Its about time someone held these corporations accountable.
For the peanut gallery: it’s not about the violence in games. It’s about not getting data tracked on every purchase. Just because someone bought a violent video game doesn’t mean they should be tracked and exposed to more guns just because the gun manufacturers want to sell a few more units.
It’s exposing the mentally ill to targeted marketing campaigns and pushing them down the extremism pipeline that meta has created.
“In terms of the Call of Duty publisher’s alleged responsibility, the lawsuits seek to connect the promotion of real-world weaponry to “vulnerable” young men who are "insecure about their masculinity, often bullied, eager to show strength and assert dominance.”
“The suits reportedly paint a detailed picture of Daniel Defense’s aggressive marketing, using Facebook and Instagram to “bombard” Ramos with material glorifying assault rifles after he downloaded a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game in November 2021.”
It’s targeted data stalking on the mentally unstable and pushing them to extremism.
There needs to be accountability and a stop to targeting people for the sake of profits.
They’re not intentionally targeting the mentally ill to sell them guns so they can perform crimes with them.
What’s happening is this mentally ill person was searching things, the algorithm caught on and sent them advertisements to persuade them to purchase more of the things he was looking at.
The algorithm doesn’t really care what it is as long as it qualifies in whatever marketing parameters they have.
Did the algorithm persuade or affect the person’s actions and promoted the crimes that they committed. Probably not. Do these predatory marketing firms have some kind of accountability? They probably do.
And I’m telling you that the algorithm isn’t causing this.
The underlying root cause of these things have nothing to do with marketing or any algorithm that any marketing firm employs.
The underlying issues are mental illness and a lack of mental health Care in America Not to mention the basically suggestions we have for gun control instead of laws.
Marketing firms cannot and should not be held accountable for people freely using the internet or any other service that also have mental illness
The relevant conundrum is that they should regardless take some kind of responsibility for this Even if they have no liability.
The fact that you are even talking about stuff like this even if it is out of ignorance and probably naivety is that you are detracting from the underlying issues causing these things to occur in the first place.
This whole thing is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit specifically designed to make a little bit of profit from a settlement preying on the grief and torment of people who lost a child in that terrible shooting.
There have been numerous studies debunking links between violent video games and violence. This is the 80’s Satanic Panic all over again with a different wrapper and target.
400 police failed them, not activision. Then they voted for the same leadership at the next election. It’s like everyone from the first responders onward just takes turns reacting to this shooting in head scratching ways.
I’m not complaining about violent video games like some Christian boomer. I’ve played them all my life and have no issues with realistic violence.
It’s the companies marketing them using data tracking and social media. Them getting directly connected to gun manufacturers through targeted ads is the issue. It’s exposing the mentality unstable to a barrage of targeted ads and pushing them down the crazy pipeline that social media has created.
Meta needs to be held accountable and if it takes M$ and gun manufacturers with them all the better.
Ah, I misunderstood the point you were making, I apologize for my assumptions.
Much as I hate ads (and especially targeted ads which involve datamining by corporations), I’m still not convinced this is something that can win in court, but I do see the distinction you are drawing.
The most agonizing debate is one you agree with, but not nearly to the extreme degree of the position you’re responding to.
There are some nuts out there that literally only buy a certain gun because “it’s in Call of Duty and it’s cool.” Worse, this demographic are not likely to be responsible gun owners - they are not buying for any perceived need. They don’t lock their guns correctly, or keep ammo separate. Those guns are the type most likely to be stolen for use in a mass shooting (or used by their owners). Arguably, those guns are designed to appeal to this exact crowd, not serve as a functional tool or hobby item.
That said, there are much better targets for gun legislation than “scary looking black guns” or Call of Duty’s choice of theme.
