reuters Families of Uvalde school shooting victims sue Meta, Microsoft, gunmaker

[EHW Ai]

Quote

May 24 (Reuters) - Families of the victims of the 2022 elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, filed two lawsuits on Friday against Instagram's parent company Meta, Activision Blizzard and its parent Microsoft, and the gunmaker Daniel Defense, claiming they cooperated to market dangerous weapons to impressionable teens such as the Uvalde shooter.

 

Together, the wrongful death complaints argue that Daniel Defense – a Georgia-based gun manufacturer – used Instagram and Activision's video game Call of Duty to market its assault-style rifles to teenage boys, while Meta and Microsoft facilitated the strategy with lax oversight and no regard for the consequences.

 

...

 

Source.

 

Also see:

 

1. do video games cause violence?

 

2. do video games rot your brain?

 

Note 1: the first question above invoked the second question by way of Google.

 

Note 2: While this (the topic in general, here and elsewhere) is bound to be controversial, it has the potential to also result in an increase in popcorn sales.

 

 

 

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Games don't kill people, people do. I have never understood the link between game violence and actual violence. However perhaps im just not impressionable or suffer from a mental disorder that allows for decision making to be altered extensively by outside factors. 

 

Im still a believer that people for whatever reason have an underlying need/want to kill and when it happens the perpetrator/those affected use gaming as a scapegoat. Whether it be grief that causes people to use games as something to pin the blame to, or use as a cash machine for suing I guess would have to be judged on a case by case basis. 

 

Either way, Call of Duty or similar cannot be blamed just because they have shooting and guns. People are the problem, not entertainment.

 

Education,nurture & support is key to a well balanced individual.

[UltraMega]

I wouldn't say this is controversial simply because it's so obviously a frivolous lawsuit. If COD is guilty, then so is the entire entertainment industry. 

 

Although I suppose if it's true that a gun maker actually used COD as marketing material, that does at least raise an eyebrow. 

[bonami2]

1 hour ago, UltraMega said:

I wouldn't say this is controversial simply because it's so obviously a frivolous lawsuit. If COD is guilty, then so is the entire entertainment industry. 

 

Although I suppose if it's true that a gun maker actually used COD as marketing material, that does at least raise an eyebrow. 

 

Not really worse than promoting luxury car brand when no one can afford them i would says.

 

I mean for the USA gun are a main Hobby. In other country not so much.

[schuck6566]

 

20 hours ago, ENTERPRISE said:

Education,nurture & support is key to a well balanced individual.

And that's the rub, you have 6 & 10 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto V,CoD,and other online shooters and they're being raised by gaming systems instead of parents. Parents let them play games because it keeps them busy not thinking that it's setting a model of behavior for them in the back of their heads. Even at parks and events you see kids with games in their hands instead of learning how to socialize with one another. MAYBE if the parents actually were parenting instead of just handing them off to the consoles to babysit and were actually using the labels to keep inappropriate games from young children it wouldn't be as bad? e.g., CoD4 = M17+ rating for Intense Violence,Blood,and Strong Language

[ENTERPRISE]

25 minutes ago, schuck6566 said:

 

And that's the rub, you have 6 & 10 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto V,CoD,and other online shooters and they're being raised by gaming systems instead of parents. Parents let them play games because it keeps them busy not thinking that it's setting a model of behavior for them in the back of their heads. Even at parks and events you see kids with games in their hands instead of learning how to socialize with one another. MAYBE if the parents actually were parenting instead of just handing them off to the consoles to babysit and were actually using the labels to keep inappropriate games from young children it wouldn't be as bad? e.g., CoD4 = M17+ rating for Intense Violence,Blood,and Strong Language

 

I agree and its a good point out. Lot's of parents are using "Digital" parenting and placing kids in front of a screen of some sort and calling it a day, this will not help. But as you say, I think parents allow kids to play all sorts of games, irrespective of their content matter. In fact I am willing to bet most of it is ignorance. Kid comes in and asks for a game, parent just buys it, end of. 

