Intentional headshots? Good or bad?

[bah]

It must be just the way I play then. That or years playing snipers in online gaming CS/TFC/TF2/BF2 etc. When training with targets (I use TAPSS) I always aim for the head (unless I'm testing a gun then I just group).

 

ok, if every hit counts. no matter where said hit hits. then why the hell bother with a small possibly hard to hit target that can cause some form of injury. on PURPOSE.

simply put with you 2 targets to shot at one is 8inches wide and high. and the other is around 5 times that size.. and it gets the same results why the hell bother with the smaller one???

unless of course you are a total $%@^&@! and are just out to A: hurt people. B: start fights, C: give even more reasons for them to ban it totally.

 

in short not so kind sir.

why? its not a dam computer game.

 

i hope you deliberately ###### off some huge horrible ###### someday with unnecessary head shots.

 

 

if you must "test" your skill, get a paper target and challenge others to either score higher. or in the case of draws go for the tighest grouping at the farthest range..

 

there are other ways to tone and hone your skill. besides trying to anger and annoy your friends and peers.

 

[nine]

What if they're looking away from you?

well i dont walk behind someone and shoot them in the back of the head....

infact i've never played with anyone who has. I play CQB not woodland

[Sale]

Basho: Please re-read my post on page five. I'm totally on your side here.

 

Of course, it would be naive of me to attempt to convince anyone else of this, seeing how entrenched in their views those who do intentionally aim for head shots seem to be. I suppose it'll remain part and parcel of the joys of airsofting, along with cheating and egocentric individuals ranting mid-skirmish.

I don't take intentional head-shots, but I don't see the problem either. Actually I remember playing at a local field who had banned headshots, but the rule was dropped because it only caused more arguments and accusations, when someone got the occasional high flyer to the head.

 

So still no justification for deliberately shooting someone in the unprotected areas of their head when other parts of their body are available then?

Still no justification for inadequate safety gear? Intentional or not, there are going to be hits to the head. Wear the safety gear, and the safety problem is solved. That should be the end of the discussion, unless you don't take safety issues seriously. What I'm seeing from your side is: "Oh you don't have to wear proper safety gear. We agree not to aim for the head, so the odds are better." Please tell me where I got it wrong? Please tell me I got it wrong...

 

On to the comfort issues and guilt:

 

I have to say that the most painful shots I've ever received have been to the fingers and my bum. Of course it was part of the game, so the shooter was not to blame. About 7 years ago in an urban area I suddenly appeared from behind a corner, and opened fire with the opponent almost simultaneously. My tooth snapped in two, and I now have two titanium pins embedded into the stud, with a plastic tooth molded around it. I haven't been that mad at myself many times. To find the ###### to blame for the incident, all I needed was a mirror. The shooter was and still is one of my best friends.

 

Because people are still going to miss the points, I'll say again: I don't aim for the head intentionally. I aim for the easiest (=biggest) target, center mass. I'm just asking people to use some logic when they argue against intentional headshots.

 

-Sale

[Xaccers]

Sale, do you wear an all round mask that covers your neck and the back of your head?

 

[mrblah]

I aim for whatever body part that I can hit, and if the only part i can hit is the head, then so be it, as long as I'm at a safe distance, and I had no other choice. Thats not the same as going out and shooting people in the head for *suitcases* n giggles because its the 1337 thing to do.

 

I love how some people think that because its not in the rules that it is safe to go for the head. Now, while that is totally true that you can aim for the head, you should take precautions, and really think about the risks not only for his safety but yours also (I kid you not), because I've been in and seen fights break out over this, and it isn't worth it. Actually, i think every fight i've witnessed and the one fight i was involved in was because someone shot someone in the head intentionally (in my case, some scrawny 17yr old kid decided that full auto in the face/head was a ok substitute for surrender rules because there wasn't any rules that said he couldn't do so). As for me, having bloody welts and broken skin on my face and neck is unacceptable especially if could have been avoided.

 

Also, I agree with the others that to cause harm, injury, or humiliate others is against "the spirit of the game", even if its not in rule book, doesn't mean you should do it, and telling them to wear better protection or buy better insurance doesn't mean its ok for the shooter to avoid the responsibility of his actions.

