not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course the shooter is mostly to blame.
But if we start blaming someone besides the shooter, it should be the one who decided giving real gun to the shooter, not the one who gave him a computer game that had virtual guns in it.
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
Actually thier is a simple solution. Start enforcing the laws we have and stop ignoring mental illness. If we did those two things a lot of this could be mitigated but not eliminated.
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
Actually thier is a simple solution. Start enforcing the laws we have and stop ignoring mental illness. If we did those two things a lot of this could be mitigated but not eliminated.
There are absolutely no simple solutions to these problems.
In the Uvalde case no laws were broken (gun was legally purchased) nor was anyone denied mental health care.
There definitely was a breakdown in procedure by the top police authorities who incorrectly judged it to be a hostage situation which is managed quite differently from active shooter procedure.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
If we're going to draw reasonable lines, then the time to draw them is before the crime occurs, not after. If laws say ahead of time that it is illegal for game developers to do this or that, and then the developers violate those laws, it's fair to punish them. It's wrong (and also unconstitutional; see Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3) to say that they owe a zillion dollars because they did something that was completely legal when they did it, but we've since decided that it was bad.
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
If we're going to draw reasonable lines, then the time to draw them is before the crime occurs, not after. If laws say ahead of time that it is illegal for game developers to do this or that, and then the developers violate those laws, it's fair to punish them. It's wrong (and also unconstitutional; see Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3) to say that they owe a zillion dollars because they did something that was completely legal when they did it, but we've since decided that it was bad.
Absolutely. The legality of actions should be judged according to the time and place in which they occurred. We can draw new lines after an incident or crime to reduce the likelihood of similar incidents occurring in the future, but we can't retroactively apply those new lines.
The one place where accountability for past actions does come into play is in how we go about drawing lines. If attempts at passing new laws around similar incidents were blocked in the past, then lawmakers who blocked those attempts are accountable - not criminally or in a court of law, but to the voting public.
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
If we're going to draw reasonable lines, then the time to draw them is before the crime occurs, not after. If laws say ahead of time that it is illegal for game developers to do this or that, and then the developers violate those laws, it's fair to punish them. It's wrong (and also unconstitutional; see Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3) to say that they owe a zillion dollars because they did something that was completely legal when they did it, but we've I'llsince decided that it was bad.
Except it may not have been completely legal to market as the did.
Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. This unique protective law all but barred civil suits against the gun industry. It did, however, provide for a few narrow exceptions, including for sales and marketing practices that violate federal or state law.
So is it legal to market a specific make and model of assault rifle in a video game, detailing it's operation to the point it's almost a training manual on its use?
That's what this legal team will ask a jury to decide if it isn't settled first.
What's different this time from Sandy Hook as in that case there was also a Connecticut State law covering consumer protection which probably isn't applicable this time around.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
Actually thier is a simple solution. Start enforcing the laws we have and stop ignoring mental illness. If we did those two things a lot of this could be mitigated but not eliminated.
Were there laws in place that were not enforced? Who should have enforced them? Are they now being held accountable for not enforcing said laws?
Who should stop ignoring mental health? Me? You? The shooter? Lawmakers? Voters? Are we talking a lack of access, training, awareness, or what exactly? This is too broad a statement to mean anything practical.
Even if an idea, in principle, is simple - transforming that idea into mechanisms that can be practically implemented for a population of this size and complexity is not.
not sure why they are going after a video game company, bad advice from thier lawyers looking to cash in maybe, but its similar to the 80s when D&D and metal bands where blamed for everything that was wrong with society.
I would put the blame more on the NRA and the republican party and its head, they are the ones pushing the gun culture, but it will be easier to convince a jury in texas that its a games fault, not thier own,ie the majority of the jury...
Right right because the gun pulled it's own trigger. Never blame the shooter. Always someone else's fault. Typical.
Of course a gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Regulations are about limiting people's access to guns, not a gun's access to guns. I thought that was obvious.
But more importantly, this type of oversimplification avoids a healthy conversation about finding a reasonable line. Regulations should and do exist in civilized, governed societies. The question then becomes where we should draw the lines to optimize between the individual and collective well being of everyone involved. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, but there can be an optimal one and plenty of us are trying to find it.