 

If more parents did a little more due diligence on what the game is about, the subject matter and the rating, then we would find younger minds playing games that are a little more suitable.

[UltraMega]

27 minutes ago, schuck6566 said:

 

And that's the rub, you have 6 & 10 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto V,CoD,and other online shooters and they're being raised by gaming systems instead of parents. Parents let them play games because it keeps them busy not thinking that it's setting a model of behavior for them in the back of their heads. Even at parks and events you see kids with games in their hands instead of learning how to socialize with one another. MAYBE if the parents actually were parenting instead of just handing them off to the consoles to babysit and were actually using the labels to keep inappropriate games from young children it wouldn't be as bad? e.g., CoD4 = M17+ rating for Intense Violence,Blood,and Strong Language

 

There are always going to be some bad parents out there, and there will always be violence in entertainment. The Uvalde shooter's mom was a drug addict. In a world full of people, some of them are going to be bad. Instead of having an unrealistic expectation that no one will ever want to hurt other people, we just need to make it harder. 

 

Waiting periods, background checks, perhaps even a higher age requirement. These are the kind of things that could help fix the problem, and most people left or right agree on that but it always gets blocked by gun lobbying groups.

 

It is weird that people can buy guns before they can legally smoke and drink in the country. 

[SoloCamo]

48 minutes ago, schuck6566 said:

 

And that's the rub, you have 6 & 10 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto V,CoD,and other online shooters and they're being raised by gaming systems instead of parents. Parents let them play games because it keeps them busy not thinking that it's setting a model of behavior for them in the back of their heads. Even at parks and events you see kids with games in their hands instead of learning how to socialize with one another. MAYBE if the parents actually were parenting instead of just handing them off to the consoles to babysit and were actually using the labels to keep inappropriate games from young children it wouldn't be as bad? e.g., CoD4 = M17+ rating for Intense Violence,Blood,and Strong Language

 

 

Regardless, it comes down to the individual and some people are unfortunately mentally unstable (and dare I say evil) regardless of parenting.  I was the kid you speak of playing games I should not be playing (having much older siblings plays a big role there), but I also have good parents that instilled good morals.  The amount of outrageously violent games I played at a young age had zero effect on me as even to this day I feel bad stepping on a bug unintentionally.    

[Andrew]

23 hours ago, ENTERPRISE said:

Games don't kill people, people do. I have never understood the link between game violence and actual violence. However perhaps im just not impressionable or suffer from a mental disorder that allows for decision making to be altered extensively by outside factors. 

 

Im still a believer that people for whatever reason have an underlying need/want to kill and when it happens the perpetrator/those affected use gaming as a scapegoat. Whether it be grief that causes people to use games as something to pin the blame to, or use as a cash machine for suing I guess would have to be judged on a case by case basis. 

 

Either way, Call of Duty or similar cannot be blamed just because they have shooting and guns. People are the problem, not entertainment.

 

Education,nurture & support is key to a well balanced individual.

 

It's correlation/causation thing.

Someone who plays violent video games (which lets be honest, is a majority of the population these days), they go out and commit a violent act. Authorities search their homes and find that they play violent video games. Then it happens again with someone else, same thing, then again, and again and again. Turns out almost all of the people who have committed violent acts have also played violent video games so they say correlation = causation. When in fact, the video games are emulating real life.

 

The first school shooting in the US happened in 1764. Before the US was even a country. This kind of violence has been around since the dawn of time and will continue to happen, whether or not there are video games.

 

 

2 hours ago, schuck6566 said:

 

And that's the rub, you have 6 & 10 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto V,CoD,and other online shooters and they're being raised by gaming systems instead of parents. Parents let them play games because it keeps them busy not thinking that it's setting a model of behavior for them in the back of their heads. Even at parks and events you see kids with games in their hands instead of learning how to socialize with one another. MAYBE if the parents actually were parenting instead of just handing them off to the consoles to babysit and were actually using the labels to keep inappropriate games from young children it wouldn't be as bad? e.g., CoD4 = M17+ rating for Intense Violence,Blood,and Strong Language

I understand what you're saying, but you can't blame video games causing badly parented kids to not know the difference between right and wrong.

