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

PC Gaming

7573 readers
266 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki


  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.
  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
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NocturnalMorning 128 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] BlitzKrieg2552 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 weeks ago

They voted all the leadership positions for the Uvalde police back in, so voters collectively approved of their actions.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] mydude 75 points 3 weeks ago

Talk about misdirected anger....

[–] [email protected] 72 points 3 weeks ago

Uvalde was a tragedy but this has absolutely no merit

[–] [email protected] 60 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And the result was... Finish the rest

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Insurance, apparently. The parents are also suing each cop individually, and the school district.

[–] Crismus 55 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 weeks ago

Prediction: This will get thrown out almost immediately.

[–] newthrowaway20 28 points 3 weeks ago

This is a huge stretch and I completely disagree with the premise.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 weeks ago

CoD is propaganda for the MIC and US imperialism, not gun companies.

[–] Evotech 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

I don't believe their cause has anything to do with actual justice for the victims.

[–] wildcardology 13 points 3 weeks ago

How about suing the NRA or congress.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

Jfc, people are stupid

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

「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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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:

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] Thcdenton 6 points 3 weeks ago

They have learned nothing from their loss.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lawyers seeking profits and piss poor parenting.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

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.