That's also why I find this approach of suing a game developer to be counter-productive. Win or lose, I don't see it improving this unfortunate issue.
If we're going to draw reasonable lines, then the time to draw them is before the crime occurs, not after. If laws say ahead of time that it is illegal for game developers to do this or that, and then the developers violate those laws, it's fair to punish them. It's wrong (and also unconstitutional; see Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3) to say that they owe a zillion dollars because they did something that was completely legal when they did it, but we've I'llsince decided that it was bad.
Except it may not have been completely legal to market as the did.
Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. This unique protective law all but barred civil suits against the gun industry. It did, however, provide for a few narrow exceptions, including for sales and marketing practices that violate federal or state law.
So is it legal to market a specific make and model of assault rifle in a video game, detailing it's operation to the point it's almost a training manual on its use?
That's what this legal team will ask a jury to decide if it isn't settled first.
What's different this time from Sandy Hook as in that case there was also a Connecticut State law covering consumer protection which probably isn't applicable this time around.
"Irresponsible marketing" is so vague that it should be thrown out as unconstitutional unless they give a precise definition of what it does and does not mean. To the people who want to ban civilian ownership of guns, any marketing of guns at all is inherently irresponsible.
The basic rule is that if you're going to ban something, people have to have clear notice of what is and is not banned in order to be enforceable. You could ban advertising guns in video games, for example, if it is clearly stated that that is banned. But you can't vaguely make a law against "doing bad things", as that would allow prosecutors to decide after the fact what is legal and what is not, which would inevitably lead to finding creative excuses to punish anyone that they dislike.
Remington's ultimate mistake was continuing to do business in Connecticut after shifting politics in the state meant that the state would really like to put them out of business. A gun manufacturer that had been based in New York for nearly 200 years recently moved to a friendlier state for similar reasons. Daniel Defense is based in Georgia, incidentally.
I hope that with the money they will get in the settlement (no one wants bad PR involving dead kids) they arm themselves to stop the next criminal/deranged shooter.
I hope that with the money they will get in the settlement (no one wants bad PR involving dead kids) they arm themselves to stop the next criminal/deranged shooter.
Plenty of armed officers being there didn't do much good. And the fact that the US has the largest rate (per capita and total) of civilian gun ownership in the world hasn't helped us minimize such incidents. But sure, arming parents would solve this issue.
Just to be clear, as a parent of school-aged children myself, does simply owning a gun stored safely at home keep my kids safe at school while I work over an hour's commute away? Am I to also quit my job, get a holster, and patrol their vicinity every day? Or do I buy a siren so I could rush back from work in time to live out this dystopian wild west fantasy of heroically taking down an AR-15 armed assailant?
Because clearly we've exhausted all other options of addressing this as a society and are now left with suing game developers and buying more guns. /s
I hope that with the money they will get in the settlement (no one wants bad PR involving dead kids) they arm themselves to stop the next criminal/deranged shooter.
Plenty of armed officers being there didn't do much good. And the fact that the US has the largest rate (per capita and total) of civilian gun ownership in the world hasn't helped us minimize such incidents. But sure, arming parents would solve this issue.
Just to be clear, as a parent of school-aged children myself, does simply owning a gun stored safely at home keep my kids safe at school while I work over an hour's commute away? Am I to also quit my job, get a holster, and patrol their vicinity every day? Or do I buy a siren so I could rush back from work in time to live out this dystopian wild west fantasy of heroically taking down an AR-15 armed assailant?
Because clearly we've exhausted all other options of addressing this as a society and are now left with suing game developers and buying more guns. /s
Some issues cant be solved or at least not in a lifetime and sometimes trying to solve it makes it worse so center on what you can do.
Protect your loved ones and your family to the outmost extent and proselytize on surefire values as freedom, peacefulness, respect, responsability.
Societies become civilized and peaceful from the bottom up.
