Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
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?
[…] playing the game led the teenager to research and then later purchase the gun hours after his 18th birthday.
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.
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?
You need to be 21 to purchase a handgun from a dealer.
This was not a handgun.
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.
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.
It's just a lawyer using the families to try some money and prestigious.
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.
"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.
My heart goes out to the parents of this horrible tragedy and they deserve compensation for their torment.
But this just feels like a sleazy law firm looking for a quick settlement by exploiting the emotional turmoil this horrible event has caused.
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?
Yeah, of course. I buy one towards the end of every November. It's a Thanksgiving tradition.
Most definitely and probably be missing some limb by now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This kinda happens when your part of a three trillion dollar company. Those deep pockets attract nuisance lawsuits
Video games do not promote violence according to any modern ethical research on the question.
I can’t imagine the pain of these families, and I’d want to lash out at any available target, too. They might even get lucky and have a settlement offer from Activision rather dragging everyone through a trial. But if this even makes it into a courtroom, I would bet that it will ultimately go nowhere. There’s just no credible evidence to support the claim.
I mean, some game studios consult child psychologists and lawyers to better implement addictive gambling-like mechanics without being liable for that. Media does impact the consumer, and the bigger the initial predisposition, the worse the effect, and kids like shiny animated casino boxes. But violent games that do reach the market and aren't dead on arrival are mild in that and can only supplement other, more real problems like mental health issues, trauma, neglect, bullying. And in 99.9% cases it's just an excuse to push them under the carpet. Like, from drawing a line to what makes older demographics cause daily mass shootings. Not videogames, not even guns mostly, but the environment and culture as a whole.
There's evidence that they're linked to additional violent thinking, but not a sole factor in making a sane, healthy person into a killer. The former is more nuanced than simply "ban because bad correlation' though
One thing I wish we could ban are opportunistic suits from hungry law firms that are just hoping that these companies will settle rather than fight an obviously frivolous suit. This is an insult to the civil legal system
What evidence links video games to violent thinking? I'm unaware of any.
That question aside, there's simply no evidence that gaming impacts behavior, which as you suggest is the major interest here.
One thing I wish we could ban are opportunistic suits from hungry law firms that are just hoping that these companies will settle rather than fight an obviously frivolous suit. This is an insult to the civil legal system
Agreed on all points.
So here's an article on a meta-analysis that covers the a positive correlation. You can also see some newer individual studies that link it to certain violent behaviors such as the treatment of firearms.
Of course, media often overblows such studies because they don't understand what a strong or weak correlation is and what behaviors these studies are correlating against, which leads to a lot of misunderstanding. Social science may be among the most difficult of the sciences simply because it is measuring patterns with unique biases in their subjects, such as the Hawthorne effect, and extremely high variance that can be difficult to address. For example, the frequency at which and types of games people play now vs 30 years ago is radically different. This is why meta-analyses that examine results across many studies can be valuable, as it often takes repeated studies under changing methodologies and populations to get a proper idea of a social correlation.
I should also emphasize that a positive correlation doesn't really imply games need to be banned or controlled. In fact the articles linked above mention exactly that -- the real concern with a lot of studies is the influence of violent video games on children and their propensity to bully. This doesn't necessarily imply that video games should be banned, but it can be helpful for guidance to counselors to understand how even minor factors influence social dynamics.
They should have sued the coward police department. The rest of the world plays the same games people play in the US. I grew up playing GTA, didn't steal or shoot anything.
Exactly. And the entire reason I like to kill stuff in video games is that I have zero desire to do it in real life.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not understanding a word you are saying
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.
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 $$$.