Originally Posted by Mootho
I wonder if this author was actually trying to make a different point by proposing such an outlandish theory. I think the whole point of his article is summed up in the last paragraph: Basically, "take it easy on new folks." Anyone with a grain of sense can tell you that delinquents/criminals are responsible for their own actions, and it would be foolish to hold a field owner responsible for the criminal actions of such miscreants. But by making such an outlandish claim, the author is getting his readers to think about two problems: Paintball vandalism and crime, and "beating up" noobs. And a quick look at some of the rational and reasoned posts in this thread suggests to me that he has done just that. So yes, his "theory" is laughably foolish, but the issues he brings up may well be worth some discussion.
I have no doubt the author's reason for writing the article was exactly that. Much of Davidson's editorials on his own sight revolve around the same subject. It's very obvious he's an advocate for players and field owners treating newbies properly.
Although I don't think his theory holds a lot of water, I don't think his theory is all that far fetched either. Look at people who abuse their kids. Very often, they themselves were raised in an environment where they were abused by their parent(s). That's common knowledge now, but there was a time when people thought that theory was outlandish. I realize that going to a field and getting beat up once or twice is probably not going to lead to a life long spree of violent acts, but the idea of someone coming away pissed off from a situation where he felt he was "abused" and then taking it out on others, is in my opinion, not an out of the question theory.