For fucks sake America, get your shit together. Gun control works. Gun control isn't hard. Stop killing people. Sincerely, a frustrated Australian gun owner, who loves our gun control system.
For fucks sake America, get your shit together. Gun control works. Gun control isn't hard. Stop killing people.
Sincerely, a frustrated Australian gun owner, who loves our gun control system.
Opponents like to argue that it doesn't because it only makes it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding innocent people to get weapons but not for criminals, which gives the latter an advantage.
Gun control works.
Opponents like to argue that it doesn't because it only makes it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding innocent people to get weapons but not for criminals, which gives the latter an advantage.
It's surprisingly easy to get a gun in Australia. We just make sure that you aren't crazy, and have the right gun for the right job. I'm a long distance target shooter, so I have some pretty...
It's surprisingly easy to get a gun in Australia. We just make sure that you aren't crazy, and have the right gun for the right job.
I'm a long distance target shooter, so I have some pretty powerful rifles. All I had to do was attend a basic safety course, and have a cursory background check. I also have to justify the use of my weapons by proving my membership of the Sporting Shooters Association. All of these things took minimal time and effort.
Also, contrary to popular belief, you CAN buy an AR-15 in Australia. We just restrict it to people who genuinely require them for pest control reasons.
The Bushmaster AR-15 is based on the US military standard issue firearm (often referred to as the M16) and is a semi-automatic centre fire rifle firing .223 calibre (or 5.56mm) rounds. Under Australian laws, it would be classified as a Category D firearm, with ownership restricted to military, police, and professional vertebrate pest controllers.
I think maybe roo's count as pests in the land of Oz. https://www.animallaw.info/intro/kangaroo-culling-australia Am I close to correct, actual Australians?
I think maybe roo's count as pests in the land of Oz.
Ordinarily, it is illegal to kill, buy, sell or possess a kangaroo in Australia. However, in response to the growing kangaroo population, the Australian government permits license holders to 'cull' or shoot kangaroos. This has resulted in the largest slaughter of land-based wildlife on the planet.
Mostly semi-auto firearms get used when you need quantity. For example, when you want to fill as much of a herd/group as possible, before they all escape back into the scrub.
Mostly semi-auto firearms get used when you need quantity. For example, when you want to fill as much of a herd/group as possible, before they all escape back into the scrub.
And it's not wrong. But the point of countries in which the gun are much harder to get, or don't have a social acceptance of carrying a gun with you as a "normal thing" is that if some criminal...
And it's not wrong.
But the point of countries in which the gun are much harder to get, or don't have a social acceptance of carrying a gun with you as a "normal thing" is that if some criminal enter your premises, 99/100 times is to rob you. And it's not worth it to die over your precious macBook. Also, in 2018 I seriously hope you've at least an insurance for your home possessions. If you don't, you probably don't have stuff worth robbing anyway and I assure you, robbers will know that.
For shops, I think it's everywhere policy to let the robbers take whatever the fuck they want because insurance.
So really, what's the use-case scenario that make it so having a gun on you actually is less dangerous?
I find it disingenuous to equate the killing potential of guns to that of knives - that's why there's the expression about it being folly to "bring a knife to a gun fight." As for the killdozer -...
If gun is outlawed straight up, people would find other way to channel their mass-killing issues/frustration like stabbing or vehicular violence like the killdozer.
I find it disingenuous to equate the killing potential of guns to that of knives - that's why there's the expression about it being folly to "bring a knife to a gun fight."
As for the killdozer - it actually killed no one, despite being built expressly for damage. This person today managed to kill four people, all by purchasing off-the-shelf guns.
No one is arguing that getting rid of guns will rid us of violence. But gun control can reduce the potential damage of violent outbursts.
I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted what zendainc posted. He didn't argue that it will get rid of all violence. He said it "works", which is vague, but I'm guessing he meant "reduces gun violence."...
This guy is. It's disingenuous to move the goalpost when there are those who argue for such position.
I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted what zendainc posted. He didn't argue that it will get rid of all violence. He said it "works", which is vague, but I'm guessing he meant "reduces gun violence."
Either way, what you're saying didn't address the underlying issue that causes this mass killings.
I agree with you on working on the underlying issues, thus I didn't bring that part up!
