Uvalde Families Sue Daniel Defense, Meta, ‘Call of Duty’ Maker

Breitbart ^ | 05/25/2024 | Awr Hawkins

[Racketeer]

So a school shooting that could have easily been prevented is now used to enrich citizens through lawsuits against companies that had absolutely nothing to do with the activity.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

When the mental hospitals were closed down and the inmates dumped on the streets mass murder took off like a rocket. We had far fewer mass murders before 1970 even though semi-auto rifles had been around since 1903. Yes, 1903. And you could buy them through the mail. Cash and carry, no background check, no waiting period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_(1900%E2%80%931999)

Notice how the mass murder rate drops off before 1970. Almost the only truly mass murders were...Howard Unruh in 1949, Luger pistol and Charles Whitman in 1966 with a Remington bolt action rifle.
This list is only shootings. Notice how Richard Speck is not even listed as he used a knife and strangling cord to kill eight student nurses in 1966. Neither is Juan Corona(25 dead) or Julio Gonzalez(87 dead).

[caddie]

What if you were of the same mental constitution as the Uvalde shooter?

Are you positive that you would not be influenced to kill by these games?

Is it mere coincidence that the killer dressed up EXACTLY like the characters in the first person shooter games?

If these games are so irrelevant to making persons more or less likely to shoot, why then do LEOs use the same kind of computer simulation games to train officers to discern bad guys from good guys in quick decision shooter software?

Can you say for sure that this person was absolutely not more likely to do what he/she/it did, after having spent a thousand hours playing games such as these?

Don't people get "better" at these games after playing them, in other words, don't they get more accurate and deadly in shooting, and quicker on the draw? So don't the games make one more inclined to kill effectively? Is not that the point of the game?

'Where it ends' is in the jurors' deliberation room after a trial. If they believe you are right, the video game wanker programmers and those who finance this garbage walk away laughing. I am OK with that, provided there was a fair trial.

If on the other hand the jurors believe I am right, that the games influence weak-minded degenerates to be uninhibited and actually kill, then the video game wankers should cough up a lot of money (which they have in abundance) to the victims' families.

Then maybe they stop programming their evil garbage and lead productive lives for a change. Or maybe they don't, they keep doing what they are doing.

But degenerates should not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment, which was designed for good, not for lies, pornography, and incitement to murder. Software used for self defense or LEO training may be similar but it certainly is not intended to satisfy gamer blood lust or disinhibit murderous scum like the Uvalde shooter. Gamer software is.

We as a society have the right to set the bar where we like. Do we want to be like the Pilgrim fathers who would put people in stocks, or whip them, for swearing? No.

But now we have gone so far to the other side, and let the bar be so low, that we live in sewers instead of cities. We can't let our kids play outside or walk home from school for fear of them being abducted, perved on, and killed. We can't get married because the odds of divorce are 50-90 percent, depending on various factors. The odds of being aborted if you are conceived today, are 50-50.

These are serious points of degeneration that have occurred in the past 65 years that make life horrible for most decent people.

So yes, we should challenge people to start raising the bar.

Our society is a stinking, steaming pile. And it was not like this in previous generations.

[ronnie raygun]

Instead of sueing the coward cops who sat in the hallway, the police chief that probably got a stand down call from the FBI.