this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
147 points (94.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8642 readers
646 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
147
Families of Uvalde victims sue Activision, say Call of Duty is 'the most prolific and effective marketer of assault weapons in the United States' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is insane. The new default in civil suits is just to go after whoever is tangentially related to the situation at hand who also happens to have money. Neither the manufacturer of the weapon nor Activision is liable. They sell legal products.

What would be more just, is a mechanism for pilfering the shooters organs and selling them on the open market, collecting his life insurance, and then dividing that combined spoil among the victims.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

is a mechanism for pilfering the shooters organs and selling them on the open market

I understand the sentiment (not that I agree), but this has myriad practical issues. For one, there is no open market for organs, and creating one would make the healthcare system extremely fucked for poor people. Secondly, harvesting organs basically requires the person to die in the hospital. Preferably not full of bullet holes.

collecting his life insurance

My main issue with this is that you screw over the beneficiary of the insurance, who may not have any responsibility for the shooting but could very well be harmed by not having the financial support. Imagine a shooter with a newborn child as beneficiary of the insurance policy; would it be just to take that money from the child?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

People never think these ideas through to the end. They are thrown out as emotional outlets, ignoring the fact that more pain would be caused.