 

I've played the GTA series since I was 8 years old. Even back then I knew it wasn't acceptable or legal to go up to someone in their car at a stop light then drag them out of it to steal their car.

[UltraMega]

27 minutes ago, Andrew said:

 

It's correlation/causation thing.

Someone who plays violent video games (which lets be honest, is a majority of the population these days), they go out and commit a violent act. Authorities search their homes and find that they play violent video games.

That's a good point. Almost all school shooters are young men, and most young men play video games. Might as well blame school shootings on porn and McDonalds.  

[EHW Ai]

 

I watch porn and eat McDonalds; 
 

Spoiler

 

and while I know some people that probably deserve to be shot, I've never had any real desire to actually go out and do that.

 

Good or bad, actions have consequences.

Edited May 26 by iamjanco

[schuck6566]

10 hours ago, UltraMega said:

Waiting periods, background checks, perhaps even a higher age requirement. These are the kind of things that could help fix the problem, and most people left or right agree on that but it always gets blocked by gun lobbying groups.

 

It is weird that people can buy guns before they can legally smoke and drink in the country. 

Oklahoma for example has permitless/open carry and you must be 21 to purchase a handgun and carry it. In this state you can start hunting big game below the age of 10 which may explain why long guns are available for purchase at 18 years of age (our military lets you enlist at 17).

When I was growing up in NJ, I got my hunting license at 12 after passing a course.

[schuck6566]

6 hours ago, iamjanco said:

 

I watch porn and eat McDonalds; 
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

and while I know some people that probably deserve to be shot, I've never had any real desire to actually go out and do that.

 

Good or bad, actions have consequences.

it's probably 'cause you doing it in the wrong order....

[bwalker36]

10 hours ago, schuck6566 said:

Oklahoma for example has permitless/open carry and you must be 21 to purchase a handgun and carry it. In this state you can start hunting big game below the age of 10 which may explain why long guns are available for purchase at 18 years of age (our military lets you enlist at 17).

When I was growing up in NJ, I got my hunting license at 12 after passing a course.

21 for handguns is federal law, as is 18 for long guns.  Some states I believe have upped even long guns to 21.  I don't think the age is the problem, there always seems to be someone who knew the person bought a gun, knew they were not right, might have said something might not, and no one properly investigated.

 

Now I'm not a fan of red flag laws as most are currently implemented as they remove due process completely a lot.  I think the US needs to enforce the rules they have better and be very consistent.  Our gun laws haven't changed much (they became a bit more restrictive) but guns have always been a part of the US.  IMO other factors are driving gun violence and the vast majority (aside from suicide which is like half of gun deaths in the US) is a result of another already illegal activity. 

 

I don't think violent games drive people to do violent things either. I'm clearly not a psychiatrist with no background in it but I just don't buy that a perfectly normal kid turns into a murderer by playing GTA or COD.  If anything COD would make you want to join Special Operations military groups I would think.  I forgot who said it earlier but I agree that there is something else there going on.  Its possible they play those games to get their fix to whatever is really wrong and at some point it doesn't do enough anymore. 

 

Just my thoughts.....But if they win these law suits things are going to change.  Daniel Defense has never once marketed their firearms for killing innocent civilians.  In fact I have never seen marketing where killing has ever been the focus.  Its usually defense or be like the SEALs (which are good guys). 

 

 

[Kaz]

They might as well blame all society problems on Hollywood.   The amount of people shot in a movie is beyond counting.  Almost any 'good guy' cop show, shows the same thing.

 

I never thought the Crumbly parents would be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  Throw the book at them as bad parents, sure, but the cause/correlation seemed a bit weak for manslaughter to me.  I suspect emotions played a heavy role, and Uvalde is another emotionally charged situation.  What one person reasonably deduce could be entirely different than 12 emotional jurors.

