- cross-posted to:
- gaming@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
CoD is propaganda for the MIC and US imperialism, not gun companies.
「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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.