If and only If this law suit leads to the banning of advertisements across all media, I’d be 100% for it. But that isn’t the purpose, it’s purpose is a cash grab for a law firm.
some of y’all definitely aren’t reading the article. this isn’t a “video games cause violence” thing. they are suing Activision and the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense for marketing a specific model of gun in Call of Duty, and maybe? that the Uvalde shooter used that same model of gun in the shooting. i dunno if there’s merit to the argument, but like, categorically, this isn’t the “video games cause violence” argument y’all seem to think it is. its about a gun manufacturer advertising their product in a video game.
So I did read the article, and… I’m not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn’t making any such distinction), so I don’t know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.
I’m not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.
that makes two of us, i guess? i don’t know what it is you’re trying to say i was saying. to be more clear, i’ve been seeing a lot of talk in this thread arguing against the “video games cause violence” claim, as if that was what the lawsuit was about. i don’t think the contents of the article present the families’ lawsuit as primarily concerning that particular claim. i then attempted to describe what i believe their actual claim to be.
i’ve emphasized the words i think are relevant here:
These new lawsuits, one filed in California and the other in Texas, turn attention to the marketing and sale of the rifle used by the shooter. The California suit claims that 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare featured the weapon, a Daniel Defense M4 V7, on a splash screen, and that playing the game led the teenager to research and then later purchase the gun hours after his 18th birthday.
that Call of Duty’s simulation of recognizable guns makes Activision “the most prolific and effective marketer of assault weapons in the United States.”
the fact that Activision and Meta are framing this as an extension of the “video games cause violence” thing is certainly what they’ve decided to do, but it seems to be talking past what the complaint and lawsuit are about, which is the marketing of a Daniel Defense M4 V7 in 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
the reason i emphasized the gun model is that that seems, to me, to be the core feature of the case the families are trying to make. not that video games cause violence, but that Activision bears responsibility for the actions of the shooter because the shooter played their game, then proceeded to kill people with the specific model of gun that was being advertised in that game. the fact that the article takes the time to reference another case where the specific naming of a gun model lead to a sizable settlement, and says this
The notion that a game maker might be held liable for irresponsibly marketing a weapon, however, seems to be a new angle.
seems to support my reading. that isn’t the same thing as saying video games make you violent, which is the claim a bunch of people in this thread seem to be shadowboxing.
i dunno, maybe there’s some ambiguity there? are you arguing that the lawsuit is about rehashing the video games make you violent claim, or what? i genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to communicate to me. i hope this clarified my stance.
So I’m not a fan of guns but, “marketing guns” is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it’s less crazy at the end of the day.
It’s still not a convincing one though. If it wasn’t this weapon used, it would have been another, regardless of where the perp first saw it. I’m not a fan of Activision, but this isn’t on them.
I get what you’re saying, but in the case of the games in question, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, don’t you agree? Get them while they’re young and impressionable?
Oh, I completely agree. There is no single thing that is the “magic cure”. There are a bunch of factors that add up to a fetishization of guns and gun culture / violence in the US. And the incredible availability of guns makes gun violence inevitable.
Other countries also have Call of Duty, but not such a big problem with mass shootings. So I don’t think its that easy. I think it is more interesting, what the NRA is doing. Such a big and powerful lobby organization should have way more influence, than a video game series.
As I mentioned to the other replier, other countries don’t have the mass promotion of gun violence coupled with the ready access to an incredible variety of firearms.
You mean the organization that is basically bankrupt and at it’s peak spent 5million dollars over a year lobbying? You think they have more influence then a “video game series” that is owned by a company that has around 25billion in assets?
That, and probably a lot of untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues. Honestly, I think guns are pretty cool (from a mechanical standpoint) but I would never even want to own one irl or kill anything with one. 'Cause, you know, I’m somewhat sane.
I’m not sure I understand. When was the last time a video game was used to go on a killing spree?
The same argument can be used in one context and be wrong, yet used in another context and be right.
The object in the argument matters. For example, the argument that punishment reduces undesirable behavior. This could be true in criminal justice, but it’s absolutely not true when applied to early child development. It just teaches them to be scared of you if the child isn’t old enough to understand.
