• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      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]M
        link
        fedilink
        61 year 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.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    131 year 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.

  • nomad
    link
    fedilink
    121 year 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]
    link
    fedilink
    101 year 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      This right here. Lack of parenting is the issue . And children in school these days , their mental health is ignored and we let kids graduate despite not meeting requirements. No wonder we have such an issue with disrespect, mental health, and intelligence. We are failing a generation and its now starting to catch up

    • Norgur
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      Oy! Before you spew out shit that is frankly disgusting in the context of what happened in Uvalde, maybe think for a split-second about what you’re about to say, eh?

      Besides, if a whole nation continues to fail it’s “tired, poor, it’s huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, blaming parents for just not parenting enough is misguided at best and delusional at worst. Do you think parents just don’t give a fuck when their children suffer? Do you think parents will just let their kids down and let them fall into the void that results in school shooters? No. No, they will not. But there is only so much a parent can do if the entire rest of society doesn’t give the slightest of fucks. You don’t have kids, have you?

      • Dreizehn
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In the USA, of course it happens and you wonder why people end up using guns to solve their problems. Immerse yourself into a 1st World EU country and watch how the social programs work to help people, which prevent lunatics from developing. For example, maternity leave, some countries have 3 years for each parent. The USA is fucked up in every single direction and it’s all thanks to greed.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Ah yes, because being a good parent and making sure your kid goes to school would’ve certainly prevented them from getting shot at the elementary school 😅🤔.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 year 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    561 year ago

    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.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year 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

  • 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]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year 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]
    link
    fedilink
    421 year ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      1 year 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.