• some_guy ( some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • Empricorn ( Empricorn@feddit.nl ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 years 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!

    • aleph ( aleph@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years 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.

  • 「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.

  • nomad ( Nomad@infosec.pub ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

    • sushibowl ( sushibowl@feddit.nl ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years 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?