There might be an association between guns and violence. Is that even true for video games?
Guns may not cause the mental health issues that make people turn violent, but they do allow violent people to become mass murderers. Video games do neither.
Sorry, you can’t propose an analogy and expect others to think about it for themselves, but then when presented with a nearly identical analogy, expect others to spend time explaining it to you.
“Drinking and driving doesn’t kill people, people kill people” oh wait, that’s senseless and they’re not identical… Maybe you responded with this instead of answering my question because you know that.
“Cars and alcohol don’t kill people people kill people” yeah that’s why it’s drinking and driving that’s illegal, not cars and/or alcohol. But you thought of that already and realized your mistake, which is why you’re dodging.
No no, keep going, you’re so right. It sounds like you agree that demonstrating competency before being granted a driver’s license is useful? And you agree that revoking these licenses when they have demonstrated that they are a risk to public safety is also working out for us?
They voted back in all the same leadership at an election not long after. Having made that decision, I find this to be less surprising than it might have been.
I remember reading about that. All I could conclude is that the voters must approve in some sense of those actions. In which case, I’m afraid your peers have spoken and clearly indicate that it’s not a priority. It’s a shame.
What about all the movies with guns? It’s much more normal to see a movie about someone getting shot or otherwise killed than see even a titty, much less any genitalia. I’d argue that many more people watch media than play games, if that’s the logic they’re going for.
Their frustration is completely misdirected also because it’s friggin’ Texas! What do you need to get a gun in that state? A pulse?
Edit: the dude was 18, how did he even get a gun? You need to be at least 21 to have one. How did he even get an semi-automatic weapon? The fuck?
There’s no classes of licenses like that in the US. If you are 18 and meet the minimal legal requirements, you can buy a long gun of any type in most states. (Some states are trying to move that age to 21.) That means a single shot, break action, lever action, bolt action, pump, or yes, semi-automatic. Once you hit 21, you can buy handguns. Again: that includes break action, revolvers, and normal semi-automatics.
The only real restriction in all of this is machine guns; to get those, you need to come up with the $20,000+ that a legal one will cost, and file a transfer application with the BATF, pay a $250 fee, and wait to see if your application is approved or denied. There are some states that prevent individual ownership of machine guns entirely.
I hear what you’re saying, but how many hours are logged by some swimming in images of fps games? I’d argue, from my interaction with teens, that there are far more hours logged than passively watching any media. But that’s not the point anyway.
Our American society is swimming with a gun obsession. Whether it’s via video games, movies, social media, politicians, the NRA, “2nd ammendment cities” (wtf), and too many more avenues to think of. Games are just one vector of marketing guns to a maleable population. The core of this suit is that a manufacturer was pushing their models within the game in collusion with Activision. I believe advertising guns to a kids demographic is prohibited. I’d search it, but I’m lazy and the AI results would be wrong anyway.
Those arguments were weak then and they are no better now after years of research trying to test whether video games cause violent behavior. I don’t think there’s a need to revisit the same argument — unless of course new information or context that changes things has been found.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing at all. Even with all the evidence that video games aren’t the problem, it’s a convenient scapegoat to point a finger at while ignoring those who actually need to be held accountable.
Certainly. Hence, steps. Although, video games is probably not where I would begin if we wish to take this problem seriously. It should be part of a complete plan to address violence involving guns.
Do we really think video games are promoting violence?
No, that’s not their argument. They are saying the gun manufacturer advertised their real life gun in the video game. They don’t have an issue with video game violence, they have an issue with advertising weapons to children.
Gun makers in the USA cozying up to government law makers to keep gun laws loose especially with respect to export and control is the force driving gun violence in the USA. Follow the $$$.
