ArnoldRimmer said:
I kind of agree. If this were the US where killing sprees in schools are common, people had probably behaved different. But in a country that apparently didn't have any school attack in over 50 years? What I don't quite get btw. is why they had to kill the boy instead of just giving him with a non-lethal shot. I understand that homicidal maniacs with guns are usually killed when trying to stop them as they pose a very serious danger to the policemen as well; but can a kid with a sword pose such a serious danger to policemen armed with guns that they can't fire a non-lethal shot at him first? Since he only had a sword, the attacker has to come as close as about a meter in order to hurt others, while armed policemen can easily hurt an attacker from several dozen meters away. |
We dont know if the policemen had to take him out inside the school, because if thats the case, then swords have sort of the advantage, since the halls would give too many blind spots, and swords are better for close combat than guns(if handled correctly of course).All in all, i think the police made the right choice.I mean, there were 2 deads and 2 injured and if they kept preocupied with not killing him maybe more people would get killed.
My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1