[parpar]

 

 

Sale, the points you are making are pretty much inline with what most other have said (regarding wearing proper protection, head shots being part of the game etc etc).

 

However, there is one big difference between what the majority of people on this thread (including yourself) are saying and what Basho is saying, which can be found in the following. You and most others say:

 

Because people are still going to miss the points, I'll say again: I don't aim for the head intentionally. I aim for the easiest (=biggest) target, center mass. I'm just asking people to use some logic when they argue against intentional headshots.

 

Basho on the other hand sais that by choice, he conciously ALWAYS aims for the head. Regardless of what other body parts are available to target.

 

So, in effect, his is the only reply fitting the bill of why this thread was started by the OP to begin with. He wanted to see if there are people out there continuously hunting for head shots. He found one. As far as I can remember there isn't a single other poster saying that they persistently and on purpose aim for the head, even if a bigger/easier target is available.

 

Granted, if you're only poking your head out of a cover position of some sort you're likely to get shot in it and in such a case you'd HAVE to accept it cause it was the only target you presented. But, if I were out in the open and someone shot me in the face/ear I'd definately go over and have a chat with the guy that took the shot. If he said he did it intentionally I imagine I'd be rather ###### off about it.

 

On another note, there's something that I asked in a previous post that didn't get commented upon by anyone so I'll ask again.

Why do sites where the minimum engagement distance is small (i.e. all cqb sites at least) not make full face protection a REQUIREMENT instead of a suggestion?

That way everyone will be happy (or at least happier). Basho-styled players will be able to bash their opponent's masks in (bad joke I know ) without having to defend their playing style on a forum. Their oponents won't have to become regulars at A&E's and take out insurances on their teeth/eyes/ears etc etc.

 

 

[Angry]

I've accidentally snap shot people in the head before, but I wouldn't do it intentionally, unless of course it was the visible target.

[DecimusKrieg]

On another note, there's something that I asked in a previous post that didn't get commented upon by anyone so I'll ask again.

Why do sites where the minimum engagement distance is small (i.e. all cqb sites at least) not make full face protection a REQUIREMENT instead of a suggestion?

That way everyone will be happy (or at least happier). Basho-styled players will be able to bash their opponent's masks in (bad joke I know ) without having to defend their playing style on a forum. Their oponents won't have to become regulars at A&E's and take out insurances on their teeth/eyes/ears etc etc.

 

It's a good point, and one that myself a few others in this discussion have made. Put simply however, it won't happen. Not only cus the obsessive geardos won't let a mask ruin their 'beautiful' <ahem> loadout, and site managers won't risk implimenting such rules as they're fully aware that it could alienate and/or annoy said Geardos to the point of the site losing custom. The fact remains that lost teeth and faces covered with welts are not enough to make full face a necessity, it is only eyes that sites have to ensure are protected, and with that, the site's interests are covered, therefore, everything else is at your own risk.

 

Decimus.

 

[[T.A.G]-M.S.FOLSBERG]

If the target dont have protected their head, its not my problem.. If they want to be hard and only play with glasses, its their own fault if they loose a tooth.

 

That said, i dont aim for the head if i can aim another place..

[minimiman]

Boy this is a heated one!

 

I don't like being shot in the head, it's just not nice. Full face or not the ears, skull and neck are vulnerable areas that hurt if hit. So I don't deliberatly shoot somebody else in the head. I can't say I have never shot somebody in the head, I have, but it's not my preferred and intentional target. Centre mass is the place I aim for. I apologise to somebody if I shoot them in the head, airsoft is a game played by enthusiasts, anybody out there looking to deliberatly hurt other players should take up another sport.

 

At my site the rule is 'no deliberate head shots'. If you get shot in the head, it's still a kill, if you just stick your head out and get tagged, all well and good, but a player deliberatly targeting others in the head on purpose will be shown the door and would not be welcome back. These are my site rules, when I play elsewhere I operate by the rules of the site and as I wear prescription glasses and have huge steaming problems with masks, including mesh (my prescription glasses are the problem) I accept being shot in the head as an acceptasble risk.