I did some cursory searches to find the actual arguments and came up blank. It’s important to note this isn’t the standard “video games cause violence” lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. This is different. The summary presented in articles is that this gun manufacturer explicitly marketed their product for things like this using a sophisticated campaign. If I understand the summary correctly, it therefore hinges on both the marketing of this specific gun and its presence across the digital landscape. The parents aren’t going after shooting in games; they’re going after a company that actively markets its products on social media and in video games.
It’s novel. I’m kinda skeptical because the solution would have to limit product placement and advertisement which has a massive lobby. There’s also nothing that really says “this specific gun leads to violence” without implicitly relying on the whole “video games cause violence” which is bullshit.
There’s precedent though. Alcohol and tobacco have significant restrictions on marketing material. I would argue that firearms should fall into the same category.
My impression was the same- eye roll at the “videogames cause violence” argument that’s been beaten to death, but I actually think they may have a point when it comes to marketing.
Sadly, I also think that COD is a military recruitment strategy (Boy Boy did a video breaking down the way the American recruiters use COD to capture a certain demographic) so I don’t think this lawsuit will go anywhere. Thought-provoking though.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy “anti-woke” energy, you probably shouldn’t be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
Good!
Its about time someone held these corporations accountable.
For the peanut gallery: it’s not about the violence in games. It’s about not getting data tracked on every purchase. Just because someone bought a violent video game doesn’t mean they should be tracked and exposed to more guns just because the gun manufacturers want to sell a few more units.
It’s exposing the mentally ill to targeted marketing campaigns and pushing them down the extremism pipeline that meta has created.
Accountable for what actions exactly? Depicting a photorealistic gun in a video game?
Note: not the downvote. Just want to understand.
“In terms of the Call of Duty publisher’s alleged responsibility, the lawsuits seek to connect the promotion of real-world weaponry to “vulnerable” young men who are "insecure about their masculinity, often bullied, eager to show strength and assert dominance.”
“The suits reportedly paint a detailed picture of Daniel Defense’s aggressive marketing, using Facebook and Instagram to “bombard” Ramos with material glorifying assault rifles after he downloaded a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game in November 2021.”
It’s targeted data stalking on the mentally unstable and pushing them to extremism.
There needs to be accountability and a stop to targeting people for the sake of profits.
They’re not intentionally targeting the mentally ill to sell them guns so they can perform crimes with them.
What’s happening is this mentally ill person was searching things, the algorithm caught on and sent them advertisements to persuade them to purchase more of the things he was looking at.
The algorithm doesn’t really care what it is as long as it qualifies in whatever marketing parameters they have.
Did the algorithm persuade or affect the person’s actions and promoted the crimes that they committed. Probably not. Do these predatory marketing firms have some kind of accountability? They probably do.
But not for the reasons that you think.
You are literally making my argument.
The algorithm is causing this and it’s creators need to be held accountable. Thats the fucking point.
And I’m telling you that the algorithm isn’t causing this.
The underlying root cause of these things have nothing to do with marketing or any algorithm that any marketing firm employs.
The underlying issues are mental illness and a lack of mental health Care in America Not to mention the basically suggestions we have for gun control instead of laws.
Marketing firms cannot and should not be held accountable for people freely using the internet or any other service that also have mental illness
The relevant conundrum is that they should regardless take some kind of responsibility for this Even if they have no liability.
The fact that you are even talking about stuff like this even if it is out of ignorance and probably naivety is that you are detracting from the underlying issues causing these things to occur in the first place.
This whole thing is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit specifically designed to make a little bit of profit from a settlement preying on the grief and torment of people who lost a child in that terrible shooting.
There have been numerous studies debunking links between violent video games and violence. This is the 80’s Satanic Panic all over again with a different wrapper and target.
400 police failed them, not activision. Then they voted for the same leadership at the next election. It’s like everyone from the first responders onward just takes turns reacting to this shooting in head scratching ways.
I’m not complaining about violent video games like some Christian boomer. I’ve played them all my life and have no issues with realistic violence.
