Families of the Uvalde victims have filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, and Activision over what they claim was their role in promoting the gun used in the shooting.
It seems like your game defense also works for guns and Facebook?
Things are rarely 100% causative. In all these cases, I think we have to ask if the trigger allows/pushes some percentage to an action. Then, is that percentage and action significant enough to act on. It’s the same way we deal with medicines and carcinogens.
Gun manufacturers specifically market guns and lobby for laws that make it easier for children to access guns.
Activision does not.
Meta does not.
Meta publishes harmful, influential information without differentiating between fact and fiction.
Activision does not.
Both gun manufacturers and Facebook are historically, actively institutionally and directly culpable in ways that Activision is not.
Medicines and carcinogens are a great example, since they are both heavily lobbied and the theoretical regulatory ideal you’re positing doesn’t exist. Pharmaceutical companies and food factories are responsible for many illnesses because they, like gun manufacturers, are directly marketing products that hurt people.
I don’t understand how your post refutes my argument. OP said millions play games, so if only one person screws up among those millions, it can’t be the games fault. The argument can just as well be applied to Facebook and guns. Only a small fraction of those users become mass shooters.
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem with guns. I think America is mentally ill in it’s relationship with guns.
In response to your comment, if Activision was found to be taking money from the gun or military industry to market weapons through their games, do you think they should be partially liable? If I understand the lawsuit correctly, that is what this case is about.
Yes, If Activision is taking money from the gun or military industry to market weapons through their games, they are partially liable. Maybe I missed that in the article?
I just reread it, but I don’t see that argument. I see it saying that because the guns are in the game, it’s Activision’s fault that this kid shot people.
It’s a matter of responsibility. Gun manufacturers market the guns and lobby for less restrictive gun regulations, the amount of guns in a country and their regulatory status is obviously correlated with gun violence.
The manufacturers, marketers and lobbyists are the most responsible.
Meta radicalizes extremists
Less responsible, but a fairly easy line to draw with precedent(isis, Jan. 6th, Facebook manifestos from other shooters).
Activision makes a game with guns that look real in them.
Least responsible, easy to refute in multiple ways. What about a keychain company that makes realistic assault rifle keychains? Airsoft companies? New Line Cinema? Why aren’t they included in this suit if the depiction of a realistic gun is enough to drive certain people to violence ?
The Activision claim as stated in the article is clearly the weakest link in the case and since it can be so easily disproved, tanks the case before the case is taken up.
It seems like your game defense also works for guns and Facebook?
Things are rarely 100% causative. In all these cases, I think we have to ask if the trigger allows/pushes some percentage to an action. Then, is that percentage and action significant enough to act on. It’s the same way we deal with medicines and carcinogens.
Not really.
Gun manufacturers specifically market guns and lobby for laws that make it easier for children to access guns.
Activision does not.
Meta does not.
Meta publishes harmful, influential information without differentiating between fact and fiction.
Activision does not.
Both gun manufacturers and Facebook are historically, actively institutionally and directly culpable in ways that Activision is not.
Medicines and carcinogens are a great example, since they are both heavily lobbied and the theoretical regulatory ideal you’re positing doesn’t exist. Pharmaceutical companies and food factories are responsible for many illnesses because they, like gun manufacturers, are directly marketing products that hurt people.
I don’t understand how your post refutes my argument. OP said millions play games, so if only one person screws up among those millions, it can’t be the games fault. The argument can just as well be applied to Facebook and guns. Only a small fraction of those users become mass shooters.
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem with guns. I think America is mentally ill in it’s relationship with guns.
In response to your comment, if Activision was found to be taking money from the gun or military industry to market weapons through their games, do you think they should be partially liable? If I understand the lawsuit correctly, that is what this case is about.
Yes, If Activision is taking money from the gun or military industry to market weapons through their games, they are partially liable. Maybe I missed that in the article?
I just reread it, but I don’t see that argument. I see it saying that because the guns are in the game, it’s Activision’s fault that this kid shot people.
It’s a matter of responsibility. Gun manufacturers market the guns and lobby for less restrictive gun regulations, the amount of guns in a country and their regulatory status is obviously correlated with gun violence.
The manufacturers, marketers and lobbyists are the most responsible.
Meta radicalizes extremists
Less responsible, but a fairly easy line to draw with precedent(isis, Jan. 6th, Facebook manifestos from other shooters).
Activision makes a game with guns that look real in them.
Least responsible, easy to refute in multiple ways. What about a keychain company that makes realistic assault rifle keychains? Airsoft companies? New Line Cinema? Why aren’t they included in this suit if the depiction of a realistic gun is enough to drive certain people to violence ?
The Activision claim as stated in the article is clearly the weakest link in the case and since it can be so easily disproved, tanks the case before the case is taken up.