I also believe it makes sense to work on both the cause and the symptoms. For example, if you've got a painful disease, they don't simply put you on a treatment plan for curing the underlying disease - you'll be given painkillers, too, to lower the pain while the treatment does its work.
This is why in Jacksonville, everyone in the room instantly shot back at the attacker, incapacitating him without problems and continuing to play games happily afterwards. After they applauded, of...
Opponents like to argue that it doesn't because it only makes it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding innocent people to get weapons but not for criminals, which gives the latter an advantage.
This is why in Jacksonville, everyone in the room instantly shot back at the attacker, incapacitating him without problems and continuing to play games happily afterwards. After they applauded, of course.
I kind of assume that the fact that bombings are less common in USA than mass gun violence is because it's so much harder to get your hands on a bomb than on a gun. If it's harder to get your...
I kind of assume that the fact that bombings are less common in USA than mass gun violence is because it's so much harder to get your hands on a bomb than on a gun.
If it's harder to get your hands on a gun, then you're gonna have a lot of people deterred from committing violence. Not everyone, but a lot.
I like the system of some other countries to prove you need a gun. Background check, proof of gun safety course, proof of need (gun collector club membership with proven collection, membership to shooting league, live on farm, whatever). It's not going to stop everyone, but it will stop those people who have said "They were right there. It was easy."
I personally think that guns need to have background checks. But I also see it being futile to try and impose extreme rules on everyone. And the most commonly cited source for mass shootings I...
I personally think that guns need to have background checks. But I also see it being futile to try and impose extreme rules on everyone.
And the most commonly cited source for mass shootings I found everything with 4+ injured count as a mass shooting. This includes gang violence (where most guns are illegal anyways) and which afaik exagerrates the number by quite a bit.
Also: we kinda got off an tangent, with whether or not it was a gun free zone, so I searched for it myself and found that it indeed was. I used this search
But what I was getting at, poorly, was it's easy to carry a gun into a gun free zone. If it wasn't easy to get a gun, that would make a bigger difference. I don't think the rules I listed were...
But what I was getting at, poorly, was it's easy to carry a gun into a gun free zone. If it wasn't easy to get a gun, that would make a bigger difference.
But I also see it being futile to try and impose extreme rules on everyone.
In that case, I meant basically completely banning guns. Sorry if it came across as meaning your suggestions were extreme. (Not being a native english speaker sucks some times.)
In that case, I meant basically completely banning guns. Sorry if it came across as meaning your suggestions were extreme. (Not being a native english speaker sucks some times.)
I don't understand how other civilians with guns, or anyone else with guns for that matter could have responded to that particular situation in time. The whole thing took, what, 10 seconds? Am I...
it was a gun free zone
I don't understand how other civilians with guns, or anyone else with guns for that matter could have responded to that particular situation in time. The whole thing took, what, 10 seconds? Am I correct on that? Is someone going to have time to identify the shooter in a crowded space, make sure the line of fire is clear, and take a shot?
The shooter ended up killing themselves anyway, though. What kind of discouragement would the nebulous threat of someone who might have a gun really offer to someone who planned on shooting...
The shooter ended up killing themselves anyway, though. What kind of discouragement would the nebulous threat of someone who might have a gun really offer to someone who planned on shooting themselves anyway?
Jesus man, I play Madden and happened to be watching a streamer that was playing Madden at the time... He's an EA Gamechanger so has plenty of friends that were there and he just kinda went quiet,...
Jesus man, I play Madden and happened to be watching a streamer that was playing Madden at the time...
He's an EA Gamechanger so has plenty of friends that were there and he just kinda went quiet, teared up, and stopped the stream when he finally was convinced and saw the clip. Pretty chilling, laser on his chest seconds later shots. It's just feels unreal.
Some useful advice for these situations: Don’t name them. From that page: Some shooters are motivated by a desire for fame, notoriety, and/or recognition. When the media focuses on the shooter,...
I think the media is a huge contributor to the problem. They ignore any and all advice on how to handle shootings, cover them for days, give them as much attention as possible,, and face no...
I think the media is a huge contributor to the problem. They ignore any and all advice on how to handle shootings, cover them for days, give them as much attention as possible,, and face no consequences. This is one of my biggest problems with for-profit media.
I'm a big believer in gun control, but I have to stress that these sorts of attacks aren't a gun problem, they are a mental health problem, though it could possibly be described better as a gun...