 

This case is essentially saying that tech companies shouldn't have publisher protection.  Something they have continued to get away with while deciding what they would publish under their own agendas.  Publisher protection / moderation / agenda laws need to be redone.  They simply don't hold up to the fact that moderation is needed and AI black box controls far too much for anyone to understand.  The situation calls for more transparency, but we've already seen Zuckerburg run circles around Congress.  We also know that 'I do not recall' is the go to answer for any legal question that might cause problems.

 

I don't see things changing anytime soon.  If anything, I'd expect them to push for a settlement.  The amount of money lawyers charge means there's a lot of middle ground where it's cheaper for the company to settle than fight it.  This kind of publicity plays a role in E-sport development. 

[Sir Beregond]

On 25/05/2024 at 13:30, UltraMega said:

Although I suppose if it's true that a gun maker actually used COD as marketing material, that does at least raise an eyebrow. 

I would be very shocked if a gun maker actually used a video game like COD for marketing material. That really does not make much sense to me.

 

More likely COD features military weapons like M4's, and M16's, and the gun maker just so happens to manufacture AR-15's, and because COD has a same looking weapon, it's "marketing".

[EHW Ai]

42 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

...marketing material.

 

which reminds me, it's almost time to get more of these sweat shirts printed up...

 

 

 

 

[Sir Beregond]

58 minutes ago, iamjanco said:

 

which reminds me, it's almost time to get more of these sweat shirts printed up...

 

 

 

 

I know this has been a big thing to talk about since 2020, but Colorado has been voting by mail since forever. I remember my parents voting by mail growing up and it became statewide I want to say 2012 or 2013.

 

Shrug

[Kaz]

2 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

I would be very shocked if a gun maker actually used a video game like COD for marketing material. That really does not make much sense to me.

 

More likely COD features military weapons like M4's, and M16's, and the gun maker just so happens to manufacture AR-15's, and because COD has a same looking weapon, it's "marketing".

America's Army comes to mind.  Video games are certainly used for marketing.  Which came first the chicken or the egg?  Well I suppose the 1911 can certainly claim they were around before video games.

 

It would be really interesting if US Vets started saying they were recruited by a video game and their PTSD is related to what they weren't through after.  I suspect that story would never see the light of day.

[UltraMega]

2 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

I would be very shocked if a gun maker actually used a video game like COD for marketing material. That really does not make much sense to me.

 

More likely COD features military weapons like M4's, and M16's, and the gun maker just so happens to manufacture AR-15's, and because COD has a same looking weapon, it's "marketing".

I agree that it likely did not happen. Everything I've seen about this lawsuit is pretty vague on details with the accusations. 

 

22 minutes ago, Kaz said:

America's Army comes to mind.  Video games are certainly used for marketing.  Which came first the chicken or the egg?  Well I suppose the 1911 can certainly claim they were around before video games.

 

It would be really interesting if US Vets started saying they were recruited by a video game and their PTSD is related to what they weren't through after.  I suspect that story would never see the light of day.

America's Army was a recruitment tool, not marketing for guns. I played it, it was very much not marketing for guns. 

[UltraMega]

9 hours ago, iamjanco said:

 

which reminds me, it's almost time to get more of these sweat shirts printed up...

 

 

 

You are trying to make this a popcorn thread I take it. 

 

Edited May 29 by UltraMega

[schuck6566]

16 hours ago, Kaz said:

The situation calls for more transparency, but we've already seen Zuckerburg run circles around Congress.  We also know that 'I do not recall' is the go to answer for any legal question that might cause problems.

 

[schuck6566]

Even though THIS gun was available without background ck's ,

Winchester Model 1907 - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

The person still caused the deadliest school massacre in the U.S. without a gun.

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

Maybe worry a little less about guns and more about the reasons?

[EHW Ai]

13 hours ago, UltraMega said:

You are trying to make this a popcorn thread I take it. 

 

 

...chalk it up to meme marketing.

 

10 Meme Ads to Inspire Your Meme Marketing Campaign

MAGICBRIEF.COM

---

Discover 10 meme ads from MagicBrief that you can use to inspire your meme marketing campaign and reach a wider audience.