• henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • onlinepersona
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            They make semi-automatic rifles is how. Handguns aren’t the only self loading firearms out there, the tech has been around since like 1890 or so.

            Semi auto, in case you’re confusing it with full auto, is “one pull of trigger, one bullet.” Basically “normal guns.” Full auto is “one pull of trigger, many bullets until stop holding trigger.” Like the military movies.

      • Railing5132@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • CharlesReed@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      People have always blamed video games for violence, even all the way back to Columbine. This isn’t a new argument.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • CharlesReed@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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?

        • mister_monster@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s not the argument though. The argument is “videogames don’t cause this problem” which is true in both cases.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s like saying, replace “video games” with “cars and alcohol” to understand the MADD argument.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • mister_monster@monero.town
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

              • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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?