 

I still would be less than happy if somebody targeted me diliberately in the head, it's just not a nice thing to do and the arguments about inadequate protection are not sportsmanlike. All that leads to is players looking to 'get them back' and the inevitable searching for vulnerable spots and longer than necessary bursts to get a kill. We are under enough pressure from outside sources without that kind of rubbish going on.

 

Airsoft is the most honerable and friendly sport I have ever participated in, lets keep it that way.

[stewpidbear]

Spot on minimiman!

[DecimusKrieg]

Airsoft is the most honerable and friendly sport I have ever participated in, lets keep it that way.

 

And Minimiman sums it up in one!

 

But yea, have you tried using contact lenses to allow you to wear a mask? That's what I do, as I wear glasses most of the time.

 

Decimus.

[Basho]

I still would be less than happy if somebody targeted me diliberately in the head, it's just not a nice thing to do and the arguments about inadequate protection are not sportsmanlike.

 

My argument is that airsoft will never be a "sport" until it is able to properly mandate the safety of its participants.

 

Of course, if there is a specific rule against something then I would follow that.

 

Most site rules unfortunately state that headshots are fine. So, if you are going to play a sport then you cannot moan about if you are beaten according to the rules.

 

And may I ask, how exactly do you decide what is a "deliberate" headshot? Remember we are talking about combat here with full auto weapons! And I am not talking about executions (the tag/bang rule is very clear at my site), I'm talking about open play.

 

You either have no headshots at all or all headshots. Please explain.

 

Also, I actually prefer being shot in the head. Why? Because I wear full face, it hurts not at all and I know beyond any possible doubt I have been hit.

 

I think a lot of what is being posted in this thread is a combination of self delusion and wishful thinking.

 

[Xaccers]

You don't know what a deliberate headshot is???

How can you not know?

It's when someone (like you) delibertately aims for the head of another player.

You've already said if they're wearing just glasses and lose a tooth, then that's their problem so you'd be willing to take out someone's teeth simply because you like doing head shots, you'd be sorry, but you'd take the shot deliberately aiming for their head (at CQB ranges) anyway.

 

I know electrowerkz, I've had the displeasure of experiencing teflon timmy's there, so I know how often people can be shot in the back of their heads, which as I've said before, face masks don't cover, likewise with necks, so your "If they're wearing full face it doesn't matter" argument is valueless.

 

If we all turned up and whenever taking a shot against you deliberately went for your plums, would you be perfectly ok with that?

After all, nothing in the rules states plum shots aren't allowed right?

[GuzziHero]

[snip]

 

And may I ask, how exactly do you decide what is a "deliberate" headshot?

 

[snip]

 

I think a lot of what is being posted in this thread is a combination of self delusion and wishful thinking.

 

Point 1 - the shooter knows. And if the shooter has the mentality that aiming deliberately at anothers head, regardless of the level of his head protection, then that concerns me.

 

So, another question or 3:

1/ Do you consider it 'teaching someone a lesson' about face protection by firing directly at their heads?

2/ Either by saying "Gee, shows you were right wearing that" if they do have full face, or "Gee, that was a bad decision" if they dont?

3/ If you are firing at someone who isnt wearing full face protection, would you still deliberately head-hunt him knowing that you have a more than reasonable chance of causing them considerable pain if you hit?

4/ Would you even bother to hesitate to head-hunt, or go for that headshot without hesitation?

 

Point 2 - I know that none of my guns are accurate enough that I could guarantee a headshot at 60ft on a stationary target, never mind one moving while in a competitive environment. Heck, yesterday I used an M14 for one game and had to take 3 shots while lying prone, to hit a targets leg at around 50ft range. I think that the concept of someone being accurate enough while in a charge to be able to head-shot people is the self delusion and wishful thinking here.

[Basho]

You don't know what a deliberate headshot is???

How can you not know?

It's when someone (like you) delibertately aims for the head of another player.

 

Let look at this from the point of view of enforcement. How do you know as the marshal that a person directly targetted the head? You don't, you have no idea.