I'm a big believer in gun control, but I have to stress that these sorts of attacks aren't a gun problem, they are a mental health problem, though it could possibly be described better as a gun access problem.
There are people with mental health problems in all countries, but mass shootings are very rare in all first world countries except America, so mental health probably isn't the main cause. I'm not...
There are people with mental health problems in all countries, but mass shootings are very rare in all first world countries except America, so mental health probably isn't the main cause. I'm not claiming it's specifically a gun access problem either. It might have something to do with culture, education and/or other factors. It's a complex issue, but I believe gun control is one of many factors which might need to be adjusted to improve the situation long term.
I think that every pro-gun control person knows that limiting access to guns doesn't solve the violence in itself, but as you're right, and as other have said, it's hard to kill tens of people and...
I think that every pro-gun control person knows that limiting access to guns doesn't solve the violence in itself, but as you're right, and as other have said, it's hard to kill tens of people and wound hundreds in a matter of minutes, with a knife for example.
I didn't know how to frame this earlier, But the post on reddit where crazy when sorting by controversial. The amount of Vote manipulation/ astroturfing that was going on their was unreal, I wish...
I didn't know how to frame this earlier, But the post on reddit where crazy when sorting by controversial. The amount of Vote manipulation/ astroturfing that was going on their was unreal, I wish I had taken a screenshot, the numbers seemed to have flipped now, but any comment on gun control seemed to be -20
Unpopular opinion but I believe the audio and video from this needs to be shared far and wide. Maybe when the 2A crowd finally starts to see and hear what these tragedies actually look and sound...
Unpopular opinion but I believe the audio and video from this needs to be shared far and wide.
Maybe when the 2A crowd finally starts to see and hear what these tragedies actually look and sound like, rather than what Fox News wants them to see and hear, we'll start to see that side change their tune.
It's so much easier to hide behind the 2A when you're not confronted with the reality of what its costing innocent people
Umm if they didn't flinch at the Las Vegas shooting, why would they flinch at this?!? My question is if they haven't come to the table yet, should we keep inviting them? should we just go on...
Umm if they didn't flinch at the Las Vegas shooting, why would they flinch at this?!?
My question is if they haven't come to the table yet, should we keep inviting them? should we just go on without their input?
As horrifying as it would have been, the images from Sandy Hook should have been shared for this reason. Let people see the consequences of America's unique gun laws.
As horrifying as it would have been, the images from Sandy Hook should have been shared for this reason. Let people see the consequences of America's unique gun laws.
A lot of these shooters WANT the publicity. They avoid showing the footage for the same reason that they no longer name the perpetrators. It helps to lower the risk of fame hunting thrill killers.
A lot of these shooters WANT the publicity. They avoid showing the footage for the same reason that they no longer name the perpetrators. It helps to lower the risk of fame hunting thrill killers.
I know. And it makes total sense not to give them the notoriety they seek. But I also have to wonder if hearing and seeing people dying would have any affect on their stance. It's one thing to...
I know. And it makes total sense not to give them the notoriety they seek.
But I also have to wonder if hearing and seeing people dying would have any affect on their stance. It's one thing to believe in and defend the 2A. It's another to see just how badly that belief is affecting others. You hear something like that, you see something like that, it's a lot harder to forget it as opposed to just changing the channel from the latest news on the subject
I can agree with not sharing their name of face. But the piece of stream in which they're playing, you can see a damn red laser on the chest of a player and begin hearing the gun shoots and people...
I can agree with not sharing their name of face. But the piece of stream in which they're playing, you can see a damn red laser on the chest of a player and begin hearing the gun shoots and people screaming, running away, should be spread.
People are desensitized so much that it needs to be something shocking to budge a little their positions on something.
I just hope that people don't write it off if it comes out that the shooter was part of a gang. The laser makes me think that's the case but that shouldn't diminish how fucked up this is
I just hope that people don't write it off if it comes out that the shooter was part of a gang. The laser makes me think that's the case but that shouldn't diminish how fucked up this is
Just a heads up that you can hear the gunshots (and other sounds) even after the video is cut. This was a lot harder to watch/listen to than I thought it would be.
Just a heads up that you can hear the gunshots (and other sounds) even after the video is cut.
This was a lot harder to watch/listen to than I thought it would be.