I do think that the gun issue distorts what people in the US think about homicide rates in their country. There seems to me almost the idea that if you get rid of guns everything will be fine. Maybe I am wrong there? If you did get rid of guns then welcome to my country, where murders still happen and knifes are becoming rife.
So your numbers of deaths would fall, very substantially (you might drop down to the UK's tier), but problems in this area would not magically go away. I look at Australia for example and I see they are in a lower tier of per capita death rate to the UK. What weapons are available alters opportunity, but the nature of our societies be it laws, national temperament, you name it, is a big factor.
As this is a political post and we are supposed to avoid politics I will make this my last post here.
There seems to me almost the idea that if you get rid of guns everything will be fine. Maybe I am wrong there? If you did get rid of guns then welcome to my country, where murders still happen and knifes are becoming rife.
So your numbers of deaths would fall, very substantially (you might drop down to the UK's tier), but problems in this area would not magically go away
[...]
There's a big difference between saying a problem can't be solved vs can't be improved or better mitigated. There is no utopia and no one should look for or expect magical solutions. Our successes and failures as people and societies happen in the margins. Incremental steps can add up one way or the other. Murder is sadly unsolvable, but substantially reducing the number of deaths in a society sounds like a win to me. All I'm saying is, given that we can only do so much, it's prudent to put our effort where they'd matter most. In any form of representative government, "center[ing] on what you can do" includes looking at the laws and policies your representatives block or support, since in such societies we can impact those things, but that's beyond the scope of this site so I too will end my discussion with this:
The relevant question, with regards to the focus of this site, is whether game developers shoulder some of the responsibility for gun violence, and I, at least, fail to see how video games are the biggest, or even a substantial, factor in these tragedies.
Comments
But if we start blaming someone besides the shooter, it should be the one who decided giving real gun to the shooter, not the one who gave him a computer game that had virtual guns in it.
In the Uvalde case no laws were broken (gun was legally purchased) nor was anyone denied mental health care.
There definitely was a breakdown in procedure by the top police authorities who incorrectly judged it to be a hostage situation which is managed quite differently from active shooter procedure.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. This unique protective law all but barred civil suits against the gun industry. It did, however, provide for a few narrow exceptions, including for sales and marketing practices that violate federal or state law.
So is it legal to market a specific make and model of assault rifle in a video game, detailing it's operation to the point it's almost a training manual on its use?
That's what this legal team will ask a jury to decide if it isn't settled first.
What's different this time from Sandy Hook as in that case there was also a Connecticut State law covering consumer protection which probably isn't applicable this time around.
"In 1973, Connecticut enacted a law (subsequently amended a number of times), the Unfair Trade Practices Act, that allowed legal action against companies that engage in irresponsible marketing of their products. According to the Giffords Center, a gun safety group, it applied to this case by “promoting unlawful military use of the rifle by civilians.”
It really is a good article to read.
https://rockinst.org/blog/the-sandy-hook-remington-settlement-consequences-for-gun-policy/
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The basic rule is that if you're going to ban something, people have to have clear notice of what is and is not banned in order to be enforceable. You could ban advertising guns in video games, for example, if it is clearly stated that that is banned. But you can't vaguely make a law against "doing bad things", as that would allow prosecutors to decide after the fact what is legal and what is not, which would inevitably lead to finding creative excuses to punish anyone that they dislike.
Remington's ultimate mistake was continuing to do business in Connecticut after shifting politics in the state meant that the state would really like to put them out of business. A gun manufacturer that had been based in New York for nearly 200 years recently moved to a friendlier state for similar reasons. Daniel Defense is based in Georgia, incidentally.
Protect your loved ones and your family to the outmost extent and proselytize on surefire values as freedom, peacefulness, respect, responsability.
Societies become civilized and peaceful from the bottom up.
So your numbers of deaths would fall, very substantially (you might drop down to the UK's tier), but problems in this area would not magically go away. I look at Australia for example and I see they are in a lower tier of per capita death rate to the UK. What weapons are available alters opportunity, but the nature of our societies be it laws, national temperament, you name it, is a big factor.
As this is a political post and we are supposed to avoid politics I will make this my last post here.
(says the only nation where this regularly happens)
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1850269373