 

You've already said if they're wearing just glasses and lose a tooth, then that's their problem

 

Look you can have it one way or another. Either headshots are banned: fine. Or they are allowed: fine. Either way, at the moment the protection is in the hands of the player. I would like to see the protection to be mandated by the site.

So I know how often people can be shot in the back of their heads

 

We have no bang rule, but rather a tag rule. Flanking is vital to play. Being shot in the back of the head is not a serious injury compared to the front of the face.

 

If we all turned up and whenever taking a shot against you deliberately went for your plums, would you be perfectly ok with that?

 

I always wear a box. Also, ganging up on a player like that will get you sin binned quicker than fried chicken.

[stewpidbear]

"I always wear a box. Also, ganging up on a player like that will get you sin binned quicker than fried chicken."

 

Why? As in your analogy of it's not illegal, so it's allowed

[Basho]

 

1/ Do you consider it 'teaching someone a lesson' about face protection by firing directly at their heads?

 

No.

2/ Either by saying "Gee, shows you were right wearing that" if they do have full face, or "Gee, that was a bad decision" if they dont?

 

Is that a question?

 

3/ If you are firing at someone who isnt wearing full face protection, would you still deliberately head-hunt him knowing that you have a more than reasonable chance of causing them considerable pain if you hit?

 

If that was the only target presented, then yes. If however the target was open, say I flanked him, I wouldn't. Normally when having flanked someone I shoot em in the helmet.

 

4/ Would you even bother to hesitate to head-hunt, or go for that headshot without hesitation?

 

If the target is only presented via the head then yes, a single shot to the head.

Point 2 - I know that none of my guns are accurate enough that I could guarantee a headshot at 60ft on a stationary target

 

My standard range is 10 - 20ft. Headshots with a pistol are very very common.

[GuzziHero]

No.

 

 

Is that a question?

 

 

 

If that was the only target presented, then yes. If however the target was open, say I flanked him, I wouldn't. Normally when having flanked someone I shoot em in the helmet.

 

 

 

If the target is only presented via the head then yes, a single shot to the head.

 

 

My standard range is 10 - 20ft. Headshots with a pistol are very very common.

 

Right! We're getting somewhere! Im not a religious man but...HALLELUJAH!

 

So...youre saying that if someone is peeking over cover and you can only see their head, you will shoot it. But if theyre in the open, say with their back to you or not in any cover, you will aim for wherever you can based on instinct? I dont think many people will disagree with hitting wherever they can target their opponent. If that means the head because its the only target presented, I dont think many would hesitate much.

 

See my only real issue is that of the intent to hit the head when an alternative part of the body is available. Your original post, and some others youve made, seem to give the impression that you run round with your pistol locked onto the faces of opposition players like that feller from the 'BOOM! HEADSHOT!' video on YouTube. As long as thats not the case, then my argument is over, because thats the only part of your debate I disagree with!

[heroshark]

Aim should always be centre-mass anyway. But if a head is all I can see, I will aim for it.

 

ditto

[Basho]

Look, I am not cruel. And I am certainly not like the Pure PWNage guy (as funny as he is). I should point out that I do know players who are like him. Perhaps they should be the one people should be wary of?

 

In all truthfulness, aiming is something I am one of two states about. Either I have time, in which case I may base my targeting around the choice of limb or perhaps aim at something that will properly alert the opponent like a helmet (my fav). Or, case two, I don’t have time and my natural reaction is the headshot.

 

In any case when assaulting (as I originally claimed) time is not on my side and 90% of the combat is instinctive. For example a few weeks ago I was assaulting a nest with others with only 10 seconds left. We made one last rush through the smoke and I managed to get close enough to see the opponents. I instinctively shot all four of them as fast as I could. One got it in the head; the others got it in the body. In my defence they were shooting back at me through portholes and I only had my pistol and it was pure instinctive shooting.

 

Now. If the site marshal had said, "no headshots" then there would be no question of targeting that way.