What does that mean? I don't have an explanation but I don't see what is implausible about it. Also, I don't follow the reasoning. Assuming that your meaning behind "too good" is that this was...
This video seemed almost TOO good.
What does that mean?
Why did the controller immediately disconnect upon the player being shot?
I don't have an explanation but I don't see what is implausible about it. Also, I don't follow the reasoning. Assuming that your meaning behind "too good" is that this was staged, why would such an obvious detail be contradictory to expectation?
Oh I'm absolutely not saying it was staged. Maybe edited a bit though, to make it more concise. It just seems to jump immediately to 'controller disconnected', which struck me as a little odd....
Oh I'm absolutely not saying it was staged. Maybe edited a bit though, to make it more concise. It just seems to jump immediately to 'controller disconnected', which struck me as a little odd. Could be that he dropped the controller and the battery came out or something though.
Or it could be just a bullet demolishing the fuck out the controller causing the xbox to notice https://twitter.com/YoungDrini/status/1033771347036590081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Or it could be just a bullet demolishing the fuck out the controller causing the xbox to notice
I saw it live on twitch. This clip is legit. Controller could have disconnected due to It getting shot It being dropped when the guy got shot (batteries fall out of the wireless one's pretty easy)...
I saw it live on twitch. This clip is legit. Controller could have disconnected due to
It getting shot
It being dropped when the guy got shot (batteries fall out of the wireless one's pretty easy)
Someone hitting a button in the panic
The other guy running away while he's holding the controller
There's a discussion on CSGO's (another pouplar competitive game) /r/GlobalOffensive subreddit, and I think an interesting point is about security at the event. Since the event was so small...
There's a discussion on CSGO's (another pouplar competitive game) /r/GlobalOffensive subreddit, and I think an interesting point is about security at the event. Since the event was so small ($1000), they likely couldn't pay for security. A user wrote about security at a CSGO major:
Yeah I already mentioned it, but when I attended 2018 Boston ELEAGUE Major earlier this year, ELEAGUE did not mess around with their security protocol.
They made every attendee empty our pockets, go through pat-down, & made us use smaller bags that were handed out by ELEAGUE (to simplify bag-examination for all attendee for all 3 days).
There were dozens and dozens of security guards at the entrance. I even had a nice casual chat with a Boston police officer patrolling around Agganis Arena (2018 ELEAGUE Major venue). The officer coincidentally mentioned that he was only familiar playing Madden with his son after I asked about what he thought of the CSGO event in front of him.
But since that was a CSGO Major, the level of security was pretty solid as expected.
I guess one of few things that Esport event can improve on would be to enforce a line of security guards around the stage staring at the crowd (like they do during a major football/soccer matches).
But I imagine that is the most expensive option, which is probably why we recently saw such level of security during the World Cup. (https://i.imgur.com/jaC0zs4.jpg).
For fucks sake America, get your shit together. Gun control works. Gun control isn't hard. Stop killing people.
Sincerely, a frustrated Australian gun owner, who loves our gun control system.
Opponents like to argue that it doesn't because it only makes it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding innocent people to get weapons but not for criminals, which gives the latter an advantage.
It's surprisingly easy to get a gun in Australia. We just make sure that you aren't crazy, and have the right gun for the right job.
I'm a long distance target shooter, so I have some pretty powerful rifles. All I had to do was attend a basic safety course, and have a cursory background check. I also have to justify the use of my weapons by proving my membership of the Sporting Shooters Association. All of these things took minimal time and effort.
Also, contrary to popular belief, you CAN buy an AR-15 in Australia. We just restrict it to people who genuinely require them for pest control reasons.
Damn, I'm only a professional invertebrate pest controller :(
If you feel the need for a semi-automatic, there's actually a very tiny loophole.
You can get a semi-auto air rifle under a recreational license.
Jesus, what kinds of pests require an AR-15 to deal with?
I think maybe roo's count as pests in the land of Oz.
https://www.animallaw.info/intro/kangaroo-culling-australia
Am I close to correct, actual Australians?
It is Australia. They had a war with the emus that they were initially losing
Mostly semi-auto firearms get used when you need quantity. For example, when you want to fill as much of a herd/group as possible, before they all escape back into the scrub.
And it's not wrong.