It’s the companies marketing them using data tracking and social media. Them getting directly connected to gun manufacturers through targeted ads is the issue. It’s exposing the mentality unstable to a barrage of targeted ads and pushing them down the crazy pipeline that social media has created.
Meta needs to be held accountable and if it takes M$ and gun manufacturers with them all the better.
Ah, I misunderstood the point you were making, I apologize for my assumptions.
Much as I hate ads (and especially targeted ads which involve datamining by corporations), I’m still not convinced this is something that can win in court, but I do see the distinction you are drawing.
🤣
The most agonizing debate is one you agree with, but not nearly to the extreme degree of the position you’re responding to.
There are some nuts out there that literally only buy a certain gun because “it’s in Call of Duty and it’s cool.” Worse, this demographic are not likely to be responsible gun owners - they are not buying for any perceived need. They don’t lock their guns correctly, or keep ammo separate. Those guns are the type most likely to be stolen for use in a mass shooting (or used by their owners). Arguably, those guns are designed to appeal to this exact crowd, not serve as a functional tool or hobby item.
That said, there are much better targets for gun legislation than “scary looking black guns” or Call of Duty’s choice of theme.
The 90s called and wanted their failed argument back.
Star wars has been effectively marketing me lightsabers for years, and I can’t even carve a turkey with mine.
If you could buy one, would you?
💯
Most definitely and probably be missing some limb by now.
Yeah, of course. I buy one towards the end of every November. It’s a Thanksgiving tradition.
If and only If this law suit leads to the banning of advertisements across all media, I’d be 100% for it. But that isn’t the purpose, it’s purpose is a cash grab for a law firm.
some of y’all definitely aren’t reading the article. this isn’t a “video games cause violence” thing. they are suing Activision and the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense for marketing a specific model of gun in Call of Duty, and maybe? that the Uvalde shooter used that same model of gun in the shooting. i dunno if there’s merit to the argument, but like, categorically, this isn’t the “video games cause violence” argument y’all seem to think it is. its about a gun manufacturer advertising their product in a video game.
So I did read the article, and… I’m not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn’t making any such distinction), so I don’t know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.
I’m not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.
that makes two of us, i guess? i don’t know what it is you’re trying to say i was saying. to be more clear, i’ve been seeing a lot of talk in this thread arguing against the “video games cause violence” claim, as if that was what the lawsuit was about. i don’t think the contents of the article present the families’ lawsuit as primarily concerning that particular claim. i then attempted to describe what i believe their actual claim to be.
i’ve emphasized the words i think are relevant here:
the fact that Activision and Meta are framing this as an extension of the “video games cause violence” thing is certainly what they’ve decided to do, but it seems to be talking past what the complaint and lawsuit are about, which is the marketing of a Daniel Defense M4 V7 in 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
the reason i emphasized the gun model is that that seems, to me, to be the core feature of the case the families are trying to make. not that video games cause violence, but that Activision bears responsibility for the actions of the shooter because the shooter played their game, then proceeded to kill people with the specific model of gun that was being advertised in that game. the fact that the article takes the time to reference another case where the specific naming of a gun model lead to a sizable settlement, and says this
seems to support my reading. that isn’t the same thing as saying video games make you violent, which is the claim a bunch of people in this thread seem to be shadowboxing.
i dunno, maybe there’s some ambiguity there? are you arguing that the lawsuit is about rehashing the video games make you violent claim, or what? i genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to communicate to me. i hope this clarified my stance.
Every time I think we’ve moved passed this as an argument, it pops back up. They’ll blame anything but those they should be holding accountable.
It seems like they’re saying that it markets guns, not the typical argument that it makes kids violent. This argument seems less crazy to me.
So I’m not a fan of guns but, “marketing guns” is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it’s less crazy at the end of the day.
It’s still not a convincing one though. If it wasn’t this weapon used, it would have been another, regardless of where the perp first saw it. I’m not a fan of Activision, but this isn’t on them.
Time is a flat circle.