 

[GuzziHero]

Well, thats the end of my argument then Personally, I dont think I often have time to aim naturally for the head...heck, Im lucky if Im aiming enough to hit them at all! I just shoot at that I can see, and I think that most people are exactly the same way.

 

[Xaccers]

Let look at this from the point of view of enforcement. How do you know as the marshal that a person directly targetted the head? You don't, you have no idea.

 

And you say you're a marshall?

Do you not actually watch the players?

If we get reports of people getting repeatedly hit in the head (as I said, most snipers at our site are mature and responsible enough to not aim for heads) we'll keep an eye on the person doing it, and if they are taking head shots we'll have a quiet word.

Marshalling isn't just about deciding what games are next or briefing players, it's about watching the players and making sure people are taking hits, aren't breaking the rules, aren't deliberately targetting certain players, taking dangerous shots, rincing people etc.

 

Look you can have it one way or another. Either headshots are banned: fine. Or they are allowed: fine. Either way, at the moment the protection is in the hands of the player. I would like to see the protection to be mandated by the site.

 

Is that really what you believe? So no space for "only if that's the only part that a player is showing" you see with that, the choice is firmly in the hands of the target, either to stick their head out knowing it is going to be shot at, or keep down.

 

We have no bang rule, but rather a tag rule. Flanking is vital to play. Being shot in the back of the head is not a serious injury compared to the front of the face.

 

Really? I've been shot at 30m in the side of the head and the blood coming out of my ear would make me disagree with you about being shot in the parts of the head not protected by a face mask

 

I always wear a box. Also, ganging up on a player like that will get you sin binned quicker than fried chicken.

 

Well, if as a marshall YOU aren't able to tell if someone is deliberately taking head shots, then how would you know if someone is being ganged up on?

[Basho]

If we get reports of people getting repeatedly hit in the head...

 

Perhaps you have to play intense CQB to realise the futility of this one. BB's are flying frickin everywhere and everyone is getting hit everywhere pretty much constantly in some games.

 

Of course I "watch" the players. Like a hawk. I am probably a more forceful marshal than most and will quite simply not stand for organised cheating of any type.

 

What I am looking for here is a way of enforcing this particular rule given the experiences we all have had. If you "spot" cheating is one thing, but not all. Most cheats do everything they can to hide their actions. What do you do when someone comes crying "Cheat! Cheat!" Personally, we give the "offender" their own marshal. I have walked around the site directly with a group before to make absolutely sure they had stopped cheating. They did when I was there and then started again and so we banned them.

 

Now, since headshots are allowed in some sort of "accidental sense" I put it to you that unless you see direct targeting of the head, you cannot know what has happened.

 

You see, you send someone who delights in "bending" the rules (often by following them to the letter) to catch people actually breaking them. Not much gets passed our marshals I tell you.

 

But this is beside the point. If, in briefing, the marshals mentioned "please avoid headshots where possible" then that would be fine and easy to follow. However, when they don’t have that rule and it is some sort of mishmash of feelings. Or worse when headshots are actually allowed, but not really. Or even worse still, when headshots are allowed but not if someone gets hurt, I say you cannot properly enforce that.

 

And the point is that if full-face was mandatory you wouldn’t have to worry.

 

It concerns me that some sites have "favourites". Regular players that get special treatment. A local sniper, “oh, he would never purposefully headshot”. A “player-marshal” is given a let-off, but a new guy is given a ######ing. These things are wrong and an example of sloppy rulemaking.

 

I am please to say that at electro' some of the most senior people have been accused of cheating and got the same treatment as everyone else. This includes senior members of the DA's. No one gets a bye. Everyone must play to the rules.

 

Inside the rules, you are free. Shoot the head. That is fine.

 

Basho

 

 

 

[snorkelman]

When it comes to sports injuries intent and reckless behaviour is everything. Someone puts my teeth out by accident or as result of no other part of me being an available target at time he took the shot? Fair enough more fool me for not having adequate protection to guard against that my choice I live with the consequences.

 

Some grinning village idiot causes the same injury because they have a hard on for headshots even when unnecessary and has turned taking them into a deliberate policy? Different story that wouldnt be having a happy ending.