But the point of countries in which the gun are much harder to get, or don't have a social acceptance of carrying a gun with you as a "normal thing" is that if some criminal enter your premises, 99/100 times is to rob you. And it's not worth it to die over your precious macBook. Also, in 2018 I seriously hope you've at least an insurance for your home possessions. If you don't, you probably don't have stuff worth robbing anyway and I assure you, robbers will know that.
For shops, I think it's everywhere policy to let the robbers take whatever the fuck they want because insurance.
So really, what's the use-case scenario that make it so having a gun on you actually is less dangerous?
I find it disingenuous to equate the killing potential of guns to that of knives - that's why there's the expression about it being folly to "bring a knife to a gun fight."
As for the killdozer - it actually killed no one, despite being built expressly for damage. This person today managed to kill four people, all by purchasing off-the-shelf guns.
No one is arguing that getting rid of guns will rid us of violence. But gun control can reduce the potential damage of violent outbursts.
I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted what zendainc posted. He didn't argue that it will get rid of all violence. He said it "works", which is vague, but I'm guessing he meant "reduces gun violence."
I agree with you on working on the underlying issues, thus I didn't bring that part up!
I also believe it makes sense to work on both the cause and the symptoms. For example, if you've got a painful disease, they don't simply put you on a treatment plan for curing the underlying disease - you'll be given painkillers, too, to lower the pain while the treatment does its work.
This is why in Jacksonville, everyone in the room instantly shot back at the attacker, incapacitating him without problems and continuing to play games happily afterwards. After they applauded, of course.
Wasn't this a gun free zone anyways?
I kind of assume that the fact that bombings are less common in USA than mass gun violence is because it's so much harder to get your hands on a bomb than on a gun.
If it's harder to get your hands on a gun, then you're gonna have a lot of people deterred from committing violence. Not everyone, but a lot.
I like the system of some other countries to prove you need a gun. Background check, proof of gun safety course, proof of need (gun collector club membership with proven collection, membership to shooting league, live on farm, whatever). It's not going to stop everyone, but it will stop those people who have said "They were right there. It was easy."
I personally think that guns need to have background checks. But I also see it being futile to try and impose extreme rules on everyone.
And the most commonly cited source for mass shootings I found everything with 4+ injured count as a mass shooting. This includes gang violence (where most guns are illegal anyways) and which afaik exagerrates the number by quite a bit.
Also: we kinda got off an tangent, with whether or not it was a gun free zone, so I searched for it myself and found that it indeed was. I used this search
But what I was getting at, poorly, was it's easy to carry a gun into a gun free zone. If it wasn't easy to get a gun, that would make a bigger difference.
I don't think the rules I listed were extreme.
In that case, I meant basically completely banning guns. Sorry if it came across as meaning your suggestions were extreme. (Not being a native english speaker sucks some times.)
I don't understand how other civilians with guns, or anyone else with guns for that matter could have responded to that particular situation in time. The whole thing took, what, 10 seconds? Am I correct on that? Is someone going to have time to identify the shooter in a crowded space, make sure the line of fire is clear, and take a shot?
It could at least have served as a form of discouragement for the shooter.
The shooter ended up killing themselves anyway, though. What kind of discouragement would the nebulous threat of someone who might have a gun really offer to someone who planned on shooting themselves anyway?
Ok. That is new info for me. I'll have to think about it.
Jesus man, I play Madden and happened to be watching a streamer that was playing Madden at the time...
He's an EA Gamechanger so has plenty of friends that were there and he just kinda went quiet, teared up, and stopped the stream when he finally was convinced and saw the clip. Pretty chilling, laser on his chest seconds later shots. It's just feels unreal.
Yeah I was watching that shit live. It was surreal
Some useful advice for these situations: Don’t name them.
From that page:
I think the media is a huge contributor to the problem. They ignore any and all advice on how to handle shootings, cover them for days, give them as much attention as possible,, and face no consequences. This is one of my biggest problems with for-profit media.
I wonder what Will get blamed as the cause of this shooting so the guns can be absolved.
I'm a big believer in gun control, but I have to stress that these sorts of attacks aren't a gun problem, they are a mental health problem, though it could possibly be described better as a gun access problem.
America doesn't do anything about guns or mental health. We just use mental health as a scapegoat to rationalize things.
