I understand they want closure and to prevent this from happening again, but suing a video game publisher bcz of depictions of guns is a bit of a reach.
There's research to back this up, video games do not cause violence.
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
147 points (94.0% liked)
PC Gaming
7827 readers
479 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- 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
They just want closure and for something to blame without actually tackling the real problem, gun control, which will never happen because ‘murica. They’d never get anywhere if they tried.
They voted all the leadership positions for the Uvalde police back in, so voters collectively approved of their actions.
The research is not nearly comprehensive enough to say that a massively popular game franchise does not have a social and political effect on how people view firearms. That's a massive leap from "gamer kids don't get into fights at recess more than non-gamers."
I agree purely on a "cultural influence" level, as while I doubt CoD caused a school shooting, it seems the argument these grieving families are making is "CoD glorifies guns and gun culture, therefore this will send a message that gun culture is not acceptable and guns being admired is dangerous." On that I feel that if they have to destroy an over monetized and creatively bankrupt game franchise to send a message that guns are not toys or fashion accessories, CoD's continuation will not be missed by the majority of gamers.
My only concern is that if they do succeed, that means anything can be censored in the US if it promotes cult-like behavior, which is too subjective to be properly defined without giving politicians another way to FUD people and thus does not solve the problem.
That, and fuck those cops who caused the majority of the issue. At that point, grab kitchen knives, conceal them, go to a local police station, calmly say you want to report a crime, and when the cop comes out to ask, slit his throat and say "this is for the kids you killed". I would not trust an American cop ever at this point, so if anyone from my own or any other country reads this, I'm not going to kill a cop because the RCMP are actually trustworthy and have ensured everyone's safety. I'm not intending to incite actual violence, only stating that these families are targeting the wrong people and they're probably doing it because they were told justice will never come because the fucking police wanted it that way.
Talk about misdirected anger....
Uvalde was a tragedy but this has absolutely no merit
Sorry, wrong target. Sue the cops who didn't act. Oh, wait. They're basically untouchable. Well, I guess sue yourselves for having children in America. That's about the only case you might win.
They did sue the cops.
And the result was... Finish the rest
About 120K per kid.
I assume, paid for by the state out of the general fund, with no impact on police budgets. But I'd love to hear I was wrong.
Insurance, apparently. The parents are also suing each cop individually, and the school district.
I find it sad that some lawyer sold them on this suit, while also settling with the police department for peanuts.
The police caused all of the extra pain here, and no studies have ever shown a link to violence from video games.
I have no doubt that Adam Lanza's obsession with Dance Dance Revolution compelled him to commit the Sandy Hook massacre.
That's how they get you. Before it was Catcher In The Rye, then it was Helter Skelter. Next it'll be Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe!
It's the tessellation of the splines, I tell you! THE TESSELLATION OF THE SPLINES
The fact that CoD doesn't even use real guns/manufacturers anymore makes me think this suit has zero chance. Video games do not cause violence, certainly not more than any other media!
Yeah, without evidence that Activision/CoD were intentionally in cahoots with arms manufacturers, this is pretty flimsy.
I do think the case against Daniel Defense is stronger, though. I can see a legitimate argument being made that guns should not be advertised directly at teenagers and young men, and that firearms shouldn't be advertised on social media in general.
Prediction: This will get thrown out almost immediately.
This is a huge stretch and I completely disagree with the premise.
CoD is propaganda for the MIC and US imperialism, not gun companies.
Way to damage your cause
I don't believe their cause has anything to do with actual justice for the victims.
How about suing the NRA or congress.
Jfc, people are stupid
Maybe they should switch gears and try suing them for motivating basement dwelling armchair Action heroes so they became Uvalde Cops. No wonder they thought they could handle a shooter until shit got real.
「Points to US Army.」
COD has had creepy right wing ideology sewn into it at least as far back as Ghosts (which also featured -- I hear -- amazing dog levels) but yes, even recent one had messages more about _are you willing to make the tough choices [and commit atrocities] in the name of national security. That's pretty right-wing.
But that doesnt qualify as incitement to action (at least not in US law) because it isn't specific (e.g. Justice Thomas must be killed before he does any further damage to our civil rights )
Freedom of speech allows us to paint groups as bad guys in art, and it's up to our critics and curators to highlight these and other problematic features.
it's interesting how they got to this target as conclusion.
for places that don't ban guns, every walmart would have them with minimal barriers for buying.
like what steam does for games, maybe it's because these guns are that easy to acquire to begin with?
I'm not so sure Walmart sells guns any more. They don't in my area and I live in a very gun friendly area. They just seem to sell air rifles and hunting accessories.
They don't sell them online, but they do still sell them in stores. They only stopped selling some guns and some types of ammo.
From the horse's mouth:
The brakes in my car didn’t work because the car Company bribed the government to not put any regulations in place. Let’s sue those damn breakdancers. It sure must have been because of these breakdancers.
They have learned nothing from their loss.
On one hand, the lawsuit seems nonsensical. OTOH, if a jury decided to side with individuals suing a major companies like Activision regardless of the specifics of the case, I certainly wouldn't blame them.
I admire your optimism, but that kind of case wouldn't go the way you hope. Specifics are important. These people are using a tragedy to advance an unrelated agenda.
This isn't "the enemy of my enemy". It wouldn't at all be a reflection on capitalism... it would instead be used entirely in opposition to free speech, gun control and general common sense.
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.
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?
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.
Lawyers seeking profits and piss poor parenting.
And a societal structure that both does very little to catch piss poor parenting while also guaranteeing that a minimum amount of poor parenting can have large and devastating consequences.