your head and being ABLE to defend yourself is what I am saying. being ABLE is the key. the freedom to make the choice to NOT BE A VICTIM. you cannot make that choice if you are forcefully disarmed. GB is case in point! they disarmed their citizens and only made them victims. it didn't stop crime, it only made it worse.

try reading the BAZILLION links Otto has left! the statistics prove it out.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2013
Wow yet another stabbing in England! National pastime there. Poor sods can't source a proper gun but any idiot can improvise a blade