There are people with mental health problems in all countries, but mass shootings are very rare in all first world countries except America, so mental health probably isn't the main cause. I'm not claiming it's specifically a gun access problem either. It might have something to do with culture, education and/or other factors. It's a complex issue, but I believe gun control is one of many factors which might need to be adjusted to improve the situation long term.
I think that every pro-gun control person knows that limiting access to guns doesn't solve the violence in itself, but as you're right, and as other have said, it's hard to kill tens of people and wound hundreds in a matter of minutes, with a knife for example.
I didn't know how to frame this earlier, But the post on reddit where crazy when sorting by controversial. The amount of Vote manipulation/ astroturfing that was going on their was unreal, I wish I had taken a screenshot, the numbers seemed to have flipped now, but any comment on gun control seemed to be -20
I already saw videogames being blamed.
How do they dismiss the fact that it was a tournament for a football video game?
IDK, I'd be down with blaming American Football.
I am fully expecting gamergate to be unfairly blamed too.
Unpopular opinion but I believe the audio and video from this needs to be shared far and wide.
Maybe when the 2A crowd finally starts to see and hear what these tragedies actually look and sound like, rather than what Fox News wants them to see and hear, we'll start to see that side change their tune.
It's so much easier to hide behind the 2A when you're not confronted with the reality of what its costing innocent people
Umm if they didn't flinch at the Las Vegas shooting, why would they flinch at this?!?
My question is if they haven't come to the table yet, should we keep inviting them? should we just go on without their input?
As horrifying as it would have been, the images from Sandy Hook should have been shared for this reason. Let people see the consequences of America's unique gun laws.
A lot of these shooters WANT the publicity. They avoid showing the footage for the same reason that they no longer name the perpetrators. It helps to lower the risk of fame hunting thrill killers.
I know. And it makes total sense not to give them the notoriety they seek.
But I also have to wonder if hearing and seeing people dying would have any affect on their stance. It's one thing to believe in and defend the 2A. It's another to see just how badly that belief is affecting others. You hear something like that, you see something like that, it's a lot harder to forget it as opposed to just changing the channel from the latest news on the subject
I can agree with not sharing their name of face. But the piece of stream in which they're playing, you can see a damn red laser on the chest of a player and begin hearing the gun shoots and people screaming, running away, should be spread.
People are desensitized so much that it needs to be something shocking to budge a little their positions on something.
I just hope that people don't write it off if it comes out that the shooter was part of a gang. The laser makes me think that's the case but that shouldn't diminish how fucked up this is
Another day, another mass shooting in the U.S.A...
Does anyone have a mirror of the deleted Twitch clip?
https://livestreamfails.com/post/27783
Laser on the black guy's chest right before the webcam feed is switched. Jesus Christ.
Just a heads up that you can hear the gunshots (and other sounds) even after the video is cut.
This was a lot harder to watch/listen to than I thought it would be.
This video seemed almost TOO good. Why did the controller immediately disconnect upon the player being shot?
What does that mean?
I don't have an explanation but I don't see what is implausible about it. Also, I don't follow the reasoning. Assuming that your meaning behind "too good" is that this was staged, why would such an obvious detail be contradictory to expectation?
Oh I'm absolutely not saying it was staged. Maybe edited a bit though, to make it more concise. It just seems to jump immediately to 'controller disconnected', which struck me as a little odd. Could be that he dropped the controller and the battery came out or something though.
Ahh now that is something I didn't think about. Good point.
Or it could be just a bullet demolishing the fuck out the controller causing the xbox to notice
https://twitter.com/YoungDrini/status/1033771347036590081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I saw it live on twitch. This clip is legit. Controller could have disconnected due to
It getting shot
It being dropped when the guy got shot (batteries fall out of the wireless one's pretty easy)
Someone hitting a button in the panic
The other guy running away while he's holding the controller
Someone throwing their controller at the shooter.
I had never noticed that before when I watched that clip. Is there confirmation that he was shot and if so what is his state?
One person on reddit claimed that someone had been using a laser pointer to annoy players throughout the stream. So it might not be a laser sight.
I certainly hope that is the case, there is a massive difference between knowing someone died and seeing them seconds before they die.
There's a discussion on CSGO's (another pouplar competitive game) /r/GlobalOffensive subreddit, and I think an interesting point is about security at the event. Since the event was so small ($1000), they likely couldn't pay for security. A user wrote about security at a CSGO major:
Source