Video games are not the problem, the gun fetishism of american society is.
I get what you’re saying, but in the case of the games in question, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, don’t you agree? Get them while they’re young and impressionable?
Kids all over they world play fps so imo pixel guns are not the problem, the real guns kids in the US have access to are what makes the difference.
Oh, I completely agree. There is no single thing that is the “magic cure”. There are a bunch of factors that add up to a fetishization of guns and gun culture / violence in the US. And the incredible availability of guns makes gun violence inevitable.
Other countries also have Call of Duty, but not such a big problem with mass shootings. So I don’t think its that easy. I think it is more interesting, what the NRA is doing. Such a big and powerful lobby organization should have way more influence, than a video game series.
As I mentioned to the other replier, other countries don’t have the mass promotion of gun violence coupled with the ready access to an incredible variety of firearms.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249398/lobbying-expenditures-of-the-national-rifle-associaction-in-the-united-states/
You mean the organization that is basically bankrupt and at it’s peak spent 5million dollars over a year lobbying? You think they have more influence then a “video game series” that is owned by a company that has around 25billion in assets?
https://investor.activision.com/static-files/d7b4f08d-213b-4bd5-a41b-7497baa9c106
That, and probably a lot of untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues. Honestly, I think guns are pretty cool (from a mechanical standpoint) but I would never even want to own one irl or kill anything with one. 'Cause, you know, I’m somewhat sane.
This kinda happens when your part of a three trillion dollar company. Those deep pockets attract nuisance lawsuits
I understand the frustration, but I can’t help but feel that their anger is misdirected. Do we really think video games are promoting violence?
I’m getting a sense that there are other steps that could have been taken to prevent this tragedy aside from this video game that features guns.
Replace “videogames” with “guns” to understand the 2A argument.
I’m not sure I understand. When was the last time a video game was used to go on a killing spree?
The same argument can be used in one context and be wrong, yet used in another context and be right.
The object in the argument matters. For example, the argument that punishment reduces undesirable behavior. This could be true in criminal justice, but it’s absolutely not true when applied to early child development. It just teaches them to be scared of you if the child isn’t old enough to understand.
There might be an association between guns and violence. Is that even true for video games?
That’s not the argument though. The argument is “videogames don’t cause this problem” which is true in both cases.
deleted by creator
Guns may not cause the mental health issues that make people turn violent, but they do allow violent people to become mass murderers. Video games do neither.
That’s like saying, replace “video games” with “cars and alcohol” to understand the MADD argument.
How so?
Sorry, you can’t propose an analogy and expect others to think about it for themselves, but then when presented with a nearly identical analogy, expect others to spend time explaining it to you.
Oh I can’t ask how it’s identical?
“Drinking and driving doesn’t kill people, people kill people” oh wait, that’s senseless and they’re not identical… Maybe you responded with this instead of answering my question because you know that.
“Cars and alcohol don’t kill people people kill people” yeah that’s why it’s drinking and driving that’s illegal, not cars and/or alcohol. But you thought of that already and realized your mistake, which is why you’re dodging.
Try harder, it’ll do you some good.
No no, keep going, you’re so right. It sounds like you agree that demonstrating competency before being granted a driver’s license is useful? And you agree that revoking these licenses when they have demonstrated that they are a risk to public safety is also working out for us?
They voted back in all the same leadership at an election not long after. Having made that decision, I find this to be less surprising than it might have been.
I remember reading about that. All I could conclude is that the voters must approve in some sense of those actions. In which case, I’m afraid your peers have spoken and clearly indicate that it’s not a priority. It’s a shame.
What about all the movies with guns? It’s much more normal to see a movie about someone getting shot or otherwise killed than see even a titty, much less any genitalia. I’d argue that many more people watch media than play games, if that’s the logic they’re going for.
Their frustration is completely misdirected also because it’s friggin’ Texas! What do you need to get a gun in that state? A pulse?
Edit: the dude was 18, how did he even get a gun? You need to be at least 21 to have one. How did he even get an semi-automatic weapon? The fuck?
Anti Commercial-AI license
You need to be 21 to purchase a handgun from a dealer.
This was not a handgun.
Question still stands: how the fuck did he get a semi-automatic gun if he wasn’t even able to get a handgun?
Anti Commercial-AI license
Where are you from, exactly?
There’s no classes of licenses like that in the US. If you are 18 and meet the minimal legal requirements, you can buy a long gun of any type in most states. (Some states are trying to move that age to 21.) That means a single shot, break action, lever action, bolt action, pump, or yes, semi-automatic. Once you hit 21, you can buy handguns. Again: that includes break action, revolvers, and normal semi-automatics.
The only real restriction in all of this is machine guns; to get those, you need to come up with the $20,000+ that a legal one will cost, and file a transfer application with the BATF, pay a $250 fee, and wait to see if your application is approved or denied. There are some states that prevent individual ownership of machine guns entirely.
I hear what you’re saying, but how many hours are logged by some swimming in images of fps games? I’d argue, from my interaction with teens, that there are far more hours logged than passively watching any media. But that’s not the point anyway.
Our American society is swimming with a gun obsession. Whether it’s via video games, movies, social media, politicians, the NRA, “2nd ammendment cities” (wtf), and too many more avenues to think of. Games are just one vector of marketing guns to a maleable population. The core of this suit is that a manufacturer was pushing their models within the game in collusion with Activision. I believe advertising guns to a kids demographic is prohibited. I’d search it, but I’m lazy and the AI results would be wrong anyway.
People have always blamed video games for violence, even all the way back to Columbine. This isn’t a new argument.
Those arguments were weak then and they are no better now after years of research trying to test whether video games cause violent behavior. I don’t think there’s a need to revisit the same argument — unless of course new information or context that changes things has been found.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing at all. Even with all the evidence that video games aren’t the problem, it’s a convenient scapegoat to point a finger at while ignoring those who actually need to be held accountable.
Do you ever get the sense that it’s possible for more than 1 thing to contribute to an event?
Certainly. Hence, steps. Although, video games is probably not where I would begin if we wish to take this problem seriously. It should be part of a complete plan to address violence involving guns.
It’s just a lawyer using the families to try some money and prestigious.
No, that’s not their argument. They are saying the gun manufacturer advertised their real life gun in the video game. They don’t have an issue with video game violence, they have an issue with advertising weapons to children.
Gun makers in the USA cozying up to government law makers to keep gun laws loose especially with respect to export and control is the force driving gun violence in the USA. Follow the $$$.
“No way to prevent this,” says only country where it happens every fucking day
Yes, but at least it’s well regulated and for militia purposes-…oh, wait, that part of the constitution is for TP.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I did some cursory searches to find the actual arguments and came up blank. It’s important to note this isn’t the standard “video games cause violence” lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. This is different. The summary presented in articles is that this gun manufacturer explicitly marketed their product for things like this using a sophisticated campaign. If I understand the summary correctly, it therefore hinges on both the marketing of this specific gun and its presence across the digital landscape. The parents aren’t going after shooting in games; they’re going after a company that actively markets its products on social media and in video games.
It’s novel. I’m kinda skeptical because the solution would have to limit product placement and advertisement which has a massive lobby. There’s also nothing that really says “this specific gun leads to violence” without implicitly relying on the whole “video games cause violence” which is bullshit.
There’s precedent though. Alcohol and tobacco have significant restrictions on marketing material. I would argue that firearms should fall into the same category.
My impression was the same- eye roll at the “videogames cause violence” argument that’s been beaten to death, but I actually think they may have a point when it comes to marketing.
Sadly, I also think that COD is a military recruitment strategy (Boy Boy did a video breaking down the way the American recruiters use COD to capture a certain demographic) so I don’t think this lawsuit will go anywhere. Thought-provoking though.